# Official WF President Donald Trump Thread aka SPACE FORCE



## MOX

Trump fans confirmed to lack the courage to MEET ME IN RANTS.


----------



## FriedTofu

Well what if I generalise like right wingers in the previous thread tend to and others take it as a personal attack? :troll

Oh wait, I did it again with this post. :troll


----------



## MrMister

You can definitely see what you can get away with and what gets you BANNED. :max


----------



## Miss Sally

MrMister said:


> You can definitely see what you can get away with and what gets you BANNED. :max


Call it a "Social Experiment"!


----------



## FriedTofu

I am curious why gun controls is cast as government tyranny but stricter immigration isn't. Or when gun violence occur, it is the price of freedom in America but complications from mass immigration is not considered a price of freedom in America.


----------



## Goku

:move


----------



## Cabanarama

FriedTofu said:


> I am curious why gun controls is cast as government tyranny but stricter immigration isn't. Or when gun violence occur, it is the price of freedom in America but complications from mass immigration is not considered a price of freedom in America.


Because pro-immigration groups don't pour millions of dollars into the Republican party to do their bidding like the NRA does


----------



## FriedTofu

Cabanarama said:


> Because pro-immigration groups don't pour millions of dollars into the Republican party to do their bidding like the NRA does


But some people making those points are not associated with the Republican party or the NRA. There are independent journalists making similar points too.


----------



## Cabanarama

FriedTofu said:


> But some people making those points are not associated with the Republican party or the NRA. There are independent journalists making similar points too.


Are they "independent journalists" or right wing commentators? I don't see many journalists that aren't simply right wingers that go along with whatever the Republican party is pushing make try to argue against gun control, except for the true Libertarians, but they tend to be pro immigration as well


----------



## Miss Sally

FriedTofu said:


> I am curious why gun controls is cast as government tyranny but stricter immigration isn't. Or when gun violence occur, it is the price of freedom in America but complications from mass immigration is not considered a price of freedom in America.


Are you talking legal or illegal immigration?

Because these are two different things yet people try to make them out to be the same.


----------



## FriedTofu

Cabanarama said:


> Are they "independent journalists" or right wing commentators? I don't see many journalists that aren't simply right wingers that go along with whatever the Republican party is pushing make try to argue against gun control, except for the true Libertarians, but they tend to be pro immigration as well


One can be both of them at the same time. 

That's the thing, they aren't going with whatever the GOP is pushing, yet they are making similar points on this issue. Surely they aren't bought by the NRA as well?



Miss Sally said:


> Are you talking legal or illegal immigration?
> 
> Because these are two different things yet people try to make them out to be the same.


Both. There are talks about restricting legal immigration as well.


----------



## Red Hair

Damn, has the Trump thread really gotten like that? :ha 


Y'all are fuckin wild :mj4


----------



## Cabanarama

FriedTofu said:


> One can be both of them at the same time.
> 
> That's the thing, they aren't going with whatever the GOP is pushing, yet they are making similar points on this issue. Surely they aren't bought by the NRA as well?


Not directly bought by the NRA, but their anti gun-control views come from two decades of propaganda from Republicans bought off by the NRA. Maybe they don't go along with whatever the GOP is pushing, but their anti gun control stance comes from their loyalty to the GOP. I will also note that even the overwhelming majority of Republicans are in favor of some sort of gun control, the problem is that many believe the lie put forth by Republicans and the NRA that any sort of gun control is part of some greater plan to take away all guns from everyone.


----------



## Laughable Chimp

My grandma mocks him by calling him a trumpet........

Don't know why people don't call him this more.


----------



## Draykorinee

A new thread! The last one ended spectacularly with Trump making one of the most embarrassing attempts to put words together seen by a President.


----------



## FriedTofu

Trevor Noah is right. Trump really is a stand-up comic and not a politician. :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

If Obama had been shooting free throws with paper towels in Puerto Rico, liberals would've been praising him for it.

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

Vic Capri said:


> If Obama had been shooting free throws with paper towels in Puerto Rico, liberals would've been praising him for it.
> 
> - Vic


And conservatives would be bashing him for making light of the situation. What are you trying to get at here?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Why is it that the right-wingers on this site seem completely incapable of addressing anything negative Trump does at all? During the election I couldn't get an answer to "what's good about Trump" or "explain this bad thing Trump did" that didn't start with "Hillary does." They do the same shit now with Obama. Here's a challenge for the Trumpeteers, pick any one thing Trump did that people don't like and explain it without once mentioning another politician. If someone says something about Trump, "Well, Obama does" is not a valid answer, it's a deflection and makes you look a bit silly if I'm honest.


----------



## MickDX

Vic Capri said:


> If Obama had been shooting free throws with paper towels in Puerto Rico, liberals would've been praising him for it.
> 
> - Vic


Shooting at left-wing/liberals/Obama, classic deflection by Trump supporters who lack arguments.


----------



## Vic Capri

This message is hidden because MickDX is on your ignore list.

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

MickDX said:


> Vic Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Obama had been shooting free throws with paper towels in Puerto Rico, liberals would've been praising him for it.
> 
> - Vic
> 
> 
> 
> Shooting at left-wing/liberals/Obama, classic deflection by Trump supporters who lack arguments.
Click to expand...

Quoted so Vic can see it, think that's why he told us all he couldn't see it anyways?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Vic Capri said:


> This message is hidden because MickDX is on your ignore list.
> 
> - Vic


:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

"I have no argument and Reaper isn't here for me to piggyback onto so I'm going to put my fingers in my ears and scream 'lalalalalala' because I can't take it"

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Beatles123

RavishingRickRules said:


> :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> "I have no argument and Reaper isn't here for me to piggyback onto so I'm going to put my fingers in my ears and scream 'lalalalalala' because I can't take it"
> 
> :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


To answer your post:

I have never viewed this thread as a place of refuge for anything. thats not what I created the OG Trump thread for in the slightest. I'll thank you not to assume whatever lesser people here might have told you. :shrug


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

MrMister said:


> You can definitely see what you can get away with and what gets you BANNED. :max


*Can I still call #45 bad names? Because he deserves that and more.*


----------



## Beatles123

Legit BOSS said:


> *Can I still call #45 bad names? Because he deserves that and more.*


Can I say that about Socialism?


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Beatles123 said:


> Can I say that about Socialism?


*I don't care. When have I ever promoted or defended socialism?*


----------



## Beatles123

Legit BOSS said:


> *I don't care. When have I ever promoted or defended socialism?*


Just asking you in general. Right wing bash here, left wing bash there 

#BeatlesPartisan :trump


----------



## God Of Anger Juno

Vic Capri said:


> If Obama had been shooting free throws with paper towels in Puerto Rico, liberals would've been praising him for it.
> 
> - Vic


why is this form of baiting and trolling allow? why aren't mods doing their jobs this user is obviously trying to start shit between Reps and Libs.


----------



## Vic Capri

This message is hidden because God Of Anger Juno is on your ignore list.

- Vic


----------



## Empress

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson tried to resign in July it has been reported and is alleged to have called Trump a "moron". 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/915536552339689472
Tillerson’s Fury at Trump Required an Intervention From Pence


----------



## Beatles123

God Of Anger Juno said:


> why is this form of baiting and trolling allow? why aren't mods doing their jobs this user is obviously trying to start shit between Reps and Libs.


 I've seen far worse. i could say a few things but @MrMister would gnaw my arms off :trump


----------



## FriedTofu

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...ury-trump-required-intervention-pence-n806451

I don't think even the West Wing could have written a story like this. Either it is really fake news, or there are leakers in the highest level of the administration, or Trump himself is leaking this to take the opportunity to bash fake news whenever his rating trend downwards. Wtf is going on at the White House?


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> This message is hidden because MickDX is on your ignore list.
> 
> - Vic


 @Vic Capri Aka the right wing snowflake who can't counter arguments so he blocks users.
Anyway Trump bashing Puerto Rican politicians is extremely in poor taste considering what just happened to them.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stephen90 said:


> @Vic Capri Aka the right wing snowflake who can't counter arguments so he blocks users.
> Anyway Trump bashing Puerto Rican politicians is extremely in poor taste considering what just happened to them.


Isn't it ironic how the usual suspect of posters have been quiet during Reapers ban because he is not there to fight their battles? They are the posters that can't argue their own points and defend their position because they wait for reaper to do it for them and are just like yeah that, and that, what he said

It just proves my point even more how pretty much all fo the Trump supporters in here are uninformed.





draykorinee said:


> A new thread! The last one ended spectacularly with Trump making one of the most embarrassing attempts to put words together seen by a President.


That is the norm for Trump but that last one was pretty bad.


----------



## Cabanarama

Stephen90 said:


> @Vic Capri Aka the right wing snowflake who can't counter arguments so he blocks users.


He never really has anything to add to any discussion. All he ever does is post memes and ignorant one line quotes in order to shitpost/ bait/ troll... quite frankly I'm surprised he didn't get a ban when all the others did


----------



## MrMister

Legit BOSS said:


> *Can I still call #45 bad names? Because he deserves that and more.*


I have no issue with this. As long as you don't attack the Trump fans here, Trump himself is fair game.


----------



## MrMister

God Of Anger Juno said:


> why is this form of baiting and trolling allow? why aren't mods doing their jobs this user is obviously trying to start shit between Reps and Libs.


I don't have a problem with that post you quoted.



Stephen90 said:


> @Vic Capri Aka the right wing snowflake who can't counter arguments so he blocks users.
> Anyway Trump bashing Puerto Rican politicians is extremely in poor taste considering what just happened to them.


The first part of this post is fucking garbage. The 2nd part is ok. I can't remove you from the the thread, but I'm requesting it be done.

@Vic Capri stop the baiting. Everyone else cut it out too.


----------



## God Of Anger Juno

MrMister said:


> I don't have a problem with that post you quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> The first part of this post is fucking garbage. The 2nd part is ok. I can't remove you from the the thread, but I'm requesting it be done.


sure you don't keep that circle jerking going. if I was baiting and trolling like that I'm a 100% sure I'd get the boot. but whatever :tenay


----------



## birthday_massacre

IMO the new Trump thread should have been moved to rants. There is going to be no one left in a month lol


----------



## MrMister

birthday_massacre said:


> IMO the new Trump thread should have been moved to rants. There is going to be no one left in a month lol


Yeah this thought has crossed my mind often lol.

@God Of Anger Juno after thinking about for a few more seconds, Vic's post contributes to a baiting culture, something that can degenerate into CHAOS pretty fast. So I do have some issues with his post. I tagged him and asked him to cut it out. It wasn't a direct attack like Stephen's though.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> Yeah this thought has crossed my mind often lol.


----------



## Crasp

I'd rather it stayed here TBH. I like politics and debates, and I like a bit of trolling, shitposting and e-drama. I just don't really like the two of them together.


----------



## DOPA

https://www.axios.com/hopes-reignite-for-criminal-justice-reform-2492175390.html



> Criminal justice reform is moving again at the federal level after more than a year of inertia and disappointment for advocates. Two key bills are being introduced in Congress this week.
> 
> *Why this matters:* These bills — while only the first step in a long process — mark the first serious congressional engagement on criminal justice reform for more than a year. Reformers lost all their momentum during brutal 2016 political season in which candidate Donald Trump elevated "tough on crime" politics at the expense of bipartisan efforts to reduce prison sentences for non-violent criminals.
> 
> *On Monday, Republican Senators Orrin Hatch, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, David Perdue, and Rand Paul introduced legislation to ensure that all federal criminal laws take into account whether the person committing the crime did so with intent. Their bill, the Mens Rea Reform Act, sets a default intent standard, meaning the government can't convict somebody of a federal crime unless it can be proven the person committed the crime "knowingly and willfully."*
> 
> Republican Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin want to pass "comprehensive legislation to review prison sentences for certain nonviolent drug offenders, reduce recidivism, and save taxpayer dollars." Grassley and Durbin said two weeks ago they planned to reintroduce their bill from the last Congress, and it could come out as soon as Tuesday, according to a source familiar with their efforts.
> 
> These bills are important both substantively and politically. Opposition to default mens rea standards — enshrining criminal intent standards at the federal level — was one of the main reasons why criminal justice reform legislation died in the Senate during the last Congress.
> 
> While it's only Republican senators introducing the mens rea bill, they've already won support for the reforms from groups on both sides of the aisle. Their press release includes statements of support from a Heritage Foundation scholar as well as the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Federal Defenders of New York.
> 
> David Patton, Executive Director of the Federal Defenders of New York, said: "We are acutely aware of the need for mens rea reform. Over 80 percent of people charged with federal crimes are too poor to afford a lawyer, and nearly 80 percent of people charged with federal crimes are Black, Hispanic, or Native American. These are our clients, and too many of them are subject to laws that are neither fair nor consistent with traditional principles of criminal liability. This bill would help to remedy some of those failings."
> Mark Holden, who leads Koch Industries' efforts to reform the criminal justice system, says he's optimistic that Congress can get rolling after months of stagnation.
> 
> *Where the White House stands:* It's still an open question. Jared Kushner is passionate about criminal justice reform — he often talks about how his father's incarceration changed his view about the issue — and he recently convened a meeting with a bipartisan coalition to discuss efforts to reform the criminal justice system. Criminal justice reformers also view WH Chief of Staff John Kelly as an ally. But Attorney General Jeff Sessions wants tougher sentences for drug offenders and remains unpersuaded by Kushner's ideas.


Good stuff all around.

Of course that dinosaur Sessions is going to push against this as much as possible.


----------



## Cabanarama

L-DOPA said:


> https://www.axios.com/hopes-reignite-for-criminal-justice-reform-2492175390.html
> 
> 
> 
> Good stuff all around.
> 
> Of course that dinosaur Sessions is going to push against this as much as possible.


The mens rea bill is very, very sketchy. The fact that there's a criminal justice reform related bill being introduced by a group of Senators that are all Republican makes me think there's obviously some ulterior motive/ hidden agenda with that bill. Any real criminal justice reform bill would have at least one Democrat on board, right?


----------



## DOPA

Cabanarama said:


> The fact that there's a criminal justice reform related bill being introduced by a group of Senators that are all Republican makes it very, very sketchy. There's obviously some ulterior motive/ hidden agenda with that bill.


Rand Paul has championed criminal justice reform for years and has done more to try and reform the criminal justice system than most democrats. I'd doubt he'd sign off on a bill that didn't actually have significant reforms or that has an agenda away from it.

You would think the Democrats would be on board but again this is the antiquated view that somehow as a whole the Democrats are for the working people and the Republicans are for the rich donors and against minorities. The truth is much more nuanced than that, there are good and bad politicians on both sides (mostly bad unfortunately).

Plus a number of Democrats have been extremely partisan since Trump became president, making it harder for shit to actually get done. But it's the same with every president regardless of who gets in, elements of opposition party will always be a hindrance.


----------



## FriedTofu

My worry about this is this policy change's real intent is to make it harder to prosecute white collar crimes which is already hard to prove as it is.


----------



## birthday_massacre

FriedTofu said:


> My worry about this is this policy change's real intent is to make it harder to prosecute white collar crimes which is already hard to prove as it is.


Of course, that is the real intent, its all of Trump and the Govts buddies and biggest donors its aimed at protecting.


----------



## FriedTofu

birthday_massacre said:


> Of course, that is the real intent, its all of Trump and the Govts buddies and biggest donors its aimed at protecting.


Then it will be up to you to decide if the trade-offs are worth it if it also help to reduce unnecessary federal charges against the poor.

Though it seem easier to prove one's intent to consume drugs than it is to prove one's intent of insider trading.


----------



## birthday_massacre

FriedTofu said:


> Then it will be up to you to decide if the trade-offs are worth it if it also help to reduce unnecessary federal charges against the poor.
> 
> Though it seem easier to prove one's intent to consume drugs than it is to prove one's intent of insider trading.


And the more likely people to do drugs are minorities and poor people, thus filling up their prisons for profit.


----------



## Iapetus

birthday_massacre said:


> And the more likely people to do drugs are minorities and poor people, thus filling up their prisons for profit.


Yo I been gone a few months. Has..close-mindedness lessened any?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Iapetus said:


> Yo I been gone a few months. Has the headassery lessened any?


Not sure if this is directed to me or other posters in general, but people are getting banned from the thread for these kinds of posts. Be careful either way.


----------



## Iapetus

birthday_massacre said:


> Not sure if this is directed to me or other posters in general, but people are getting banned from the thread for these kinds of posts. Be careful either way.


No not you. I was just wondering if the support for you-know-who and alike here has waned any with all the latest controversies and recent events. 

And honestly idk how the rules have changed here so yeah it’s probably best I don’t make statements that could be taken as inflammatory until I can best judge the current boundaries on this site again. The rules say they were last updated in 2014, but every mod is different.:shrug


----------



## Draykorinee

Iapetus said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if this is directed to me or other posters in general, but people are getting banned from the thread for these kinds of posts. Be careful either way.
> 
> 
> 
> No not you. I was just wondering if the support for you-know-who and alike here has waned any with all the latest controversies and recent events.
> 
> And honestly idk how the rules have changed here so yeah it’s probably best I don’t make statements that could be taken as inflammatory until I can best judge the current boundaries on this site again. The rules say they were last updated in 2014, but every mod is different.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what Trump does because Obama and Hillary is pretty much where we're still a at.


----------



## MickDX

Vic Capri said:


> This message is hidden because MickDX is on your ignore list.
> 
> - Vic


As MrMister said in the first post, let's put the personal attacks behind. 

You can ignore who you want :draper2 but I don't see how this is relevant for this thread, also other posters called you out and you ignored them as well.

I have nothing personal with you, but this tactic of "comparing to others and blaming 3rd parties" is done quite often and not only by you. For me every time someone does it, no matter if it's a Trump supporter or not, it's still a non-sense reasoning especially if it's not comparing two candidates in an election.

Regarding Trump in general, his latest actions in Puerto Rico and the mass shooting shows how little he cares about the people. His single purpose at this point is to be re-elected. He is still behaving like he is in some sort of campaign even though the next elections are in 3 years. Too bad for Puerto Rico they can't vote for president, I bet their situation would've been different. Democrats need a find a new leader, someone who can challenge Trump on the next elections and show they are still united. My personal pick would be Castro.


----------



## Draykorinee

Anti abortion advocate Republican Senator Tim Murphy told his bit on the side to get an abortion. What a surprise, a judgemental hypocrite.


----------



## Stinger Fan

MickDX said:


> Regarding Trump in general, his latest actions in Puerto Rico and the mass shooting shows how little he cares about the people. His single purpose at this point is to be re-elected. He is still behaving like he is in some sort of campaign even though the next elections are in 3 years. Too bad for Puerto Rico they can't vote for president, I bet their situation would've been different. Democrats need a find a new leader, someone who can challenge Trump on the next elections and show they are still united. My personal pick would be Castro.


Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz Soto cares more about making t-shirts and bashing Trump than helping her own people. There was audio released from a police officer claiming she wouldn't allow police to distribute supplies(which I posted and no one bothered to reply). If thats true, its pretty damn messed up if you ask me, I mean she was doing a press conference in front of a ton of supplies as well. They even confirmed that it was Puertro Rico's issues that prevent them from getting supplies out to their citizens but she still blames Trump more than anything. It seems like she's unwilling to put political parties aside and thats a shame. This isn't a right vs left thing either, don't get me wrong , I just think this entire Trump vs Cruz thing is absolutely ridiculous


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz Soto cares more about making t-shirts and bashing Trump than helping her own people. There was audio released from a police officer claiming she wouldn't allow police to distribute supplies(which I posted and no one bothered to reply). If thats true, its pretty damn messed up if you ask me, I mean she was doing a press conference in front of a ton of supplies as well. They even confirmed that it was Puertro Rico's issues that prevent them from getting supplies out to their citizens but she still blames Trump more than anything. It seems like she's unwilling to put political parties aside and thats a shame. This isn't a right vs left thing either, don't get me wrong , I just think this entire Trump vs Cruz thing is absolutely ridiculous


Someone claiming to be a police officer, they did not even give their name. And there is no evidence what this person claimed.

There is a reason why no one replied.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Trumps ICE hotline already being abused. 


https://splinternews.com/this-is-what-it-looks-like-when-the-president-asks-peop-1819077393

In April, the Trump Administration launched what it called the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) hotline, with a stated mission to “provide proactive, timely, adequate, and professional services to victims of crimes committed by removable aliens.” But internal logs of calls to VOICE obtained by Splinter show that hundreds of Americans seized on the hotline to lodge secret accusations against acquaintances, neighbors, or even their own family members, often to advance petty personal grievances.

The logs—hundreds of which were available for download on the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement web site despite containing extremely sensitive personal information—call to mind the efforts of closed societies like East Germany or Cuba to cultivate vast networks of informants and an atmosphere of fear and suspicion.

The reports rarely involve the sort of dangerous criminality that Donald Trump campaigned against. Despite the VOICE office’s statement that the service “is not a hotline to report crime,” callers are using it to alert Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to minor infractions, or merely to the presence of people they suspect of being undocumented immigrants.

On many of the calls, the only violation the informant offers the authority is that the people exist. On June 19, a caller filed the following report:

Caller wanted to report his next door neighbor. Caller claims his next door neighbors are undocumented and are from South America. Caller claims two boys’ ages 14 and 15 reside there along with an adult male. Caller provided his next door neighbor’s address as [street and number redacted by Splinter], St. Augustine, FL [ZIP code redacted by Splinter].
The summaries are drawn from two spreadsheets documenting incoming calls to the VOICE hotline. The first, provided to Splinter by ICE in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, covers the first two weeks of the hotline’s operation in April. It was redacted by ICE to protect the privacy of callers and subjects.


But after conducting Google searches for some data in that spreadsheet, including local police report numbers provided by callers, we were able to find a second spreadsheet, covering April to mid-August, hosted on the ICE web site. That spreadsheet appears to have been partially redacted to prepare it for release under the FOIA, but two columns containing intimate personal details—names, cell phone numbers, alleged crimes, addresses, and Social Security numbers—of both callers and the alleged undocumented immigrants they were calling about remained completely unredacted and publicly available. In several cases, the details would make it possible for people to figure out who informed on them.

Brendan Raedy, an ICE spokesperson, declined a request to speak on the phone about the logs or the publication of private data. In response to a series of emailed questions, he wrote only: “It’s important to know that ICE/VOICE is not using victim personal information to develop leads for immigration enforcement. Callers are not even asked for their status. Information is shared with Victim Assistance Specialists to help when and where they can.”

Together, the logs are a grim running diary of a country where people eagerly report their fellow residents to the authorities, or seek to bring the power of the immigration police to bear on family disputes. On May 25, 2017, one man called to say that his stepson was violating a restraining order by parking his car near his house. He didn’t want his wife to know that he was trying to get her son deported:

Caller stated the illegal alien (step-son) is a drug addict, unemployed, homeless and living in his car that he parks at [address redacted by Splinter]. Caller stated the subject is a danger to society and wants to know why he was not taken into ICE custody. Caller stated the subject recently missing his court hearing [number and date redacted by Splinter] and is now in probation violation. Caller provided A number, name [redacted by Splinter], DOB, and COB. Caller stated he does not want his wife to know and prefers not to be reached at his cell number [redacted by Splinter] that he shares with her.
Other complaints likewise focused on family strife:

Caller requested to report her mother-in law and sister-in law. Caller stated these individuals came to the U.S. as tourists and stayed in the U.S. in order to get legal status.
Caller stated the undocumented individual is destroying her family and is committing adultery.
Caller requested to report his ex wife that is undocumented as an overstayed on her visa.
Caller requested to report the illegal alien because the illegal alien will not let her see [her] granddaughter.
One caller went so far as to provide the date and location of an upcoming divorce hearing at which the accused undocumented immigrant was scheduled to appear.

A number of calls, in line with the VOICE program’s mission to assist crime victims, recount domestic violence committed by undocumented immigrants. But there are also multiple calls from people hoping to turn ICE enforcement against the people who have accused them of domestic violence:

Caller requested to report an undocumented alien who is accusing him of domestic violence in order to obtain legal status. Caller claims subject is his legal wife.
Caller wanted to know how to report an illegal marriage (sham marriage) with an immigration benefit involved. Caller stated that the subject [name redacted by Splinter] pressed domestic violence charges against her in order to receive a Visa.
Caller claimed subject made false accusations of domestic violence towards the caller. Caller claimed subject is trying to claim Asylum through the false accusation of domestic violation in order for subject to stay in the U.S.
Javier H. Valdés, the co-executive director of the immigration-rights group Make the Road New York, wrote in an email to Splinter that the logs demonstrate VOICE was little more than an attempt to sow fear and suspicion of immigrants. “Months after the creation of the VOICE program, it’s clear that it’s exactly what we feared it would be,” he wrote. “A sinister public relations ploy to paint immigrants as criminals and foster fear in our communities, all with the despicable goal of tearing apart our families. The program should be immediately ended.”


Publicly, the VOICE hotline is not supposed to be a crime-reporting tool at all, but a means of connecting victims and witnesses in existing cases with support services and with more information about the people accused. But internal training materials for the hotline, obtained by Splinter, contradict that mission statement, saying that the hotline “will provide a means for persons to report suspected criminal activity.”

Callers were often referred to the Homeland Security Investigations tipline. In several cases, VOICE employees contacted a field office to relay information gleaned from the calls, records show.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

draykorinee said:


> Anti abortion advocate Republican Senator Tim Murphy told his bit on the side to get an abortion. What a surprise, a judgemental hypocrite.


He's also resigning in light of the revelation, so good riddance to that sack of shit. One swamp turd down, 500+ to go.

:trump



Stinger Fan said:


> Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz Soto cares more about making t-shirts and bashing Trump than helping her own people. There was audio released from a police officer claiming she wouldn't allow police to distribute supplies(which I posted and no one bothered to reply). If thats true, its pretty damn messed up if you ask me, I mean she was doing a press conference in front of a ton of supplies as well. They even confirmed that it was Puertro Rico's issues that prevent them from getting supplies out to their citizens but she still blames Trump more than anything. It seems like she's unwilling to put political parties aside and thats a shame. This isn't a right vs left thing either, don't get me wrong , I just think this entire Trump vs Cruz thing is absolutely ridiculous


PR, in general, is an embarrassing shithole of a country, largely thanks to its government. Thus, it should be of no surprise that their elected officials are utter fucksticks that should be fired (out of a cannon and into the sun).

I'm on board with them receiving aid in the wake of Maria, but I'll be damned if Trump stands by his statement of absolving their debt. :armfold


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Someone claiming to be a police officer, they did not even give their name. And there is no evidence what this person claimed.
> 
> There is a reason why no one replied.


Interesting you chose to dodge everything else I said while ignoring part of what you were replying to. Had she been accusing the Trump administration of preventing supplies from coming in , you'd be the first person to believe it :lol


----------



## FriedTofu

Stinger Fan said:


> Interesting you chose to dodge everything else I said while ignoring part of what you were replying to. Had she been accusing the Trump administration of preventing supplies from coming in , you'd be the first person to believe it :lol


The video is more of a rant about bureaucracy slowing the aid response and refusal of aid from Cuba and Venezuela. Believing she is purposefully blocking aid and is more interested in bashing Trump is just feeding into what the hucksters making a living out of conspiracy theories want.

In any case, the aid being slow to reach the people in need is probably because the hurricane destroyed the supply routes to many areas. They need to rebuild or create alternate path first before aid can be distributed.


----------



## virus21

So, how long before the First Church of Hilary is set up?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

virus21 said:


> So, how long before the First Church of Hilary is set up?


Why do so many people like this woman? I honestly don't understand it tbh.


----------



## Empress

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/916084993968840705

John Kelly's personal cellphone was compromised, White House believes

There are rumors that John Kelly is out and his resignation will be announced during the Friday news dump.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

virus21 said:


> So, how long before the First Church of Hilary is set up?


----------



## MOX

Donald Plump.











Donald Grump.


----------



## FriedTofu

Just so that this thread doesn't become a reverse circle-jerk of leftists, here's a story about how those advancing liberal ideals can be hypocritical scums too.

https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/10/5/16431774/harvey-weinstein-sexual-harassment-allegations-report

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/harvey-weinstein-harassment-allegations.html?_r=0

http://time.com/4971188/lisa-bloom-harvey-weinstein-laywer/

Women's rights lawyer advising Weinstein's defence after bitching about O'Reilly and Fox because she has a deal with his company for a docu-series based on her book. :lmao

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/916083013146079232


----------



## Stinger Fan

FriedTofu said:


> The video is more of a rant about bureaucracy slowing the aid response and refusal of aid from Cuba and Venezuela. Believing she is purposefully blocking aid and is more interested in bashing Trump is just feeding into what the hucksters making a living out of conspiracy theories want.
> 
> In any case, the aid being slow to reach the people in need is probably because the hurricane destroyed the supply routes to many areas. They need to rebuild or create alternate path first before aid can be distributed.


The thing is that shes blaming Trump for inadequate aid if not outright refusing to give aid, when in actuality its more PR's problem that's slowing it down and being inadequate or at the very least more so than shes leading on. She was trying to blame it all on Trump because it was an easy thing to do. If she doesn't like Trump, I honestly don't care that isn't my issue at all , my issue is trying to take as much if not all of the blame off herself and pin it on Trump simply to get votes. It's stupid, there's a real issue that hit PR and she's more concerned with blaming Trump and making "Nasty" shirts to wear on TV. She's getting a ton of TV time and shes making full use of it , which hey shes a politician afterall so of course she'll take full advantage of it , I just think there's more important issues to concern yourself with


----------



## Draykorinee

Us employment numbers fell in September for the first time since 2010. Winning.

Whilst Trump takes credit for everything he will happily (and rightly) blame two major disasters.

Unemployment is still at its lowest for ages so it's not all bad. Though I'm not sure how employment goes down but unemployment doesn't...


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Just a quick question for the US political people. I been seeing about this Cali Governer signing a "sanctuary state bill." How is that something they're allowed to do when the government has an anti-illegal immigration platform? It's things like this that're vastly different from UK politics, I was always under the impression that Federal Laws were the more powerful ones (applying to the whole country) so I'm just trying to get my head around the situation. I don't think the local governments here would be able to flat out "oppose the government." Shit's retarded I should add, it genuinely comes across to me like they're deliberately making the state a worse place to live simply to "spite" the President. That's fucking stupid.


----------



## birthday_massacre

draykorinee said:


> Us employment numbers fell in September for the first time since 2010. Winning.
> 
> Whilst Trump takes credit for everything he will happily (and rightly) blame two major disasters.
> 
> Unemployment is still at its lowest for ages so it's not all bad. Though I'm not sure how employment goes down but unemployment doesn't...


Because once you stop collecting unemployment checks they don't count you as unemployed anymore. They put you in the inactive list even if you are still looking for work. The true unemployment rate is always much higher than what they report


----------



## MrMister

RavishingRickRules said:


> Just a quick question for the US political people. I been seeing about this Cali Governer signing a "sanctuary state bill." How is that something they're allowed to do when the government has an anti-illegal immigration platform? It's things like this that're vastly different from UK politics, I was always under the impression that Federal Laws were the more powerful ones (applying to the whole country) so I'm just trying to get my head around the situation. I don't think the local governments here would be able to flat out "oppose the government." Shit's retarded I should add, it genuinely comes across to me like they're deliberately making the state a worse place to live simply to "spite" the President. That's fucking stupid.


States challenge the federal government all the time. Not a constitutional expert but I think they usually do this because of the 10th Amendment.

Marijuana is illegal on the federal level. Some states have said lol federal government it's 2017 and have legalized. Anyone in those states are still subject to the federal law though.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

MrMister said:


> States challenge the federal government all the time. Not a constitutional expert but I think they usually do this because of the 10th Amendment.
> 
> Marijuana is illegal on the federal level. Some states have said lol federal government it's 2017 and have legalized. Anyone in those states are still subject to the federal law though.


Yeah that's where it gets tough to understand for an outsider. If it's illegal and all people are subject to federal law, than all those dispensaries etc providing to non medical patients are breaking the law? Ergo, it's not been legalised, it's all a sham? That's what I don't understand I guess, how do the states get away with having large parts of their populations breaking the law without the government intervening? It genuinely is massively different from the way we run things.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> States challenge the federal government all the time. Not a constitutional expert but I think they usually do this because of the 10th Amendment.
> 
> Marijuana is illegal on the federal level. Some states have said lol federal government it's 2017 and have legalized. Anyone in those states are still subject to the federal law though.


its funny how conservatives (GOP) are always about states right over federal until it comes to things like pot being legal. When it's their cause they want states rights, but when states get rights against something they are against they want federal to supercecue it.

They are such hypocrites


----------



## samizayn

This birth control ruling is a joke :/


----------



## FriedTofu

Stinger Fan said:


> The thing is that shes blaming Trump for inadequate aid if not outright refusing to give aid, when in actuality its more PR's problem that's slowing it down and being inadequate or at the very least more so than shes leading on. She was trying to blame it all on Trump because it was an easy thing to do. If she doesn't like Trump, I honestly don't care that isn't my issue at all , my issue is trying to take as much if not all of the blame off herself and pin it on Trump simply to get votes. It's stupid, there's a real issue that hit PR and she's more concerned with blaming Trump and making "Nasty" shirts to wear on TV. She's getting a ton of TV time and shes making full use of it , which hey shes a politician afterall so of course she'll take full advantage of it , I just think there's more important issues to concern yourself with


She's blamed Trump initially because Trump really did ignore PR's plight for days. Did we suddenly forget about the NFL tweetstorm while PR was facing a crisis that sucked up all the attention that could have been directed towards helping PR?

If you think she is simply for focusing on getting votes, maybe take a look at Trump himself for trying to win votes on a daily basis, such as with PR's plight.

If you subscribe to the punch back harder if they punch you first as Trump, then what she is doing with the nasty shirt on TV is par for the course after Trump went after her after he took her plead for help on TV as a personal criticism on him.


----------



## Art Vandaley

RavishingRickRules said:


> MrMister said:
> 
> 
> 
> States challenge the federal government all the time. Not a constitutional expert but I think they usually do this because of the 10th Amendment.
> 
> Marijuana is illegal on the federal level. Some states have said lol federal government it's 2017 and have legalized. Anyone in those states are still subject to the federal law though.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that's where it gets tough to understand for an outsider. If it's illegal and all people are subject to federal law, than all those dispensaries etc providing to non medical patients are breaking the law? Ergo, it's not been legalised, it's all a sham? That's what I don't understand I guess, how do the states get away with having large parts of their populations breaking the law without the government intervening? It genuinely is massively different from the way we run things.
Click to expand...

Best way to think about it is this, in England the Fed gov created the "states" (or your analogy) and hence the Fed gov has totally primacy where in the US and Aus it was the states (originally colonies) which created the Fed gov and while they willingly gave up certain areas of legislation to the Fed gov they retained primacy in certain areas.

You're basically heathens for not having a proper written constitution imo.

Also re pot the Fed gov merely declared they wouldn't enforce federal law in that area so long as states adhered to a certain guide, ie must have laws about interstate trafficking etc. 

Sessions could and has repeatedly threatened to undo that declaration with a stroke of a pen.


----------



## Cabanarama

RavishingRickRules said:


> Just a quick question for the US political people. I been seeing about this Cali Governer signing a "sanctuary state bill." How is that something they're allowed to do when the government has an anti-illegal immigration platform? It's things like this that're vastly different from UK politics, I was always under the impression that Federal Laws were the more powerful ones (applying to the whole country) so I'm just trying to get my head around the situation. I don't think the local governments here would be able to flat out "oppose the government." Shit's retarded I should add, it genuinely comes across to me like they're deliberately making the state a worse place to live simply to "spite" the President. That's fucking stupid.


The whole "sanctuary state"/ sanctuary city thing is basically cities telling the feds they won't do their job for them. They're not going to have local law enforcement officer double up as immigration agents, or waste their own local resources to catch/ help deport illegal aliens.
Also, this doesn't really change much. Most of the state is already all sanctuary cities as it is, at least all the places where the illegals live (larger metropolitan areas and the agricultural areas) are already sanctuary. So it's more of a symbolic gesture if anything, basically saying that they're not going to give into Trump's threats. Deliberately making the state (and country) a worse place to live simply to spite the president is a Republican thing...


----------



## FriedTofu

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/916750042014404608

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/916751271960436737
Should the world be concerned or is this another attention-grabbing tweet to distract from big ticket policy failure?


----------



## stevefox1200

FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/916750042014404608
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/916751271960436737
> Should the world be concerned or is this another attention-grabbing tweet to distract from big ticket policy failure?


I doubt it, Trump sees himself as a showman and loves to make "to be continued" statements like he is on a reality show

He likes the attention of everyone going "What will he do next" and reading about himself.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

http://www.scotsman.com/news/losses-at-trump-s-scottish-golf-resorts-have-doubled-1-4581010



> DONALD Trump boasts of making great deals, but a financial records filed in the UK show he has lost millions of dollars for three years running on a couple of his more recent big investments, his Scottish golf resorts. A Companies House report shows losses last year at the two resorts more than doubled to £17.6 million (23 million dollars). Revenue also fell sharply.


That legendary business savvy at work :booklel


----------



## FriedTofu

stevefox1200 said:


> I doubt it, Trump sees himself as a showman and loves to make "to be continued" statements like he is on a reality show
> 
> He likes the attention of everyone going "What will he do next" and reading about himself.


That would be the darkest timeline. Almost like a puppy craving attention. Could explain why the leaks still keep happening because he love the attention on him.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/916721917134098432
*Liberals are insensitive for wanting a terrorist to be called a terrorist though guys :mj4*


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *Texas Official Resigns After Referring to Black Prosecutors With N-Word*
> 
> A Texas city commissioner who used a racial slur to describe two African-American prosecutors resigned on Friday.
> 
> Brownsville city commissioner at-large Cesar De Leon in a letter thanked his staff, Mayor Tony Martinez, and the City Commission, saying it has been "an honor to serve the people of Brownsville and to represent our community."
> 
> De Leon did not mention the remarks in the letter announcing his resignation, although he has in the past apologized but said he would not step down. "I was informed of a conflict of interest between my legal practice and the city Brownsville. I have decided to continue with my profession," the letter reads.
> 
> De Leon’s resignation comes nearly three weeks after a recording of De Leon using the n-word and f-word to describe the prosecutors was posted on social media.
> 
> "They are f---ing ... and I would say this, that I would never dare use that word, but you know what, yes, there are a couple of n-----s in there that think that all of us are f---ing taco eaters," De Leon said, according to The Brownsville Herald.
> 
> After receiving backlash from city officials and members of the community, he publicly apologized for the remarks in a city hall meeting Tuesday night. He said he made a "terrible mistake," but that he wouldn’t resign.
> 
> Veronica Sanders, one of Brownsville assistant district attorneys De Leon mentioned in the recording said she is relieved that De Leon resigned and can now move forward.
> 
> "When a person is in his position, it is their job to represent the city and the last thing to do is call people names," Sanders told NBC News Friday. "He put on one face in public and another in private."
> 
> In an apology letter to Sanders in September, De Leon said that in a moment of frustration he wasn’t thinking about his words. “Hopefully one day I will be able to right my wrong," read the letter, a copy of which was seen by NBC News.
> 
> De Leon was elected in May 2015 and his term would have expired May 2019.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk...er-referring-black-prosecutors-n-word-n808541

Democrats and their hypocrisy. I wonder why the article doesn't mention he's a Democrat ?


----------



## virus21

Stinger Fan said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk...er-referring-black-prosecutors-n-word-n808541
> 
> Democrats and their hypocrisy. I wonder why the article doesn't mention he's a Democrat ?


Its from NBC? Seriously, this is why we need another revolution in this country. Both parties are fucked in the head.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk...er-referring-black-prosecutors-n-word-n808541
> 
> Democrats and their hypocrisy. I wonder why the article doesn't mention he's a Democrat ?


How are they hypocrites? If they were hypocrites he would not have resigned.


----------



## Stinger Fan

virus21 said:


> Its from NBC? Seriously, this is why we need another revolution in this country. Both parties are fucked in the head.


I hate that news outlets pull this kind of crap. You'll have a hard time finding anywhere that says he's a Democrat and a Bernie supporter too. I can only imagine the kind of outrage there'd be had it been a Republican to say that.


----------



## DOPA

http://www.dailywire.com/news/21998...m_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro



> *NRA Shocks The Left: Backs 'Bump Stocks' Regulations*
> 
> On Thursday, the National Rifle Association (NRA) announced in a statement that it supports "additional regulations" on so-called "bump stocks," the device used by Stephen Paddock to shoot over 500 people in a matter of minutes in Las Vegas on Sunday.
> 
> On Wednesday, California Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to ban bump fire stocks, devices which allow semi-automatic weapons to fire more rapidly. Multiple Republicans leaders immediately signaled that they are open to such a ban despite fears of the "slippery slope" in gun control legislation.
> 
> In a surprise move on Thursday, the nation's largest gun lobbying group came out in support of stronger regulations on bump stocks, suggesting that devices that effectively serve as a means of getting around the fully-automatic rifle ban should not be allowed.
> 
> "In the aftermath of the evil and senseless attack in Las Vegas, the American people are looking for answers as to how future tragedies can be prevented," begins the joint statement by the NRA's Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox. "Unfortunately, the first response from some politicians has been to call for more gun control. Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks. This is a fact that has been proven time and again in countries across the world."
> 
> Though gun control is not the answer, LaPierre and Cox agreed that devices used to make semiautomatic weapons fully-automatic "should be subject to additional regulations." In their argument, they underscored that the Obama administration had twice approved such devices.
> 
> "In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved," they continued. "Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."
> 
> The NRA leaders conclude the statement by reiterating their commitment to "strengthening Americans' Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves" and calling for Congress to pass national right-to-carry reciprocity legislation.
> 
> "In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans' Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities," the statement concludes. "To that end, on behalf of the five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence."
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/916004277025366016
> The NRA's support of the bump stocks legislation comes as a bit of a surprise in part because the group listed SlideFire, a bump stocks manufacturer, as an exhibitor at its annual convention in Atlanta in April. The NRA remained largely silent on Wednesday after initial announcement of the bump stocks legislation, but broke the silence on Thursday in its public statement.
> 
> When authorities searched the hotel room of the Las Vegas shooter, Stephen Paddock, they found dozens of guns, hundreds of rounds, and multiple bump stocks, which he used during his horrific shooting spree, which left 58 dead and nearly 500 wounded.


Well this is very interesting to say the least, wonder what people's thoughts are going to be on this.


----------



## Arya Dark

birthday_massacre said:


> How are they hypocrites? If they were hypocrites he would not have resigned.



*No they are saying the article writer is a hypocrite. If he were a republican and said that they would have made sure to let you know that he is a republican. But there's no mention of him being a democrat. And that's a fair complaint. People thinking that democrats aren't racist is quite funny to me. And not in a joke sort of way.*


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

AryaDark said:


> *No they are saying the article writer is a hypocrite. If he were a republican and said that they would have made sure to let you know that he is a republican. But there's no mention of him being a democrat. And that's a fair complaint. People thinking that democrats aren't racist is quite funny to me. And not in a joke sort of way.*


*Funny like Cam Newton thinking women don't know what routes are :mj?*


----------



## Arya Dark

*btw Cam took WAY too much shit for that. I found what he said quite hilarious. :draper2*


----------



## birthday_massacre

AryaDark said:


> *No they are saying the article writer is a hypocrite. If he were a republican and said that they would have made sure to let you know that he is a republican. But there's no mention of him being a democrat. And that's a fair complaint. People thinking that democrats aren't racist is quite funny to me. And not in a joke sort of way.*


Oh, that is fair, they should definitely clarify the guy is a Democrat, it's stupid when you named a person in office you wouldn't show his affiliation when that is what they do 99% of the time. I have never seen an article not put someones political affiliation next to their name in any article.

I don't know if I would call the writer a hypocrite though unless this person omits to show democratic affiliation whenever its negative. I would call what this writer did intellectually dishonest, which is probably worse than a hypocrite IMO


----------



## Cabanarama

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh, that is fair, they should definitely clarify the guy is a Democrat, it's stupid when you named a person in office you wouldn't show his affiliation when that is what they do 99% of the time. I have never seen an article not put someones political affiliation next to their name in any article.
> 
> I don't know if I would call the writer a hypocrite though unless this person omits to show democratic affiliation whenever its negative. I would call what this writer did intellectually dishonest, which is probably worse than a hypocrite IMO


They usually don't show it for local officials. Party affiliation is generally not relevant for a city commissioner or any other local office, as there aren't really the kind of partisan politics at the local levels that we see at the state and national levels.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Cabanarama said:


> They usually don't show it for local officials. Party affiliation is generally not relevant for a city commissioner or any other local office, as there aren't really the kind of partisan politics at the local levels that we see at the state and national levels.


Oh ok that makes sense, I don't read too much about the local offices, maybe that is why I never noticed.


----------



## FriedTofu

L-DOPA said:


> http://www.dailywire.com/news/21998...m_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro
> 
> 
> 
> Well this is very interesting to say the least, wonder what people's thoughts are going to be on this.


Trying to subtly blame Obama for something they all should be held responsible for because it appeal to majority of people that are sympathetic to them.

I doubt they really support it. The NRA probably see popular opinion shifting faster towards more gun regulations and is trying to get some good PR so that the silencer bill can be passed after the fury over the Las Vegas shooting cool off. They have already made it about 'government is taking your guns' even while publicly saying they support regulations on bump stocks.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ot-congress-should-ban-bump-stocks/744138001/



> WASHINGTON — The National Rifle Association said Sunday it opposes any legislation to ban the use of "bump stocks" on semi-automatic weapons — even as it has said some regulation may be necessary.
> 
> On Sunday morning talk shows, the gun lobbying group said the Trump administration, not Congress, should take action on the devices. Under the Obama administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms permitted the sale of the devices in 2010.
> 
> Bump stocks have taken center stage in the gun control debate after the Las Vegas shooter apparently used them last week to convert semi-automatic rifles into fully automatic weapons mimicking machine guns.
> 
> "It’s illegal to convert a semi-automatic to a fully automatic. The ATF ought to look at this, do its job and draw a bright line," NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said on Face the Nation.
> 
> Allowing Congress to take action, LaPierre said, risks turning the bill into "some kind of Christmas tree" to advance other gun control measures that could impact both semi-automatic and automatic weapons. "If you fuzz the line, they're all at risk and we're not going to let that happen," he said.
> 
> 
> But Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Congress needs to close the loophole. She introduced a two-page bill last week that would ban bump stocks, trigger cranks or similar devices within six months, with an exception for government or military use.
> 
> "Regulations aren't going to do it. We need a law," Feinstein told Face the Nation. "It can't be changed by another president. Right now we're seeing one president change actions of a president that came before him, and that would happen in this area. And I hope that Americans will step up and say, 'Enough is enough. Congress, do something.'"
> 
> She said she has 38 cosponsors on such a bill — but all are Democrats.
> 
> House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said last week that bump stocks are "something we need to look into." But conservatives in his conference are already saying they're opposed to legislation.
> 
> Rep. Steve Scalise — himself wounded by gunfire at a June 14 congressional baseball practice — told NBC's Meet the Presshe also opposes any congressional action on "bump stocks."
> 
> “Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi already said she wants it to be a slippery slope,” he said. “She doesn't want to stop at bump stocks. They want to go out and limit the rights of gun owners.”
> 
> The White House hasn't said where it comes down on that issue. "We'll be looking into that over the next short period of time," President Trump said Thursday.
> 
> Trump's statement came as police on Sunday said they found a note in the hotel suite of Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock that apparently showed the calculated distance from his window to the shooting victims below — as well as the trajectory of bullets from the height of his 32nd-floor room.
> 
> Members of the SWAT team that stormed Paddock's room noticed the note on a nightstand near his shooting platform, CBS' "60 Minutes" reported Sunday.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

:cena


----------



## BruiserKC

L-DOPA said:


> http://www.dailywire.com/news/21998...m_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro
> 
> 
> 
> Well this is very interesting to say the least, wonder what people's thoughts are going to be on this.


I wouldn't have an issue with it if this was the absolute end of it. I don't see the need myself for a bump stock as I don't need to shoot off hundreds of rounds a minute on my firearms. However, the problem is that there is that small group out there that is hell bent on banning guns period. They will never be satisfied with anything less. To them, they see the ban of the bump stocks as just the beginning. Meanwhile, there are also a substantial number of NRA members that are not happy with this stance. The NRA might change their thought process if they feel enough people cancel their memberships.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Corker’s Blast at Trump Has Other Republicans Nodding in Agreement



WASHINGTON — For nearly nine months, Senate Republicans have watched their new president with a mix of aggravation and alarm. But it took Senator Bob Corker to take those concerns public and confront President Trump with his most serious challenge from within his own party.

In unloading on Mr. Trump, Mr. Corker, a two-term senator from Tennessee, said in public what many of his Republican colleagues say in private — that the president is dangerously erratic and unstable, that he treats his high post like a television show and that he is reckless enough to stumble the country into a nuclear war.

Mr. Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, evidently feels liberated now that he has decided not to run for re-election, while other Republican senators with concerns keep quiet fearing the retaliation of a Twitter-armed president and his allies in the conservative media. But Mr. Corker’s passionate statements reflect growing troubles for a president attempting to govern with a narrow and increasingly disenchanted Republican majority.

The president has already seen what can happen with a 52-vote Senate caucus that can be thwarted by the defection of just three Republicans. Until now, Mr. Corker has not been one of the renegades on those high-drama votes that killed Mr. Trump’s health care legislation. By himself, Mr. Corker could make it that much harder for the president to hold a fragile majority on upcoming votes on taxes, among other priorities — and if he emboldens other Republican doubters, it could add to Mr. Trump’s challenge.

The White House spent Monday morning telling its allies that Mr. Corker is responsible for the fight, not Mr. Trump, and that the senator was an attention-seeking obstructionist. But few of Mr. Trump’s allies accepted that narrative. One close associate of the president, who asked not to be identified to discuss the situation more candidly, said Mr. Trump’s entire agenda could be dead because Mr. Corker has a lot of friends on Capitol Hill.

Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE


Bob Corker Says Trump’s Recklessness Threatens ‘World War III’ OCT. 8, 2017
But that does not mean other Senate Republicans will rush to the microphones to second Mr. Corker’s sentiments. In an interview with The New York Times on Sunday, Mr. Corker responded to a series of Twitter attacks on him by Mr. Trump. He said that the president was running the White House like it was “a reality show” and with bellicose threats that could set the nation “on the path to World War III.” Mr. Corker added that “every single day at the White House, it’s a situation of trying to contain him.”

Other Republican lawmakers, while privately nodding their heads, remained conspicuously silent on Monday morning, and many Senate Republicans no doubt were relieved not to be in session this week in Washington, where they would be intercepted in the hallways of the Capitol by reporters asking them to comment on Mr. Corker’s remarks.

“While it may really bother other Senate Republicans and it’s unnerving that one of their own is being attacked, most aren’t retiring and know they must still work with the White House in order to accomplish legislative goals like tax reform or eventually answer to frustrated voters,” said Ron Bonjean, a former top aide to Senate Republican leaders.

Mr. Trump has grown frustrated by Senate Republicans as legislation to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care program has been repeatedly blocked, lashing out at Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the party leader, for not getting the job done. He has also engaged in open conflicts with Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, among others.

Mr. Trump’s former chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, acting in what he says is the president’s interest, is organizing a rebellion against the Republican establishment and recruiting candidates to challenge incumbent senators in primaries next year. Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff has talked about a “purge” of Republicans who are not loyal to Mr. Trump.

For their part, Senate Republicans have pushed back on occasion. Almost unanimously, they and their counterparts in the House passed legislation over Mr. Trump’s objections mandating sanctions on Russia and limiting the president’s ability to lift them on his own.

Morning Briefing
Get what you need to know to start your day in the United States, Canada and the Americas, delivered to your inbox.

Sign Up
SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME
They also stood against him when he engaged in a protracted public campaign against his own attorney general, Jeff Sessions, a former colleague of theirs in the Senate, warning him that if he fired Mr. Sessions they would not confirm a successor and acting to prevent him from using his recess appointment power to install a replacement without their consent.

“Guys like Bob Corker, I think, have reached the point where it’s like, ‘Can we not pretend the emperor is not naked? Can we not pretend the emperor is not unstable in a way that we should’ve understood very, very clearly more than a year or two years ago?’” Charlie Sykes, a former conservative talk show host and author of “How The Right Lost Its Mind,” said on CNN on Sunday.

As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Corker could single-handedly block the confirmation of a new secretary of state should Mr. Trump push out his embattled chief diplomat, Rex W. Tillerson, and he could bottle up other appointments. He would presumably play a key role in any decision on whether to tear up the Iran nuclear deal. And as a longtime deficit hawk, he could also become a challenge for Mr. Trump as the president seeks to pass deep tax cuts that would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the national debt.

Mr. Corker’s public break with the president was a long time in coming. Mr. Trump considered Mr. Corker as a candidate for secretary of state after last year’s election but was said to have told associates that the 5-foot-7 senator was too short. Mr. Corker expressed concern shortly after the inauguration that Mr. Trump was a “wrecking ball” to American foreign policy but he largely tempered his criticism in hopes of helping to steer the nation’s first president to serve without any political or military background.

By last week, that hope was clearly gone. As Mr. Tillerson publicly denied he was considering resignation without denying that he had once called the president a “moron” — he let a spokeswoman deny it later — Mr. Corker volunteered that the secretary of state and two other officials were the only thing that “separate our country from chaos.”

Mr. Trump responded over the weekend by calling Mr. Corker "a negative voice” who “didn’t have the guts to run” for another term. Mr. Corker fired back on Twitter by saying “the White House has become an adult day care center” and “someone obviously missed their shift.” He followed up with the Times interview.

The White House complained that Mr. Corker had been “insulting,” as Kellyanne Conway, the president’s counselor, put it on Monday morning. “I find tweets like this to be incredibly irresponsible,” she told Fox News. “It adds to the insulting that the mainstream media and the president’s detractors — almost a year after this election they still can’t accept the election results. It adds to their ability and their cover to speak about the president of the United States in ways that no president should be talked about.”

Mr. Corker, who may have found the no-guts tweet insulting, has plenty of Republicans agreeing with his point of view. But the ones who have acknowledged that publicly are those like former Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the onetime Republican leader in the Senate, who when asked by Politico how Mr. Trump was doing replied, “Not great. Too many problems with disasters and Congress.”

Mr. Lott, of course, is not running again. “Do most senators have their doubts about the president?” asked John Feehery, a longtime Republican congressional aide now working as a lobbyist in Washington. “That’s probably true, but also largely irrelevant. He’s the president, and they have to find ways to get stuff done with him. Otherwise, they face the wrath of the voters — something Bob Corker no longer worries about.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/...s-other-republicans-nodding-in-agreement.html





Bob Corker Says Trump’s Recklessness Threatens ‘World War III’

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/08/us/politics/trump-corker.html

WASHINGTON — Senator Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, charged in an interview on Sunday that President Trump was treating his office like “a reality show,” with reckless threats toward other countries that could set the nation “on the path to World War III.”

In an extraordinary rebuke of a president of his own party, Mr. Corker said he was alarmed about a president who acts “like he’s doing ‘The Apprentice’ or something.”

“He concerns me,” Mr. Corker added. “He would have to concern anyone who cares about our nation.”

Mr. Corker’s comments capped a remarkable day of sulfurous insults between the president and the Tennessee senator — a powerful, if lame-duck, lawmaker, whose support will be critical to the president on tax reform and the fate of the Iran nuclear deal.

It began on Sunday morning when Mr. Trump, posting on Twitter, accused Mr. Corker of deciding not to run for re-election because he “didn’t have the guts.” Mr. Corker shot back in his own tweet: “It’s a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning.”

Continue reading the main story
The Trump White House
The historic moments, head-spinning developments and inside-the-White House intrigue.
Trump’s Argument Against Immigrants: We’ve Heard It Before
OCT 9
After White House Issues Demands, Hopes for an Immigration Deal Dim
OCT 9
White House Makes Hard-Line Demands for Any ‘Dreamers’ Deal
OCT 8
Trump Administration Formally Lifts Sanctions on Sudan
OCT 6
Mattis Discloses Part of Afghanistan Battle Plan, but It Hasn’t Yet Been Carried Out
OCT 6
See More »

The senator, Mr. Trump said, had “begged” for his endorsement. “I said ‘NO’ and he dropped out (said he could not win without my endorsement),” the president wrote. He also said that Mr. Corker had asked to be secretary of state. “I said ‘NO THANKS,’” he wrote.

Mr. Corker flatly disputed that account, saying Mr. Trump had urged him to run again, and promised to endorse him if he did. But the exchange laid bare a deeper rift: The senator views Mr. Trump as given to irresponsible outbursts — a political novice who has failed to make the transition from show business.

Mr. Trump poses such an acute risk, the senator said, that a coterie of senior administration officials must protect him from his own instincts. “I know for a fact that every single day at the White House, it’s a situation of trying to contain him,” Mr. Corker said in a telephone interview.

The deeply personal back-and-forth will almost certainly rupture what had been a friendship with a fellow real estate developer turned elected official, one of the few genuine relationships Mr. Trump had developed on Capitol Hill. Still, even as he leveled his stinging accusations, Mr. Corker repeatedly said on Sunday that he liked Mr. Trump, until now an occasional golf partner, and wished him “no harm.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on Mr. Corker’s remarks.

Mr. Trump’s feud with Mr. Corker is particularly perilous given that the president has little margin for error as he tries to pass a landmark overhaul of the tax code — his best, and perhaps last, hope of producing a major legislative achievement this year.

If Senate Democrats end up unified in opposition to the promised tax bill, Mr. Trump could lose the support of only two of the Senate’s 52 Republicans to pass it. That is the same challenging math that Mr. Trump and Senate Republican leaders faced in their failed effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Corker could also play a key role if Mr. Trump follows through on his threat to “decertify” the Iran nuclear deal, kicking to Congress the issue of whether to restore sanctions on Tehran and effectively scuttle the pact.

Republicans could hold off on sanctions but use the threat of them to force Iran back to the negotiating table — a strategy being advocated by Senator Tom Cotton, the Arkansas Republican. But that approach could leave the United States isolated, and it will be up to Mr. Corker to balance opposition to the deal with the wishes of those, including some of Mr. Trump’s own aides, who want to change the accord but not blow it up.

Beyond the Iran deal, Mr. Corker’s committee holds confirmation hearings on Mr. Trump’s ambassadorial appointments. If the president were to oust Rex W. Tillerson as secretary of state, as some expect, Mr. Corker would lead the hearings on Mr. Trump’s nominee for the post.

In a 25-minute conversation, Mr. Corker, speaking carefully and purposefully, seemed to almost find cathartic satisfaction by portraying Mr. Trump in terms that most senior Republicans use only in private.

The senator, who is close to Mr. Tillerson, invoked comments that the president made on Twitter last weekend in which he appeared to undercut Mr. Tillerson’s negotiations with North Korea.

“A lot of people think that there is some kind of ‘good cop, bad cop’ act underway, but that’s just not true,” Mr. Corker said.

Without offering specifics, he said Mr. Trump had repeatedly undermined diplomacy with his Twitter fingers. “I know he has hurt, in several instances, he’s hurt us as it relates to negotiations that were underway by tweeting things out,” Mr. Corker said.

Get the Morning Briefing by Email
What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.

Sign Up
SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME
All but inviting his colleagues to join him in speaking out about the president, Mr. Corker said his concerns about Mr. Trump were shared by nearly every Senate Republican.

“Look, except for a few people, the vast majority of our caucus understands what we’re dealing with here,” he said, adding that “of course they understand the volatility that we’re dealing with and the tremendous amount of work that it takes by people around him to keep him in the middle of the road.”

As for the tweets that set off the feud on Sunday morning, Mr. Corker expressed a measure of powerlessness.

“I don’t know why the president tweets out things that are not true,” he said. “You know he does it, everyone knows he does it, but he does.”

The senator recalled four conversations this year, a mix of in-person meetings and phone calls, in which he said the president had encouraged him to run for re-election. Mr. Trump, he said, repeatedly indicated he wanted to come to Tennessee for an early rally on Mr. Corker’s behalf and even telephoned him last Monday to try to get him to reconsider his decision to retire.

“When I told him that that just wasn’t in the cards, he said, ‘You know, if you run, I’ll endorse you.’ I said, ‘Mr. President, it’s just not in the cards; I’ve already made a decision.’ So then we began talking about other candidates that were running.”

One of the most prominent establishment-aligned Republicans to develop a relationship with Mr. Trump, the senator said he did not regret standing with him during the campaign last year.

“I would compliment him on things that he did well, and I’d criticize things that were inappropriate,” he said. “So it’s been really the same all the way through.”

A former mayor of Chattanooga who became wealthy in construction, Mr. Corker, 65, has carved out a reputation over two terms in the Senate as a reliable, but not overly partisan, Republican.

While he opposed President Barack Obama’s divisive nuclear deal with Iran, he did not prevent it from coming to a vote on the Senate floor, which exposed him to fierce fire from conservatives, who blamed him for its passage.

Mr. Trump picked up on that theme hours after his initial tweets, writing that “Bob Corker gave us the Iran Deal, & that’s about it. We need HealthCare, we need Tax Cuts/Reform, we need people that can get the job done!”

Mr. Corker was briefly a candidate to be Mr. Trump’s running mate in 2016, but he withdrew his name from consideration and later expressed ambivalence about Mr. Trump’s campaign, in part because he said he found it frustrating to discuss foreign policy with him.

To some extent, the rift between the two men had been building for months, as Mr. Corker repeatedly pointed out on Sunday to argue that his criticism was not merely that of a man liberated from facing the voters again.

After a report last week that Mr. Tillerson had once referred to Mr. Trump as a “moron,” Mr. Corker told reporters that Mr. Tillerson was one of three officials helping to “separate our country from chaos.” Those remarks were repeated on “Fox News Sunday,” which may have prompted Mr. Trump’s outburst.

In August, after Mr. Trump’s equivocal response to the deadly clashes in Charlottesville, Va., Mr. Corker told reporters that the president “has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability nor some of the competence that he needs to demonstrate in order to be successful.”

He said on Sunday that he had made all those comments deliberately, aiming them at “an audience of one, plus those people who are closely working around with him, what I would call the good guys.” He was referring to Mr. Tillerson, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and the White House chief of staff, John F. Kelly.

“As long as there are people like that around him who are able to talk him down when he gets spun up, you know, calm him down and continue to work with him before a decision gets made, I think we’ll be fine,” he said.


2239
COMMENTS
Mr. Corker would not directly answer when asked whether he thought Mr. Trump was fit for the presidency. But he did say that the commander in chief was not fully aware of the power of his office.

“I don’t think he appreciates that when the president of the United States speaks and says the things that he does, the impact that it has around the world, especially in the region that he’s addressing,” he said. “And so, yeah, it’s concerning to me.”


----------



## FriedTofu

They knew what they were getting when they backed Trump last year. No point in trying to absolve themselves from their role in getting him elected.


----------



## stevefox1200

Reuters have found that Trump is slowing losing popularity in the rural areas because he is being flexible on issues like immigration and healthcare (which they take seriously) yet hardnose on things like UN relations and protesters (which they don't give a fuck about)

Its a weird "single issue" platform where the government has no real stance on everything but some select minor issues



FriedTofu said:


> They knew what they were getting when they backed Trump last year. No point in trying to absolve themselves from their role in getting him elected.


To be fair, the parts of the Republican platform that Trump is actually backing are the weird religious and racial fringe which has been a massive thorn in the their side


----------



## FriedTofu

stevefox1200 said:


> Reuters have found that Trump is slowing losing popularity in the rural areas because he is being flexible on issues like immigration and healthcare (which they take seriously) yet hardnose on things like UN relations and protesters (which they don't give a fuck about)
> 
> Its a weird "single issue" platform where the government has no real stance on everything but some select minor issues
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, the parts of the Republican platform that Trump is actually backing are the weird religious and racial fringe which has been a massive thorn in the their side


How is it fair? They had chance upon chance to nip their influence before a Trump happened. They choose to feed the beast instead. :lol


----------



## FriedTofu

:lmao


----------



## Haas

One of the most vicious intellectual beatdowns I've seen in a while. It's incredible how much more clearheaded, factual, and honest Ben Shapiro is compared to Jimmy Kimmel, who's a known misogynist (girls on trampolines, anyone?).


----------



## Draykorinee

If you don't want gun control you're bad people and you don't care. Ben is wrong.

Trumps been embarrassing himself on Twitter again, challenging someone to an IQ test and calling them an asshole. So presidential, so thick skinned.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/exclusive-interview/#15915e6bdeca



> He counterpunches, in this case firing a shot at Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who reportedly called his boss a moron: "I think it's fake news, but if he did that, I guess we'll have to compare IQ tests. And I can tell you who is going to win."


If it's fake then you don't challenge him because it lends credence to it being true and it doesn't help to say your SOS is so much dumber than you. He's already been undercutting him in public saying he's wasting time negotiating while negotiations are ongoing. If he feels that strongly, then order Tillerson back. He serves at the pleasure of the president. If Trump orders him to call off the negotiations, he will.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Haas said:


> One of the most vicious intellectual beatdowns I've seen in a while. It's incredible how much more clearheaded, factual, and honest Ben Shapiro is compared to Jimmy Kimmel, who's a known misogynist (girls on trampolines, anyone?).


LOL at claiming Ben is more clearheaded and factual and honest, he is one of the most intellectually dishonest people there is, especially when it comes to things healthcare and gun control.

He starts by lying right off the bat claiming the left want all guns banned. He even admits they claim they don't but oh HE KNOWS its what they really want.

He starts off with a strawman argument right off the bat. I can't even take him seriously when he is starting off with something that is not even true, and you claim he is being honest and factual? 

And LOL at Ben claiming oh yeah its perfectly reasonable to use AR47s for home defense. He can't be serious with that shit. And he claims it happens all the time? he should at least back up that claim with evidence which of course he didn't. A frequent basis means it happens a lot, and you rarely hear about people using an AR47 for home defense but you hear way more about how people use them in mass shootings. Ben thinks if it happens a couple of times that means frequent. 

the only person disconnected from the facts, like always is Ben.

Again Ben lying about the NRA and claiming they don't throw money at politicians. Ben is such a joke when he claims things like this. John McCain for example has gotten over 7 MILLION from the NRA over his career. How is giving 7 million to a poltican not bribing them? And LOL at him equating that to giving money to unions who unions is not a person. Unions also stand up for workers rights but of course Ben hates that.


Ben once again is full of shit, Trump did undo the Obama regulation that prevents people wiht mental illnesses from getting guns. He was not even honest about the law that was rolled back. Under Obamas law, anyone getting a SS check for a mental illness would not be able to get a gun, Trump took that away so now people that are getting SS for a mental illness are no longer rejected or flawed. Ben just says oh a judge now has to make that call, how the hell would a judge know if somenoe is mentally ill or not, he or she is no a doctor. But its just Ben being dishonest once again.

And again yes the time to talk about policy is right after something major happens like a mass shooting. Its funny how the right and people like Ben are all about talking policy after a terrorist attack happens oh then is the time to make it political but when its a mass shooting, oh no don't talk politics now. GTFO It just shows how dishonest the right and Ben are

Jimmy has had made any bad arguments, Ben is just an apologist who can't deal with the facts.

Ben once again lying about the NRA not having peoples balls in a money clip. 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/opinion/thoughts-prayers-nra-funding-senators.html

In Kimmy's example, Paul Ryan has gotten $61,401 from the NRA, but sure Ben pretend he isn't getting money from the NRA.

All politicians are bribed and its not just when it comes to guns. It's a joke Ben is even claiming they are not. Just shows how full of shit he is.

Ben once again being dishonest about the gun show loophole. If you buy a gun at a gun show from an unlicensed dealer, they don't have to run a background check. Also notice how Ben didn't admit Jimmy was right about private sales not needing a background check or buying them online?

I love how he gets all cute with "licensed" but does not put out if they are unlicensed you don't have to. He just keeps showing how dishonest he is. He does slip in oh well some private sales are different because its only one gun to maybe a friend because its a hand me down or if they die. He is such a joke.


As for who made JImmy god, Jimmy is right, thoughts and prayers are worthless fi you are not going to do anything to help prevent those thigns from happening over and over again. congress has the option of doing so but they don't. And that was Jimmy's point. 

Also its hilarious Ben talks about people being more or less more based on their political viewpoint when the right does that shit all the time on other issues like gay marraige for example.

And love Bens doing of how the GOP wants to make silencers legal by saying well they weren't used in this shooting. No shit because they are illegal right now. 

Ben embarassed himself big time in this, its jsut funny you think he took down Kimmel when Ben just made himself look bad


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at claiming Ben is more clearheaded and factual and honest, he is one of the most intellectually dishonest people there is, especially when it comes to things healthcare and gun control.
> 
> He starts by lying right off the bat claiming the left want all guns banned. He even admits they claim they don't but oh HE KNOWS its what they really want.
> 
> He starts off with a strawman argument right off the bat. I can't even take him seriously when he is starting off with something that is not even true, and you claim he is being honest and factual?
> 
> And LOL at Ben claiming oh yeah its perfectly reasonable to use AR47s for home defense. He can't be serious with that shit. And he claims it happens all the time? he should at least back up that claim with evidence which of course he didn't. A frequent basis means it happens a lot, and you rarely hear about people using an AR47 for home defense but you hear way more about how people use them in mass shootings. Ben thinks if it happens a couple of times that means frequent.
> 
> the only person disconnected from the facts, like always is Ben.
> 
> Again Ben lying about the NRA and claiming they don't throw money at politicians. Ben is such a joke when he claims things like this. John McCain for example has gotten over 7 MILLION from the NRA over his career. How is giving 7 million to a poltican not bribing them? And LOL at him equating that to giving money to unions who unions is not a person. Unions also stand up for workers rights but of course Ben hates that.
> 
> 
> Ben once again is full of shit, Trump did undo the Obama regulation that prevents people wiht mental illnesses from getting guns. He was not even honest about the law that was rolled back. Under Obamas law, anyone getting a SS check for a mental illness would not be able to get a gun, Trump took that away so now people that are getting SS for a mental illness are no longer rejected or flawed. Ben just says oh a judge now has to make that call, how the hell would a judge know if somenoe is mentally ill or not, he or she is no a doctor. But its just Ben being dishonest once again.
> 
> And again yes the time to talk about policy is right after something major happens like a mass shooting. Its funny how the right and people like Ben are all about talking policy after a terrorist attack happens oh then is the time to make it political but when its a mass shooting, oh no don't talk politics now. GTFO It just shows how dishonest the right and Ben are
> 
> Jimmy has had made any bad arguments, Ben is just an apologist who can't deal with the facts.
> 
> Ben once again lying about the NRA not having peoples balls in a money clip.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/opinion/thoughts-prayers-nra-funding-senators.html
> 
> In Kimmy's example, Paul Ryan has gotten $61,401 from the NRA, but sure Ben pretend he isn't getting money from the NRA.
> 
> All politicians are bribed and its not just when it comes to guns. It's a joke Ben is even claiming they are not. Just shows how full of shit he is.
> 
> Ben once again being dishonest about the gun show loophole. If you buy a gun at a gun show from an unlicensed dealer, they don't have to run a background check. Also notice how Ben didn't admit Jimmy was right about private sales not needing a background check or buying them online?
> 
> I love how he gets all cute with "licensed" but does not put out if they are unlicensed you don't have to. He just keeps showing how dishonest he is. He does slip in oh well some private sales are different because its only one gun to maybe a friend because its a hand me down or if they die. He is such a joke.
> 
> 
> As for who made JImmy god, Jimmy is right, thoughts and prayers are worthless fi you are not going to do anything to help prevent those thigns from happening over and over again. congress has the option of doing so but they don't. And that was Jimmy's point.
> 
> Also its hilarious Ben talks about people being more or less more based on their political viewpoint when the right does that shit all the time on other issues like gay marraige for example.
> 
> And love Bens doing of how the GOP wants to make silencers legal by saying well they weren't used in this shooting. No shit because they are illegal right now.
> 
> Ben embarassed himself big time in this, its jsut funny you think he took down Kimmel when Ben just made himself look bad


All I heard was Ben Shapiro is wrong and full of shit :lol

You can't claim someone is being dishonest while being dishonest yourself. I'll ask this first, who do you think he specifically means by "The left"? He doesn't mean left leaning, or people who vote democrat so I'll let you figure out who exactly he means. 

You were wrong about what he says "right off the bat" , because the quote you're bringing up isn't mentioned until the 4th minute. Secondly, you purposely misled what he was saying and actively cut off half his argument and ignored the entirety of the context of his point just so you can complain 

Ben clearly states that the NRA isn't in the "top dozen" when it comes to contributing to politicians. He also specifically states "The NRA does not give a lot of money to politicians". No where does he say that they give money at politicians . You're being dishonest

For someone who accuses others of doing something, you're not so innocent yourself.

Edit - Also, John McCain voted in favor of universal background checks. For being the #1 recipient of NRA funding, you'd figure he'd have voted against 

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00321


----------



## samizayn

draykorinee said:


> If you don't want gun control you're bad people and you don't care. Ben is wrong.
> 
> Trumps been embarrassing himself on Twitter again, challenging someone to an IQ test and calling them an asshole. So presidential, so thick skinned.





2 Ton 21 said:


> https://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/exclusive-interview/#15915e6bdeca
> 
> If it's fake then you don't challenge him because it lends credence to it being true and it doesn't help to say your SOS is so much dumber than you. He's already been undercutting him in public saying he's wasting time negotiating while negotiations are ongoing. If he feels that strongly, then order Tillerson back. He serves at the pleasure of the president. If Trump orders him to call off the negotiations, he will.


Both of you are too simple minded to understand the elaborate game of 4D chess playing out in front of your very eyes.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> You can't claim someone is being dishonest while being dishonest yourself. I'll ask this first, who do you think he specifically means by "The left"? He doesn't mean left leaning, or people who vote democrat so I'll let you figure out who exactly he means.


He meant all of the left, and yes the Democrats. Since the whole left and democratic politics is better gun control and people like Ben love to claim that means ban all guns. if he was only talking about a specifit group he would have said that group but he just said left which means all of the left. By you just claiming oh he doesn't mean all left would even make my point stronger since you are admitting he didn't mean all fo the left even though that is how he is framing it.






Stinger Fan said:


> You were wrong about what he says "right off the bat" , because the quote you're bringing up isn't mentioned until the 4th minute. Secondly, you purposely misled what he was saying and actively cut off half his argument and ignored the entirety of the context of his point just so you can complain


That is because almost all of the first 4 minutes of the video is just a reply of the Kimmel video, but of course, you failed to mention this. Bens first real political point did not come until about 4 minutes into the video. Of course the quote I brought up was not until the 4-minute mark when like 3 minutes of the video is just Kimmel's monologue. I did not miss anything he was saying nor did I cut off half his argument. 



Stinger Fan said:


> Ben clearly states that the NRA isn't in the "top dozen" when it comes to contributing to politicians. He also specifically states "The NRA does not give a lot of money to politicians". No where does he say that they give money at politicians . You're being dishonest


Just because the NRA is not a top donor does not mean they don't give a lot of money to politicians. If you just add up just the top 10 positions who get money from the NRA that adds up to over $40 MILLION. How is that not a lot of money? Looking at the list and adding up the total of the people just on that list the number goes to $66 MILLION. And that is to just specific politicians. The only person being dishonest is Ben and you for defending him on this. 

here is another article talking about the NRA spending money to make sure Congress does not add more gun safety laws.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ss-enacting-gun-safety-laws-article-1.2643408



Stinger Fan said:


> Edit - Also, John McCain voted in favor of universal background checks. For being the #1 recipient of NRA funding, you'd figure he'd have voted against


McCain Opposes restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition types, he voted against Brady Bill & assault weapon ban, voted NO on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets, voted NO on background checks at gun shows, voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows.

I could go on and on



Also love how you ignore the rest of my post LOL but that is becaues you know I am right with what I said so you ignored it.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Stinger Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't claim someone is being dishonest while being dishonest yourself. I'll ask this first, who do you think he specifically means by "The left"? He doesn't mean left leaning, or people who vote democrat so I'll let you figure out who exactly he means.
> 
> 
> 
> He meant all of the left, and yes the Democrats. Since the whole left and democratic politics is better gun control and people like Ben love to claim that means ban all guns. if he was only talking about a specifit group he would have said that group but he just said left which means all of the left. By you just claiming oh he doesn't mean all left would even make my point stronger since you are admitting he didn't mean all fo the left even though that is how he is framing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stinger Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were wrong about what he says "right off the bat" , because the quote you're bringing up isn't mentioned until the 4th minute. Secondly, you purposely misled what he was saying and actively cut off half his argument and ignored the entirety of the context of his point just so you can complain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is because almost all of the first 4 minutes of the video is just a reply of the Kimmel video, but of course, you failed to mention this. Bens first real political point did not come until about 4 minutes into the video. Of course the quote I brought up was not until the 4-minute mark when like 3 minutes of the video is just Kimmel's monologue. I did not miss anything he was saying nor did I cut off half his argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Stinger Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ben clearly states that the NRA isn't in the "top dozen" when it comes to contributing to politicians. He also specifically states "The NRA does not give a lot of money to politicians". No where does he say that they give money at politicians . You're being dishonest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because the NRA is not a top donor does not mean they don't give a lot of money to politicians. If you just add up just the top 10 positions who get money from the NRA that adds up to over $40 MILLION. How is that not a lot of money? Looking at the list and adding up the total of the people just on that list the number goes to $66 MILLION. And that is to just specific politicians. The only person being dishonest is Ben and you for defending him on this.
> 
> here is another article talking about the NRA spending money to make sure Congress does not add more gun safety laws.
> 
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ss-enacting-gun-safety-laws-article-1.2643408
> 
> 
> 
> Stinger Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Edit - Also, John McCain voted in favor of universal background checks. For being the #1 recipient of NRA funding, you'd figure he'd have voted against
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> McCain Opposes restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition types, he voted against Brady Bill & assault weapon ban, voted NO on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets, voted NO on background checks at gun shows, voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows.
> 
> I could go on and on
> 
> 
> 
> Also love how you ignore the rest of my post LOL but that is becaues you know I am right with what I said so you ignored it.
Click to expand...

Ben Shapiro states countless times leftists aren't people who leans left or vote Democrat . He specifically states they're far left, a loud vocal minority. This is why I even bothered to respond to you. You showed your blatant bias

As I stated Ben Shapiro didn't mention your quote until much later than you stated. You lied , and purposely misrepresented his statement because you disagree and cut off his point, that's just disgusting.You were being dishonest about his comments

All I did was pointed out that you lied about what Ben said about the NRA and donating . I quoted exactly what he said and you were wrong. You lied to make a point. 

My point about McCain wasn't that he doesn't get donations, it's the fact that he has voted on a few things that would go against the NRAs interests. Basically showing that maybe they don't have their balls in a vice, but I cannot say for sure one way or another

The point of my entire post was to prove you lied and were being dishonest, which I did. It wasn't meant to be a rebuttal of everything you said but to show that you were being dishonest while accusing others of being dishonest. You're a known liar and this only enforced that belief


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> Ben Shapiro states countless times leftists aren't people who leans left or vote Democrat . He specifically states they're far left, a loud vocal minority. This is why I even bothered to respond to you. You showed your blatant bias
> 
> As I stated Ben Shapiro didn't mention your quote until much later than you stated. You lied , and purposely misrepresented his statement because you disagree and cut off his point, that's just disgusting.You were being dishonest about his comments
> 
> All I did was pointed out that you lied about what Ben said about the NRA and donating . I quoted exactly what he said and you were wrong. You lied to make a point.
> 
> My point about McCain wasn't that he doesn't get donations, it's the fact that he has voted on a few things that would go against the NRAs interests. Basically showing that maybe they don't have their balls in a vice, but I cannot say for sure one way or another
> 
> The point of my entire post was to prove you lied and were being dishonest, which I did. It wasn't meant to be a rebuttal of everything you said but to show that you were being dishonest while accusing others of being dishonest. You're a known liar and this only enforced that belief


Again only people being dishonest here are you and Ben. He never said far left in the video, he just said left. If he really means far left, then he should say far left but he doesn't. He is being dishonest by just saying left if that is what he really means like you claim.

Yeah, Ben didn't mention my quote under 4 minutes in because most of the beginning of th video is just the video of Jimmy Kimmel speaking. But keep ignoring that fact. You just keep showing how dishonest you are being.

I was not wrong about what Ben said. Ben said the NRA does not give a lot of money to politicians, which is bullshit. The NRA gives tens of millions to politicians, Again you and Ben being dishonest trying to dispute this. that is like saying a baseball player does not make a lot of money when he is making 60 million just because he is not in the top 10 or 12 in the league. Just because you are not in the top 10 of something does not mean its not a lot of money like you and Ben are trying to claim. You just keep proving how dishonest you are.

If you don't think that the NRA gives politicians millions to bribe them, , then who is being dishonest here? LOL I can't even take you seriously if you are going to claim this.

I did not lie about anything, the only person here lying is you. Keep embarrassing yourself.

As for me being a known liar LOL yeah good one when I always back up what I say with facts and evidence, people like you just choose to ignore facts and evidence.


----------



## FriedTofu

The Corker thing is more insane than wanting to compared IQ with Tillerson. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/917734186848579584
Being recorded for an interview now is being tricked? Almost like he is implying he forbid members of his party to accept interviews by non-approved media and Corker disregarded it and he is venting on Twitter.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Trump and Pence continue to be a racist pieces of trash that are harassing Black athletes and sports reporters while ignoring white supremacists marching in Charlottesville again:*


----------



## Cabanarama

Eminem completely demolished Trump with this freestyle....


----------



## 2 Ton 21

FriedTofu said:


> The Corker thing is more insane than wanting to compared IQ with Tillerson.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/917734186848579584
> Being recorded for an interview now is being tricked? Almost like he is implying he forbid members of his party to accept interviews by non-approved media and Corker disregarded it and he is venting on Twitter.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/reader-center/trump-claims-we-tricked-bob-corker-heres-the-truth.html?_r=0



> *Trump Claims We Tricked Bob Corker. Here’s the Truth.*
> 
> ...As the reporter who conducted the 25-minute telephone interview with Mr. Corker, I thought I would offer more insight about what actually transpired.
> Continue reading the main story
> *
> Far from being set up, Mr. Corker asked that I tape our conversation.
> 
> “I know they’re recording it, and I hope you are, too,” he said as two of his aides listened in on other lines, one of them also taping the interview.*
> 
> As with most on-the-record discussions with an elected official, I was recording our conversation to ensure accuracy.
> 
> And after Mr. Corker got off the phone, his two aides made sure I had recorded the call. Like the senator, they wanted to ensure his extraordinary charges were precisely captured...


Audio at the link.


----------



## Haas

I'm not sure how anyone can take the New York Times seriously after what Project Veritas released earlier today.


----------



## Haas

I just listened to the Eminem nonsense. Basically, he just spouted off nonfactual mainstream views in a rhyme that didn't even actually rhyme. If that's what passes for greatness in modern hip hop, I'm thankful I dumped the genre ages ago. I guess we can add Eminem to the latest in the long list of washed-up celebrities trying to use Trump's legacy to add 15 more minutes onto their dead careers.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Haas said:


> I just listened to the Eminem nonsense. Basically, he just spouted off nonfactual mainstream views in a rhyme that didn't even actually rhyme. If that's what passes for greatness in modern hip hop, I'm thankful I dumped the genre ages ago. I guess we can add Eminem to the latest in the long list of washed-up celebrities trying to use Trump's legacy to add 15 more minutes onto their dead careers.


You mean like Kid Rock or Ted Nugent are doing but they support Trump?

As for Trumps legacy, yeah his legacy of being the dumbest, lowest rated and biggest disaster ever as president and he is just 9 months in.

That is some legacy Trump has there, the biggest joke ever as a US president, who even his own party is starting to turn against him because he is so bonkers


----------



## Draykorinee

Haas said:


> I'm not sure how anyone can take the New York Times seriously after what Project Veritas released earlier today.


No one needs to take their content seriously, but Trump still lied, called them out and embarrassed himself on Twitter yet again. Such a joke.

Which rejoiner are you by the way?


----------



## Cabanarama

Haas said:


> I'm not sure how anyone can take the New York Times seriously after what Project Veritas released earlier today.


HAHAHHA Project Veritas? There are still idiots who take that seriously after all the times their "exposes" have been revealed as fabrications?


----------



## FriedTofu

draykorinee said:


> No one needs to take their content seriously, but Trump still lied, called them out and embarrassed himself on Twitter yet again. Such a joke.
> 
> Which rejoiner are you by the way?


I don't even think it is a rejoiner but an alt of someone that was recently banned who couldn't resist not being able to post in here. Probably someone who just got banned this week.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Again only people being dishonest here are you and Ben. He never said far left in the video, he just said left. If he really means far left, then he should say far left but he doesn't. He is being dishonest by just saying left if that is what he really means like you claim.
> 
> Yeah, Ben didn't mention my quote under 4 minutes in because most of the beginning of th video is just the video of Jimmy Kimmel speaking. But keep ignoring that fact. You just keep showing how dishonest you are being.
> 
> I was not wrong about what Ben said. Ben said the NRA does not give a lot of money to politicians, which is bullshit. The NRA gives tens of millions to politicians, Again you and Ben being dishonest trying to dispute this. that is like saying a baseball player does not make a lot of money when he is making 60 million just because he is not in the top 10 or 12 in the league. Just because you are not in the top 10 of something does not mean its not a lot of money like you and Ben are trying to claim. You just keep proving how dishonest you are.
> 
> If you don't think that the NRA gives politicians millions to bribe them, , then who is being dishonest here? LOL I can't even take you seriously if you are going to claim this.
> 
> I did not lie about anything, the only person here lying is you. Keep embarrassing yourself.
> 
> As for me being a known liar LOL yeah good one when I always back up what I say with facts and evidence, people like you just choose to ignore facts and evidence.


You were shown to be blatantly dishonest when responding to that video. His first point, "right off the bat" wasn't even the first point in the video, it was about Jimmel Kimmel beating political opponents with a club. The quote you were responding to was not only after that but completely cut off . This is what Ben actually said

"Hes giving all the facts, what do these facts suggest? He passed a government mandated background check, no history of mental illness, his brother didnt know anything was wrong with him. What exactly would stop something like this? *Short of full gun control confiscation, which is really what the left wants and we'll talk about the possibility of that in a sec, short of that which no one on the left will admit they want but they actually do want.* You know they protest every time you say this, if you say the left wants full scale gun confiscation Hillary Clinton will tell you no, Joe Biden will tell you no but short of full scale gun confiscation, what exactly would Jimmy Kimmel do in this situation like this, hes gonna spell out a bunch of policies that have nothing to do with what actually happened in Vegas"

I put in bold what you were quoting. You still contest you didn't misrepresent what he said? Give me a break, the only one full of crap here is you for blatantly lying and misrepresented what he said. It's totally gross thing to do and you wouldn't appreciate it if someone did it to you, so cut the bullshit already.

As for what Ben Shapiro says about what a leftist is here's one example of many 





At 2:50
Here's a transcript so you can't lie about what he says 

"This is one of the reasons why I'm very meticulous in my terminology about people who are on the other side of the aisle , *i actually separate people who are liberal and people who are leftist* so when there are people who try to ban speech , I call them leftist and if they are not interested in banning speech they're liberal. Meaning they want bigger government and they disagree with me on politics but they're still willing to have a conversation , they want an open forum. people who are on the hard left think that its actually an insult to their identity to disagree with them and this is what i experience sometimes on campuses , cal state LA where theres a near riot where i speak, or university of Wisconsin where people storm the stage and stand in front of it and wont leave. Penn State where we have again another near violent incident over at Penn State or De Paul where they actually ban me out right. Sometimes you get this routine from people who think that , they conflate their viewpoint with their identity and then if you hvae a differing viewpoint you're denying their humanity and its like "no I'm not denying your humanity,I think what you're saying is dumb"


And yes, you are a liar. You've been caught in many lies about what you think people believe in and have been called out on it several times, not just by me but my other posters. You want to believe people have a certain viewpoints solely to complain, get over yourself.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/918112884630093825


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> You were shown to be blatantly dishonest when responding to that video. His first point, "right off the bat" wasn't even the first point in the video, it was about Jimmel Kimmel beating political opponents with a club. The quote you were responding to was not only after that but completely cut off . This is what Ben actually said
> 
> "Hes giving all the facts, what do these facts suggest? He passed a government mandated background check, no history of mental illness, his brother didnt know anything was wrong with him. What exactly would stop something like this? *Short of full gun control confiscation, which is really what the left wants and we'll talk about the possibility of that in a sec, short of that which no one on the left will admit they want but they actually do want.* You know they protest every time you say this, if you say the left wants full scale gun confiscation Hillary Clinton will tell you no, Joe Biden will tell you no but short of full scale gun confiscation, what exactly would Jimmy Kimmel do in this situation like this, hes gonna spell out a bunch of policies that have nothing to do with what actually happened in Vegas"
> 
> I put in bold what you were quoting. You still contest you didn't misrepresent what he said? Give me a break, the only one full of crap here is you for blatantly lying and misrepresented what he said. It's totally gross thing to do and you wouldn't appreciate it if someone did it to you, so cut the bullshit already.
> 
> As for what Ben Shapiro says about what a leftist is here's one example of many
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 2:50
> Here's a transcript so you can't lie about what he says
> 
> "This is one of the reasons why I'm very meticulous in my terminology about people who are on the other side of the aisle , *i actually separate people who are liberal and people who are leftist* so when there are people who try to ban speech , I call them leftist and if they are not interested in banning speech they're liberal. Meaning they want bigger government and they disagree with me on politics but they're still willing to have a conversation , they want an open forum. people who are on the hard left think that its actually an insult to their identity to disagree with them and this is what i experience sometimes on campuses , cal state LA where theres a near riot where i speak, or university of Wisconsin where people storm the stage and stand in front of it and wont leave. Penn State where we have again another near violent incident over at Penn State or De Paul where they actually ban me out right. Sometimes you get this routine from people who think that , they conflate their viewpoint with their identity and then if you hvae a differing viewpoint you're denying their humanity and its like "no I'm not denying your humanity,I think what you're saying is dumb"
> 
> 
> And yes, you are a liar. You've been caught in many lies about what you think people believe in and have been called out on it several times, not just by me but my other posters. You want to believe people have a certain viewpoints solely to complain, get over yourself.



LOL You are still stuck on this right off the bat thing. I already commented on this and you are still harping on it. AGAIN most of the first 4 mins was just Kimmel talking and what I commented on was Bens first real point about Kimmel and that is what I was referring to. But keep being dishonest. 

How did I misrepresent what he said? He was talking about all of the left, even if the part you quoted he said* NO ONE ON THE LEFT* that means THE ENTIRE LEFT. The only one misrepresenting what he said here is you. It does not matter what he said in other interviews, we are talking about THIS INTERVIEW where like you quoted, he said *NO ONE ON THE LEFT.* In this interview he was talking about all of the left and you quote even proves that. 

So if you want to get all meticulous with the terminology you should be calling out Ben for saying NO ONE ON THE LEFT instead of just the certain people on the left like you claim he means. Because that is not what he said in this video about Kimmel. But you, of course, you won't admit that. Also being meticulous with the terminology proves my point about you even more, how you love playing semantic word games, instead of arguing the points made, because you know you can't argue the points because you would lose, so instead you argue about silly word games.


Its funny you directly quoted Ben and its exactly what I said and you still try to deny it. yet in the one caught in a lie LOL You are the one lying.


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/918112884630093825


Trump being more and more bold about his facism as each day passes
What is bad for the country is this clown being president

At this point, they need to look into him being mentally ill


----------



## DOPA

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...me-court-dismisses-travel-ban-case/752401001/



> WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court dismissed a major challenge to President Trump's travel ban on majority-Muslim countries Tuesday because it has been replaced by a new version, sending the controversy back to the starting block.
> 
> The ruling is a victory for the Trump administration, which had asked the court to drop the case after Trump signed a proclamation Sept. 24 that replaced the temporary travel ban on six nations with a new, indefinite ban affecting eight countries. That action made the court challenge moot, the justices ruled.
> 
> "We express no view on the merits," the justices said in a one-page order.
> 
> *The decision effectively wipes the record clean in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, one of two federal appeals courts that had struck down major portions of Trump's travel ban.* That case began in Maryland.
> 
> A separate case from the 9th Circuit, based in California, remains pending because it includes a ban on refugees worldwide that won't expire until later this month. *But the Supreme Court is likely to ditch that case, which began in Hawaii, as well.*
> 
> The challengers in both cases already have renewed their lawsuits in the lower courts, starting the legal process anew. In Maryland, a federal district court has scheduled a new hearing for next week.
> 
> But the new travel ban and the Supreme Court's order vacating the 4th Circuit appeals court judgment puts the administration in a *somewhat stronger position, at least for now.*
> 
> The 4th Circuit case was brought by the International Refugee Assistance Project, which argued that banning travel from six majority-Muslim countries violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion.
> 
> Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the court's action. She would have dismissed the case but in a way that would have preserved the appeals court ruling against the ban, rather than vacating it.
> 
> Under its original schedule, the court would have heard the case Tuesday, but had delayed oral argument after Trump replaced his earlier order. The new version followed a three-month review of immigration procedures.
> 
> The latest travel ban targets five countries included in two previous versions — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen — as well as Chad, North Korea and Venezuela. Unlike the earlier bans, it treats some countries and types of travelers, such as students or tourists, differently than others.
> 
> The administration told the justices last week that the new ban is "based on detailed findings regarding the national security interests of the United States that were reached after a thorough, worldwide review and extensive consultation."
> 
> The ban's challengers argued that the case against the last version should go forward because many of the same travelers and their families are adversely affected — not just for 90 days, but indefinitely.
> 
> The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the 4th Circuit challenge on behalf of the refugee group, had said charges of anti-Muslim discrimination still applied "despite some new window dressing" — a reference to the addition of North Korea and Venezuela.
> 
> Hawaii, which brought the 9th Circuit challenge, warned the justices that elements of the earlier ban still could be revived, since Trump has said he wants a "much tougher version."


Big victory for Trump today concerning his immigration executive order.


----------



## birthday_massacre

L-DOPA said:


> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...me-court-dismisses-travel-ban-case/752401001/
> 
> 
> 
> Big victory for Trump today concerning his immigration executive order.


And Trump's bigory.

Sad day for America. Trump keeps moving this country backwards.


----------



## nyelator

Haas said:


> I just listened to the Eminem nonsense. Basically, he just spouted off nonfactual mainstream views in a rhyme that didn't even actually rhyme. If that's what passes for greatness in modern hip hop, I'm thankful I dumped the genre ages ago. I guess we can add Eminem to the latest in the long list of washed-up celebrities trying to use Trump's legacy to add 15 more minutes onto their dead careers.


I guess we can.


----------



## stevefox1200

What is his obsession with calling everyone "little"?

Everyone Trump dosn't like is "little" something like that is a great put down and that height is some great sign of your ability 

Was Trump short as a kid and was pushed around because of it or something?


----------



## birthday_massacre

stevefox1200 said:


> What is his obsession with calling everyone "little"?
> 
> Everyone Trump dosn't like is "little" something like that is a great put down and that height is some great sign of your ability
> 
> Was Trump short as a kid and was pushed around because of it or something?


It's projection of Trump's part. All his names are like "little" "lyin" or "crooked" its all things Trump is known for, so he projects them to other people.

Trump is an embarrassment, the guy is supposed to be president and he acts like a 4 grader, but that makes sense since he has the vocabulary of a 4ther grader.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Haas said:


> I just listened to the Eminem nonsense. Basically, he just spouted off nonfactual mainstream views in a rhyme that didn't even actually rhyme. If that's what passes for greatness in modern hip hop, I'm thankful I dumped the genre ages ago. I guess we can add Eminem to the latest in the long list of washed-up celebrities trying to use Trump's legacy to add 15 more minutes onto their dead careers.


Oh btw, even more proof there is a Trump comment or tweet for every occasion


----------



## FriedTofu

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/918267396493922304
Finally a President willing to stand up to Fox News! :troll


----------



## samizayn

stevefox1200 said:


> What is his obsession with calling everyone "little"?
> 
> Everyone Trump dosn't like is "little" something like that is a great put down and that height is some great sign of your ability
> 
> Was Trump short as a kid and was pushed around because of it or something?


You know why.


----------



## Kink_Brawn

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is an embarrassment, the guy is supposed to be president and he acts like a 4 grader, but that makes sense since he has the vocabulary of a *4ther* grader.


Fucking IRONY.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Fuck Trump. Eminem can put up the Black Fist whenever he wants :thecause*

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/917955545197314048


----------



## Stinger Fan

Eminem is now a leftist hero...the same guy who said “My words are like a dagger with a jagged edge/That’ll stab you in the head whether you’re a *** or lez/Or the homosex, hermaph or a trans-a-vest/Pants or dress, hate ****? The answer’s,yes" and " I’m sorry, there must be a mix-up/You want me to fix up lyrics while the President gets his dick sucked?/Fuck that, take drugs, rape sluts/Make fun of gay clubs, men who wear make-up”


Furthering showing leftists hypocrisy :lol As long as you aim at the right target, everything goes :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

Stinger Fan said:


> Eminem is now a leftist hero...the same guy who said “My words are like a dagger with a jagged edge/That’ll stab you in the head whether you’re a *** or lez/Or the homosex, hermaph or a trans-a-vest/Pants or dress, hate ****? The answer’s,yes" and " I’m sorry, there must be a mix-up/You want me to fix up lyrics while the President gets his dick sucked?/Fuck that, take drugs, rape sluts/Make fun of gay clubs, men who wear make-up”
> 
> 
> Furthering showing leftists hypocrisy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you aim at the right target, everything goes


For once I agree with you. Eminem should not be a hero just because he raps (badly) about Trump. I did laugh about what he said but he's still a guy who loves using homophobic slurs.


----------



## Darren Criss

I wonder if Vince and Trump ever fucked the same Diva at the same time and who it was.


----------



## birthday_massacre

What a clown Trump is, he is way more concerned with grandstanding about killing insurance and making it 100x worse than he is actually signing his EO. Pence had to remind him to sign it. And this is not the first time this has happened. He actually forgot about signing one back in March. 

Here is the video and info about today.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.f5bd425f0bf2


----------



## Arya Dark




----------



## stevefox1200

Jesse on RT?

Its like everything I loathe is slowly being sucked into one place where I can push it off into space and never have to worry about it again 

I hope it keeps going


----------



## birthday_massacre

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/donald-trump-is-unraveling-white-house-advisers

“I HATE EVERYONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE!”: TRUMP SEETHES AS ADVISERS FEAR THE PRESIDENT IS “UNRAVELING”

In recent days, I’ve spoken with a half dozen prominent Republicans and Trump advisers, and they all describe a White House in crisis as advisers struggle to contain a president who seems to be increasingly unfocused and consumed by dark moods.

AAt first it sounded like hyperbole, the escalation of a Twitter war. But now it’s clear that Bob Corker’s remarkable New York Times interview—in which the Republican senator described the White House as “adult day care” and warned Trump could start World War III—was an inflection point in the Trump presidency. It brought into the open what several people close to the president have recently told me in private: that Trump is “unstable,” “losing a step,” and “unraveling.”

The conversation among some of the president’s longtime confidantes, along with the character of some of the leaks emerging from the White House has shifted. There’s a new level of concern. NBC News published a report that Trump shocked his national security team when he called for a nearly tenfold increase in the country’s nuclear arsenal during a briefing this summer. One Trump adviser confirmed to me it was after this meeting disbanded that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called Trump a “moron.”

In recent days, I spoke with a half dozen prominent Republicans and Trump advisers, and they all describe a White House in crisis as advisers struggle to contain a president who seems to be increasingly unfocused and consumed by dark moods. Trump’s ire is being fueled by his stalled legislative agenda and, to a surprising degree, by his decision last month to back the losing candidate Luther Strange in the Alabama Republican primary. “Alabama was a huge blow to his psyche,” a person close to Trump said. “He saw the cult of personality was broken.”

According to two sources familiar with the conversation, Trump vented to his longtime security chief, Keith Schiller, “I hate everyone in the White House! There are a few exceptions, but I hate them!” (A White House official denies this.) Two senior Republican officials said Chief of Staff John Kelly is miserable in his job and is remaining out of a sense of duty to keep Trump from making some sort of disastrous decision. Today, speculation about Kelly’s future increased after Politico reported that Kelly’s deputy Kirstjen Nielsen is likely to be named Homeland Security Secretary—the theory among some Republicans is that Kelly wanted to give her a soft landing before his departure.

Video: The Stakes are Too High for the Trump Presidency to be Funny

One former official even speculated that Kelly and Secretary of Defense James Mattis have discussed what they would do in the event Trump ordered a nuclear first strike. “Would they tackle him?” the person said. Even Trump’s most loyal backers are sowing public doubts. This morning, The Washington Post quoted longtime Trump friend Tom Barrack saying he has been “shocked” and “stunned” by Trump’s behavior.

While Kelly can’t control Trump’s tweets, he is doing his best to physically sequester the president—much to Trump’s frustration. One major G.O.P. donor told me access to Trump has been cut off, and his outside calls to the White House switchboard aren’t put through to the Oval Office. Earlier this week, I reported on Kelly’s plans to prevent Trump from mingling with guests at Mar-a-Lago later this month. And, according to two sources, Keith Schiller quit last month after Kelly told Schiller he needed permission to speak to the president and wanted written reports of their conversations.

The White House denies these accounts. “The President’s mood is good and his outlook on the agenda is very positive,” an official said.

West Wing aides have also worried about Trump’s public appearances, one Trump adviser told me. The adviser said aides were relieved when Trump declined to agree to appear on the season premiere of 60 Minutes last month. “He’s lost a step. They don’t want him doing adversarial TV interviews,” the adviser explained. Instead, Trump has sat down for friendly conversations with Sean Hannity and Mike Huckabee, whose daughter is Trump’s press secretary. (The White House official says the 60 Minutes interview is being rescheduled.)

Even before Corker’s remarks, some West Wing advisers were worried that Trump’s behavior could cause the Cabinet to take extraordinary Constitutional measures to remove him from office. Several months ago, according to two sources with knowledge of the conversation, former chief strategist Steve Bannon told Trump that the risk to his presidency wasn’t impeachment, but the 25th Amendment—the provision by which a majority of the Cabinet can vote to remove the president. When Bannon mentioned the 25th Amendment, Trump said, “What’s that?” According to a source, Bannon has told people he thinks Trump has only a 30 percent chance of making it the full term.

This post has been updated to clarify the details of the negotiation with 60 Minutes


----------



## yeahbaby!

Jesse for Prez! I totally agree with him, freedom baby.


----------



## Beatles123

Nice to see Trump working with Rand @Reaper @CamillePunk @DesolationRow


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Nice to see Trump working with Rand @Reaper @CamillePunk @DesolationRow


Why is it nice that Trump is working with Rand? What is so good about it?


----------



## Sensei Utero

I'm no Trump guy, but that Eminem rap on Trump was total hypocrisy at its finest :bosque


----------



## Stinger Fan

draykorinee said:


> For once I agree with you. Eminem should not be a hero just because he raps (badly) about Trump. I did laugh about what he said but he's still a guy who loves using homophobic slurs.


I'm sure we can(or even have) agree on other things, its just disagreeing sticks with people more or at least, not agreeing 100% on something can . But yes, Eminem is the last person who should be making a big show over Trump. I'm a huge fan of Eminem, but he's a total hypocrite here, I couldn't get through half way it was so laughable. This is a guy who fought against being accused of being a homophobe and fought against that label his entire career, for him to accuse someone of anything is complete hypocrisy


----------



## Crasp

I just didn't think it was a great freestyle regardless of content.

Although I would like to see Trump respond with his own rap


----------



## yeahbaby!

birthday_massacre said:


> Why is it nice that Trump is working with Rand? What is so good about it?


Rand seems to be a level headed fellow with sensible ideas?


----------



## birthday_massacre

yeahbaby! said:


> Rand seems to be a level headed fellow with sensible ideas?


Not when it comes to healthcare.

Rand is bonkers when it comes to healthcare. But I want Beatles toughs why HE thinks Rand is good.


----------



## nucklehead88

> Donald Trump to become first president to speak at anti-LGBT hate group's annual summit


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-anti-lgbt-address-hate-group-summit-meeting-first-president-us-homphobia-a7997401.html



> Donald Trump is to address the annual conference of an anti-LGBT group *which has been classified as a hate group*.
> 
> The US president will become the first sitting president to address social conservative activists and elected officials at the Value Voters Summit in Washington DC on Friday.
> 
> President Trump has addressed the event which is hosted by the Family Research Council three times in total and did so last year as the Republican presidential candidate.
> 
> The Family Research Council opposes and actively lobbies against equal rights for LGBT persons. The conservative Christian group campaigns against same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, LGBT adoption, abortion, embryonic stell-cell research, pornography and divorce.


Hope you're all proud.


----------



## birthday_massacre

nucklehead88 said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-anti-lgbt-address-hate-group-summit-meeting-first-president-us-homphobia-a7997401.html
> 
> 
> 
> Hope you're all proud.


And some Trump supporters will still claim he is for LBGT rights and not a bigot.


----------



## The 'Jake'

birthday_massacre said:


> Not when it comes to healthcare.
> 
> Rand is bonkers when it comes to healthcare. But I want Beatles toughs why HE thinks Rand is good.


What's he wrong about in regards to healthcare?

Legalizing inexpensive insurance? Getting the federal government out of healthcare and promoting free market ideas?

:rock5


----------



## MrMister

@Vic Capri @Stephen90

You guys can post in here again.


----------



## Stephen90

birthday_massacre said:


> And some Trump supporters will still claim he is for LBGT rights and not a bigot.


I've heard Trump supporters go on more about the national anthem than Puerto Rico.


----------



## FriedTofu

nucklehead88 said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-anti-lgbt-address-hate-group-summit-meeting-first-president-us-homphobia-a7997401.html
> 
> 
> 
> Hope you're all proud.


Trump learning from Islamic politicians. He's not anti-Muslim afterall!


----------



## birthday_massacre

The 'Jake' said:


> What's he wrong about in regards to healthcare?
> 
> Legalizing inexpensive insurance? Getting the federal government out of healthcare and promoting free market ideas?
> 
> :rock5


You mean lealizing insurance that won't cover anything especially people with pre-existing conditions. Those cheap insurances don't cover shit, not sure why people that are all for that don't understand this. 

As for the free market, oh you mean selling across state lines, which again is a disaster waiting to happen since that does a few things. It first makes companies run to the state with the least regulations, which again will give you less coverage. Another thing it does it make it so you have barely any doctors in your network and you have to drive far to even find a doctor in your network.


Taking the GOVT out of insurance is stupid since that is just going to make you pay through the ass in copayments and deductibles since the govt is no longer subsidizing. 

When will people like you learn insurance cares more about making money than helping sick people, that is why it will be a disaster if they let them run healthcare and not the govt who will put regulations on them.

Its a joke people think you will pay less for better insurance if insurance companies are left to do it on their own and not be regulated or subsidized by the govt.


----------



## Cabanarama

The 'Jake' said:


> What's he wrong about in regards to healthcare?
> 
> Legalizing inexpensive insurance? Getting the federal government out of healthcare and promoting free market ideas?
> 
> :rock5


What a load of bullshit...
He's not trying to "legalize inexpensive insurance".... he's trying to get rid of protections that prevent consumers being preyed upon and fucked over by the medical and insurance industries. And these "free market ideas" in regards to healthcare? Do you forget how much worse things were before the ACA was passed...
Rates would only go up higher for most people. And if Rand Paul had his way and there was a total repeal of the ACA, 32 million would lose their coverage. If you consider that about 1 in 500 people who don't have proper medical coverage die every year because of it, which means 60,000 deaths a year. But hey, as long as millionaires and billionaires get to pay a little bit less in taxes, who cares how many are killed, right?
If you want to make the argument that it's not the responsibility of the wealthy or the government to help or protect people, even if it's literally a life or death situation, that's one thing. But don't try to lie or buy into the lies that it's anything else that that.


----------



## RED30000 idk

All Eminem did was expose his fake fans. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/Eminem/comments/75ryqn/fake_fans/

People that have been listening to him for decades shouldn't be too surprised. He has always slandered sitting Presidents. Bill Clinton, Bush, and even Hillary. The only missing guy is Obama. He isn't left or right. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErYiNX3DJyc

This was just out of shape 40+ Marshall Mathers freestyling that "forgot how I wanted to start this" 2001 Shady or even Em would have slaughtered. (his other personas that make him seem like a hypocrite sometimes) 

He's still right though. The President would rather get upset about football than real issues. Em isn't the face of America so him being homophobic never held any weight. 

The "Rap is like a mountain white at top and black at bottom" people are some of the old fans that are really hurt about this. 

I wonder which Em is going to show up on the Album.


----------



## stevefox1200

Rand Paul feels vacciations should be optional, NAFTA is about building a literal "super-highway", is a self certified doctor, said the Ferguson riots were due to city fines, has a shit ton of connections to racist militant types, he dislikes the Civil Rights Act and says laws wouldn't be needed if everyone was Christian 

kill your fucking heroes because they are dumbasses


----------



## FriedTofu

The ACA is dead. Trump cutting the subsidies is the death knell. Guess the repeal but no replace crowd is happy now.


----------



## Vic Capri

Haters: Trump can't take credit for job growth because it was Obama's fiscal year.

Haters: The job loss is Trump's fault even though it was still Obama's fiscal year.



> All Eminem did was expose his fake fans.


He fantasized about killing his ex-wife, belittled women (including his mother) every chance he got, and was an actual homophobe to the max. The opposition's moral compass, folks. :lol

- Vic


----------



## Cabanarama

Vic Capri said:


> Haters: Trump can't take credit for job growth because it was Obama's fiscal year.
> 
> Haters: The job loss is Trump's fault even though it was still Obama's fiscal year.


When something is consistent with what it was before you took office, you cannot take credit. When it takes a change from what it was prior to you taking office, then you can take the credit or blame.
Obama left office with a record 76 consecutive months of job growth. It lasted just 7 months (albeit at a significantly slower rate of job growth than under Obama) with Trump as president before he ended the streak.


----------



## Vic Capri

#PresidentTrump announced he will decertify the Iran nuclear deal! Another campaign promise fulfilled. 

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> #PresidentTrump announced he will decertify the Iran nuclear deal! Another campaign promise fulfilled.
> 
> - Vic


And one step closer to WWIII.


----------



## stevefox1200

I hated the Iran deal but what's done is done at this point

I don't like literally ignoring every other politicians advice and just taking a flaming sword to deals you don't like

I like the idea of slowly regulating or deregulating something to the point that when the law is total it is just a formality

Using executive orders does not exactly represent "small government"


----------



## Cabanarama

stevefox1200 said:


> I hated the Iran deal but what's done is done at this point
> 
> I don't like literally ignoring every other politicians advice and just taking a flaming sword to deals you don't like
> 
> I like the idea of slowly regulating or deregulating something to the point that when the law is total it is just a formality
> 
> Using executive orders does not exactly represent "small government"


The Iran deal looked really bad at the time, but it's actually been very working very well and has been very effective in preventing Iran from having nukes. But of course, Trump can't keep around something of Obama's that been successful, can he?


----------



## Stephen90

Trump doesn't understand that the virgin islands is a US territory.
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-doesnt-know-hes-president-us-virgin-islands-684308


----------



## Draykorinee

Stephen90 said:


> Trump doesn't understand that the virgin islands is a US territory.
> http://www.newsweek.com/trump-doesnt-know-hes-president-us-virgin-islands-684308


Maybe he talks to himself?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stephen90 said:


> Trump doesn't understand that the virgin islands is a US territory.
> http://www.newsweek.com/trump-doesnt-know-hes-president-us-virgin-islands-684308


are you surprised, he didn't even know PR was until someone told him.


----------



## Stephen90

birthday_massacre said:


> are you surprised, he didn't even know PR was until someone told him.


I figured someone would tell him before he made his speech and made himself look like an ass


----------



## Cabanarama

Stephen90 said:


> I figured someone would tell him before he made his speech and made himself look like an ass


He would have made himself look like an ass no matter what anyone told him. It's the only thing he's good at


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/918897579873751040


> *Eager To Kill Iran Deal, Trump Finds Allies In Iraq WMD Peddling Neocons*
> 
> With the memory of the saber-rattling prelude to the US’ 2003 invasion of Iraq largely faded, many of that war’s biggest proponents have recently found themselves uniting behind a new cause – the dissolution of the Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In recent weeks, their calls for destroying the deal have grown — especially as President Donald Trump, who has long criticized the deal, seems determined to make a decision on deal’s ultimate fate within the coming month. While the dissolution of an international agreement may hardly seem as imminently dangerous as the invasion – and destruction – of another country, the end-game for those seeking to annul the agreement is ultimately the same.
> 
> Take, for instance, the recent rhetoric of John Bolton, former Bush-era State Department official and ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton, now a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, recently argued in the Wall Street Journal that JCPOA was not worth saving, stating that Iran’s compliance and certification are not the issue. The issue instead, he states, is “whether we will protect US interests and shatter the illusion that Mr. Obama’s deal is achieving its stated goals, or instead timidly hope for the best while trading with the enemy, as the Europeans are doing.”
> 
> Bolton’s op-ed essentially calls for a rejection of diplomacy – something the Trump administration has already done in North Korea’s case – and resurrects “weapons of mass destruction” claims targeting the Iranian government. For instance, Bolton makes the bizarre speculative assertion that “even US intelligence could be in the dark if Iran is renting a uranium enrichment facility under a North Korean mountain.” In other words, Bolton asserts that – deal or no deal, monitoring or no monitoring – the Iranians cannot be trusted.
> 
> This, of course, is hardly surprising coming from Bolton – one of the great champions of the “weapons of mass destruction” myth that led to the US invasion of Iraq. Indeed it was Bolton who orchestrated the firing of the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in order to hide the shaky foundation upon which the WMD narrative was based. Despite the fact that such weapons were never discovered, that an estimated half a million Iraqi civilians died, and that the conflict spawned the rise of Daesh (ISIS) in Iraq, Bolton has boasted that he has “no regrets” about promoting the Iraq War, and argues that the “worst decision” made post-invasion was the withdrawal of US and coalition forces in 2011.
> 
> *Push to end Iran accord echoes WMD campaign of 2003*
> 
> Though one could argue, based on the above, that Bolton merely wishes to do away with the agreement and isn’t pushing for war per se, his past arguments against the Iran deal show that war with Iran is what Bolton ultimately seeks. In a March 2015 editorial published in The New York Times, Bolton argued that, in order to stop Iran from theoretically being able to develop a nuclear bomb, the US must bomb Iran – a nation of 80 million people. Bolton warned in his op-ed that “time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.”
> 
> However, when Bolton’s plan for a US unilateral strike against Iran was thwarted by JPCOA, he then chose to argue that the only way to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons would be a unilateral strike against Iran conducted by Israel. Either way, to Bolton, the only solution is war with Iran.
> 
> The Trump administration, which has hinted in recent weeks that it is likely to annul JPCOA, is actively considering a plan drafted by Bolton regarding how the US could exit the plan. The Bolton plan, published in the National Review, essentially calls for staging a propaganda campaign for domestic and international audiences to convince them that the US is “right” to withdraw from the agreement.
> 
> In other words, it suggests the creation of a massive PR spectacle similar to the “weapons of mass destruction” narrative that preceded Iraq. Bolton’s plan also calls for ending all visas for Iranians – including student visas – as well as supporting Kurdish national aspirations in Iraq, Syria and Iran.And it calls for “expediting the delivery of bunker-buster bombs,” bombs that the US has threatened to use against Iranian underground facilities in the past. They are the US military’s most destructive munitions, save for nuclear weapons.
> 
> The Bolton Plan has been backed by numerous other architects of the Iraq War, including 45 “national security experts” who sent a letter to President Trump late last month calling for him to withdraw from the nuclear deal and to follow the plan penned by Bolton instead. One of these “expert” signatories is Douglas Feith, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy under Bush. Feith was allegedly the person who urged the Bush administration to make Saddam’s alleged WMDs the chief public rationale for an immediate invasion.
> 
> Another “expert” who signed the letter is General William Boykin (Ret.), who served as the United States Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence under Bush. Boykin, best known for likening the “War on Terrorism” and invasion of Iraq to “holy wars” between Christians and Muslims, was also implicated in the Abu Ghraib scandal, having been the brains behind a “secret operation” to turn the Iraqi prison into a facility similar to the infamous Guantanamo Bay.
> 
> *Decertification as “diplomacy,” neocons seek disruption*
> 
> Bolton, and the chorus of “national security experts” behind him, have not had their statements heavily scrutinized by the corporate press, despite their obvious and horrendous blunder that ultimately led to the invasion of Iraq. Instead, the only alternative given equal attention by top US publications has argued for the temporary decertification of the deal while its “worst” aspects are renegotiated.
> 
> For example, a recent article titled “How Trump Can Improve the Iran Deal” suggests that decertification would be a diplomatic approach that would still allow Trump to renegotiate the aspects of the deal that he and his administration find particularly troublesome. It argues that, after decertifying the agreement, the Trump administration can “fix” the agreement by imposing demands that Iran is unlikely to accept. Analysts have noted that such an approach is wishful thinking and would ultimately lead to the deal’s dissolution — and to war.
> 
> Mark Dubowitz, the article’s co-author, is the current CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a neo-conservative think tank known for its advocacy for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The foundation, for example, ran ads a year prior to the invasion that attempted to link Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat to Osama bin Laden.
> 
> Dubowitz, despite his calls for a “better deal” in this case, has been candid in the past that his ultimate goal is regime change in Iran. In 2012, he wrote in an article for Bloomberg that “the goal should be regime change in Iran, not stopping proliferation.” Then, in 2015 he argued that “the only way to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons was through a military strike.” Dubowitz’s “expertise” on Iran is also a mystery given that, prior to becoming CEO of the FDD, he worked for a venture capital firm and in the software industry.
> 
> Ultimately, it is hardly surprising that the same voices that pushed for the invasion of Iraq are now pushing for the end to JPCOA and for subsequent war with Iran. Part of the US’ and Israeli strategy in the Middle East, particularly following 9/11, has been based on toppling a string of governments – including Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria – and ending with Iran. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was merely a prelude to the ultimate goals of the neoconservatives and their supporters: regime change in Iran and all other nations in the region that are resistant to US-Israeli designs.
> 
> SOURCE


----------



## deepelemblues

The Iran deal should be decertified since Iran isn't adhering to it. 

Luap Nor should get back to having Lew Rockwell ghostwrite official Luap Nor newsletters about how the gays and the blacks are ruining America.


----------



## stevefox1200

The Ron Paul institute

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

There is more dignity in sourcing "my brain"


----------



## deepelemblues

stevefox1200 said:


> The Ron Paul institute
> 
> LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
> 
> There is more dignity in sourcing "my brain"


Yeah well your brain doesn't default to "IT WAS THE JEWS"

I hope it doesn't anyway


----------



## Adam Cool

Trump calling the Persian Gulf the Arabian Gulf created a hilarious Sperg out by Iranians 
its embarrassing for a guy of trump's Position to not know that its name, Most Arabic Countries even call it the Persian Gulf with the exception of the UAE and Saudis.


----------



## Miss Sally

RED30000 idk said:


> All Eminem did was expose his fake fans.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Eminem/comments/75ryqn/fake_fans/
> 
> People that have been listening to him for decades shouldn't be too surprised. He has always slandered sitting Presidents. Bill Clinton, Bush, and even Hillary. The only missing guy is Obama. He isn't left or right.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErYiNX3DJyc
> 
> This was just out of shape 40+ Marshall Mathers freestyling that "forgot how I wanted to start this" 2001 Shady or even Em would have slaughtered. (his other personas that make him seem like a hypocrite sometimes)
> 
> He's still right though. The President would rather get upset about football than real issues. Em isn't the face of America so him being homophobic never held any weight.
> 
> The "Rap is like a mountain white at top and black at bottom" people are some of the old fans that are really hurt about this.
> 
> I wonder which Em is going to show up on the Album.


I'm not a fan of his Political rap simply because it's not very entertaining, most Political stuff isn't interesting to me because what used to be parodies of Politics is actually how people are, it's sad.

I even have less respect for his Political rap because for a man who thrives on controversy and calling it like he sees it, he was silent when it came to Obama. He had decent points about Bush, Bill and Hillary and many others in Politics but Obama's presidency wasn't clean and despite Bill getting his dick sucked, his tenure at least on appearance is much cleaner than Obama's. 

He had 8 years to come up with something but instead he just acted like there was no President, pretty funny when talking heads are afraid to talk.


----------



## Cabanarama

Miss Sally said:


> I'm not a fan of his Political rap simply because it's not very entertaining, most Political stuff isn't interesting to me because what used to be parodies of Politics is actually how people are, it's sad.
> 
> I even have less respect for his Political rap because for a man who thrives on controversy and calling it like he sees it, he was silent when it came to Obama. He had decent points about Bush, Bill and Hillary and many others in Politics but Obama's presidency wasn't clean and despite Bill getting his dick sucked, his tenure at least on appearance is much cleaner than Obama's.
> 
> He had 8 years to come up with something but instead he just acted like there was no President, pretty funny when talking heads are afraid to talk.


WHen his biggest scandals included wearing a tan suit, asking for Dijon mustard on a burger, doing a fist pound with his wife, saluting with a cup of coffee in his hand, I would say that was a pretty clean presidency.
But he's black, so his tenure is automatically unclean because of his "appearance", right?


----------



## Miss Sally

Cabanarama said:


> WHen his biggest scandals included wearing a tan suit, asking for Dijon mustard on a burger, doing a fist pound with his wife, saluting with a cup of coffee in his hand, I would say that was a pretty clean presidency.
> But he's black, so his tenure is automatically unclean because of his "appearance", right?


Stop with the race baiting. Just stop. 

I seen you do this in another thread and it's such a piss poor deflection.

How about we start with Fast and Furious scandal, how about using the IRS to do his dirty work, let's point out his incidental funding of terrorism with shoddy deals in the Mid East or the fact that Obamacare was such a disaster.

Was he the worst President of all time? Hardly, but he wasn't good either and there is plenty to point out on why he wasn't good and one of those reasons isn't because he's black.

He's probably the most overly hyped President of all time but not the worst. Compared to Bill Clinton there isn't any reason not to target him, the reason Em didn't because he only attacks safe targets.

Now please take your Fox News level of race baiting and move along.


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> Stop with the race baiting. Just stop.
> 
> I seen you do this in another thread and it's such a piss poor deflection.
> 
> How about we start with Fast and Furious scandal, how about using the IRS to do his dirty work, let's point out his incidental funding of terrorism with shoddy deals in the Mid East or the fact that Obamacare was such a disaster.
> 
> Was he the worst President of all time? Hardly, but he wasn't good either and there is plenty to point out on why he wasn't good and one of those reasons isn't because he's black.
> 
> He's probably the most overly hyped President of all time but not the worst. Compared to Bill Clinton there isn't any reason not to target him, the reason Em didn't because he only attacks safe targets.
> 
> Now please take your Fox News level of race baiting and move along.


You forgot the spying. Don't forget the spying.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Keep the race baiting out of this.... don't make me start banning people from the thread.*


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stephen90 said:


> I figured someone would tell him before he made his speech and made himself look like an ass


Its called the US Virgin Islands. Guess everyone assumed they wouldn't need to tell him but Trump is even dumber than they thought.

Not to mention the person he was meeting Governor Kenneth Mapp, the word Governor is in his title.

But leave it to Trump to screw that up.


----------



## FriedTofu

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/918885859230875649
:ha


----------



## Stephen90

FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/918885859230875649
> :ha


I guess he forgot about the first amendment. Trumps still trying to milk the Christians I see.


----------



## FriedTofu

Stephen90 said:


> I guess he forgot about the first amendment. Trumps still trying to milk the Christians I see.


At least he's smart about who he is pandering to. These people come out in full force to vote.


----------



## Tater

FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/918885859230875649
> :ha





Stephen90 said:


> I guess he forgot about the first amendment. Trumps still trying to milk the Christians I see.


It's shocking, shocking I tell you, that people who reject science and talk to their imaginary friend are so easily milked.


----------



## Draykorinee

> “Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
> ― Napoléon Bonaparte


I always appreciated Obamas lack of focus on religion, not that he wasn't religious or didn't mention it just it never stood out.


----------



## RED30000 idk

Miss Sally said:


> I'm not a fan of his Political rap simply because it's not very entertaining, most Political stuff isn't interesting to me because what used to be parodies of Politics is actually how people are, it's sad.
> 
> I even have less respect for his Political rap because for a man who thrives on controversy and calling it like he sees it, he was silent when it came to Obama. He had decent points about Bush, Bill and Hillary and many others in Politics but Obama's presidency wasn't clean and despite Bill getting his dick sucked, his tenure at least on appearance is much cleaner than Obama's.
> 
> He had 8 years to come up with something but instead he just acted like there was no President, pretty funny when talking heads are afraid to talk.


Maybe Obama just didn't directly piss him off. Like I said he has made fun of everyone else. 

I really think Trumps twitter wars is what made him attack. 

Feb. was the first time He widely called Trump a bitch in a song with big sheen or whatever. So whatever Trump said in Jan. or Feb. is what pissed him off, and the incident with Kapernick made him take it further. 

If Trump wasn't on Twitter everyday I don't believe he would have even spit that freestyle. 

"but we better give obama props 'cause what we got in office now's a kamikaze"

That quote gives me reassurance that he was indifferent about him, and didn't give Obama props till someone worse came.


----------



## Vic Capri

This message is hidden because Cabanarama is on your ignore list.



> The only missing guy is Obama.


Eminem didn't want to lose a chunk of fan base for the obvious reason which is another reason why he's a sell out.

- Vic


----------



## DOPA

Eminem's rant on Trump was honestly embarrassing. I would have at least chuckled and appreciated it for what it was if it was creative and original but it was literally all the same talking points and insults we've heard about Trump for over a year now.

It's funny, Eminem used to be one of the people who would make fun of the establishment and point out all the ridiculousness and hypocrisy behind them. Now he is a part of them. It's pretty sad when you think about it. But once again it shows how nauseating and hyperbolic the reactions have been towards Trump. Yes, Hollywood and the Liberal elite hate Trump. We get it. But it is getting really annoying and nauseating.

It was annoying and irritating when Conservatives and Fox News constantly bashed Obama outside of actual policy discussion and it's the same this time with Trump. In fact I'd say it's worse this time around because most of the media loved Obama so to a certain extent you would have to look for the childish virtue signalling crap that was directed towards Obama, you could avoid seeing it. But with Trump it is absolutely everywhere and isn't avoidable.

It makes my head shake that Em has become one of those virtue signalling morons he used to rail against. How low he has fallen.




Vic Capri said:


> #PresidentTrump announced he will decertify the Iran nuclear deal! Another campaign promise fulfilled.
> 
> - Vic





Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/918897579873751040


Sorry Vic but I think Trump is making a big mistake with scrapping the Iran Deal.

Now did I think at the time or even think now that the Iran deal was a good one? Personally no. Obama in my opinion gave away far too much for what was essentially a flimsy deal which the Iranians could easily break. Not only that but the deal itself essentially gives Iran the chance for nuclear capability at a later date which was what the whole point of bringing Iran to the table was supposed to be about. So ultimately, it achieved very little.

However, a deal is a deal at the end of the day and it is that paper which at the moment hinges what little relationship the US has with the Iranians at this point. It would be in the best interests of the US for the deal to stand till at least the Iranians break a major component of the deal. They may have already but to my knowledge they have not yet. If the US wants to at least have a peaceful standing with Iran then Trump should respect the deal unless it is broken.

The major component of all of this is the relationship between the two countries is built on trust but verify. Trump by scrapping the deal and taking it off the table has more than likely broken what little trust Iran has with the United States and it would take a very long time for the US to get that back. This will mean more open hostility and a less stable relationship and therefore less stable international relations in the Middle East. This isn't a good thing whichever way you look at it.

It's a move that to me lacks a lot of insight and thought. Honestly, the area I've been most disappointed with Trump so far is foreign policy because it was the one area I thought he might undoubtedly be better than Hillary.





Cabanarama said:


> What a load of bullshit...
> He's not trying to "legalize inexpensive insurance".... *he's trying to get rid of protections that prevent consumers being preyed upon and fucked over by the medical and insurance industries.* And these "free market ideas" in regards to healthcare? Do you forget how much worse things were before the ACA was passed...
> Rates would only go up higher for most people. And if Rand Paul had his way and there was a total repeal of the ACA, 32 million would lose their coverage. If you consider that about 1 in 500 people who don't have proper medical coverage die every year because of it, which means 60,000 deaths a year. But hey, as long as millionaires and billionaires get to pay a little bit less in taxes, who cares how many are killed, right?
> If you want to make the argument that it's not the responsibility of the wealthy or the government to help or protect people, even if it's literally a life or death situation, that's one thing. But don't try to lie or buy into the lies that it's anything else that that.


There's one part in that post I particularly put in bold because there really is an irony of arguing that the executive order which is essentially Rand's legislative is going to fuck over the consumer when Obamacare has been the absolute worst piece of legislation for the consumer in the health insurance market since it's inception.

Obamacare has been an absolute disaster for the working and middle class. This year alone, insurance premiums have gone up on average by *25%.* That is an absolutely staggering figure considering the fact that is the average and that there are many states where the figure is much much higher. For example, Arizona this year alone has seen their insurance premiums go up by an absolutely gigantic *116%*. Obamacare premiums are especially going up more than the non-Obamacare counterparts due to the way the system is set up. This is something even politifact have confirmed who are very left leaning in US political terms.

And that isn't all: 

* Individual health plans have seen a 39% increase since 2014

* Family Premiums have gone up by 49% since 2014

* The average four-member family will spent over $14,300 on premiums this year alone.


Why is this happening? It's all due to how Obamacare has been set up.

You mentioned inexpensive insurance and this is exactly one of the major reasons why the insurance market has become essentially corporatist. The individual mandates that Obamacare have forced insurance companies to abide by has forced out insurance companies from being able to offer cheaper alternatives. This means income that insurance companies would have made through having a more varied offering of insurance plans have to somehow be recovered which has come in the form of raised prices. This has left smaller and medium sized insurance companies worse off and has allowed the bigger more corporate insurance companies to accumulate more of the market share. Obamacare essentially has been picking winners and losers and has been geared towards the bigger insurance companies. The big corporations Democrats and left wingers like you love to rage against have been the biggest beneficiaries since Obamacare has been implemented.

But the biggest reason why Obamacare has been so destructive isn't even the individual mandates which have been bad enough. It has been the Democrats insistence on trying to cover people with pre-existing conditions even if it's at the expense of everybody else. Obamacare's terrible attempt at covering everybody including people with pre-existing conditions has been the death spiral of Obamacare and the entire health insurance industry.

Now I know I'm probably heartless to you at this point but let me explain what I mean: Obamacare has essentially mandated that people with pre-existing conditions must be covered at an affordable rate. Of course those with pre-existing conditions are much more expensive to cover due to the risk and so the funding for these people has to come from somewhere. Obama had hoped that insurance companies could use the money being paid by healthy people along with subsidies in order to cover those with pre-existing conditions. However due to the raised prices of insurance as the individual mandates have forced insurance companies to cover more in all of their plans, not enough healthy people are buying insurance. This has left a huge hole for insurance companies in order to fill and so insurance premiums have had to keep increasing. This is the main reason why insurance premiums have gone up so high.

Young healthy people especially aren't buying their own insurance for a number of reasons: they are often earning less money as they are at the start of their working life so it is too expensive for one. And secondly, Obamacare again by mandate essentially encouraged younger adults to stay on their parents insurance till their 26. To top it all off, Obama also legislated a fine for those who don't buy insurance which of course is incredibly compassionate and caring towards the poor HA ) and the fines themselves are cheaper than the cost of the insurance. So people instead of buying insurance before they are sick are waiting until they are sick to buy insurance, knowing that the costs will be subsidized and that premiums are going to keep skyrocketing. The consumer has already worked out there's no point in buying insurance healthy in today's Obamacare insurance model world.

This has essentially left many counties with only one provider of health insurance in an effective monopoly. Any economist who is worth their salt will tell you that monopoly is the absolute worst position for the consumer to find themselves in an economic market. It essentially gives the insurance companies carte blanche to charge whatever they want and they have the excuse to do it due to the problems of funding those with pre-existing conditions and because of the increased cost of providing insurance that fits within the Obamacare regulations and mandates.

Covering pre-existing conditions on the surface sounds like a noble goal and it's not that I'm saying it shouldn't be done but when you cover 20 million at the expense of 200+ million people then it's no longer a noble goal at all.

What amazes me is that this is absolutely the biggest corporate scam devised in the healthcare market, it has effectively:

* put many smaller and medium sized insurance companies out of business and increased the market share of the corporate insurance companies.

* Made insurance prices too high for young healthy people to buy.

* Is punishing poorer individuals and families for not having insurance by fining them.

Yet all I see is Democrat loyalists and leftists, those who say they are compassionate and care about the poor, the workers and middle class who defend this clearly corporatist policy where only the rich and the sick benefit. It is mind boggling :HA. 

All of this is important because it leads us to why Rand's proposal matters and why it is crucial. One of the last remaining virtues of the American health insurance market is group based employer provided health insurance. If you are lucky enough to be employed by a big company with lots of employees, then your employer will essentially negotiate on your behalf for the price of your insurance and with a bigger net pool and demand that the company has to offer, it means they can essentially bargain down the price of insurance to a decent price. Even in these hard times for the American healthcare market. 

But it does have it's problems, the biggest being if you get another job, leave your job or get fired then you lose your health insurance. This of course is not good because it's a very inflexible system which forces you to lose your health insurance even if you like it (I wonder what that reminds me of......bama.).

There are a couple of other relevant problems with the American healthcare market. The first is the individual market which is absolutely terrible, it was terrible before Obamacare and it is even worse now that we've seen insurance costs and premiums go rapidly skywards. If you are a pool of 1, you essentially have no bargaining power and if you are unlucky enough to live in a county with one provider then you essentially have no choice but to try and purchase from that company. And compared to group based insurance through employment the costs are huge.

The second problem is with Obamacare, those small businesses where every cent counts and where they are struggling to make ends meet have been hit incredibly hard by Obamacare due to the increased costs of insurance that have to abide by the Obamacare mandates and regulations. This has seen many businesses end up going bankrupt or cutting costs through either cutting hours and jobs. Small and Medium sized businesses have been some of the biggest victims of the Obamacare system and nothing has been done to fix the problem or to make their life easier. Again, so much for caring about the middle class...

So to summarize:

* If you have employment based insurance and leave the job for whatever reason you lose your insurance.

* If you are in the individual healthcare market, the costs are so enormous that either you are paying out an extortionate amount to cover yourself or you are better off not getting any insurance at all.

* Small and Medium sized businesses have suffered under the weight of trying to cover their employees with Obamacare, meaning they either go bankrupt or cut costs through hours or jobs.


Rand is one of the few who recognizes all of these problems.

His idea to try and help alleviate some of these problems is to allow individuals and small businesses to either join or form voluntary associations in a similar way to but *not tied* to employment in order to essentially consumer lobby the insurance companies to negotiate and lower prices.

And that is what is in this executive order.

It essentially takes what is already a good but flawed aspect of the insurance market and extends it to individuals and to smaller businesses who are struggling to cover themselves and their employees. Anyone who knows the benefits of employer based insurance not only in the US but also in places like Holland and Switzerland would know that this is not only a great but fantastic idea.

Would it solve all of the problems of the US healthcare market? Of course not. There are too many to begin with and as we have seen, Congress have struggled to even to repeal Obamacare due to the establishment Republicans yet alone come up with a plan everyone can agree on. And yes I blame the Republicans 100% for that.

But it essentially takes what is an almost monopolized industry and in which costs have spiraled out of control largely due to Obamacare and has given the consumer some resemblance of control and a lifeline out of having to settle for whatever insurance company is offering with their Obamacare plans. It gives individuals a chance to increase their bargaining power and gain better prices. What's better is that it's completely *voluntary* and not mandated like Obamacare. 

I know what the standard response from you and BM for example will be:

"We should have a medicare for all system instead of this!"

It would take too long to explain my thoughts on that and particularly Bernie's plan and this post is already very long. I am planning to do a post on it very soon. What I will say for now is that the only progressive talking point I agree with on it is that Obama could have very easily installed it when the Democrats had a super majority in Congress early on in Obama's presidency.

Instead he settled for the *establishment Republican plan* which you are now defending despite it's disastrous effects. But that's partisan politics for you .


----------



## Goku

statists don't like other religions. what a shock :lmao


----------



## stevefox1200

L-DOPA, you have a far more optimistic view of the health care executive action than I do

I think he wants to crash the health care industry, blame Obama and then implement his polices while they are weak

Its like how some "special" people on this forum preach for a social collapse so they can rebuild it as their "utopia"


----------



## DOPA

stevefox1200 said:


> L-DOPA, you have a far more optimistic view of the health care executive action than I do
> 
> I think he wants to crash the health care industry, blame Obama and then implement his polices while they are weak
> 
> Its like how some "special" people on this forum preach for a social collapse so they can rebuild it as their "utopia"


I don't think that is the motive at all, at least on Rand's end. I don't think it's going to be a magic fix but I do think it's a positive step in the right direction.

I would have preferred if it didn't come through executive action to be honest with you but Congress's inaction with doing anything on healthcare hasn't left many alternatives.

We will see how it plays out.


----------



## Tater

L-DOPA said:


> Eminem's rant on Trump was honestly embarrassing.


2017 Eminem Is Basically Rachel Maddow In A Hoodie


----------



## birthday_massacre

L-DOPA said:


> There's one part in that post I particularly put in bold because there really is an irony of arguing that the executive order which is essentially Rand's legislative is going to fuck over the consumer when Obamacare has been the absolute worst piece of legislation for the consumer in the health insurance market since it's inception.


Obamacare made it so insurance companies cannot refuse giving someone insurance or skyrocket their premiums because they have a preexisting condition like they could do before and like Rand and Trump want to allow again.

Rands legislative is totally going to fuck over the consumer especially the ones with preexisting conditions. Trump and Rands's policy is going to be the absolute worst piece of legislation for the consumer in the health insurance market. Obamacare was not perfect, but it was not even close to being the worst since. 



L-DOPA said:


> Obamacare has been an absolute disaster for the working and middle class. *This year alone, insurance premiums have gone up on average by 25%*. That is an absolutely staggering figure considering the fact that is the average and that there are many states where the figure is much much higher. For example, Arizona this year alone has seen their insurance premiums go up by an absolutely gigantic 116%. Obamacare premiums are especially going up more than the non-Obamacare counterparts due to the way the system is set up. This is something even politifact have confirmed who are very left leaning in US political terms.
> 
> And that isn't all:
> 
> * Individual health plans have seen a 39% increase since 2014
> 
> * Family Premiums have gone up by 49% since 2014
> 
> * The average four-member family will spent over $14,300 on premiums this year alone.
> 
> 
> Why is this happening? It's all due to how Obamacare has been set up.


It's happening because Trump has said he is going to kill Obama and all its subsidies and he has already started doing that. He just killed subsidies that would help low-income families who can't afford insurance but don't qualify for Medicare, 

As for the states that went up higher, most of those states opted out of the Medicare expansion so of course for some people insurance will be higher in those states. 



L-DOPA said:


> You mentioned inexpensive insurance and this is exactly one of the major reasons why the insurance market has become essentially corporatist. The individual mandates that Obamacare have forced insurance companies to abide by has forced out insurance companies from being able to offer cheaper alternatives. This means income that insurance companies would have made through having a more varied offering of insurance plans have to somehow be recovered which has come in the form of raised prices. This has left smaller and medium sized insurance companies worse off and has allowed the bigger more corporate insurance companies to accumulate more of the market share. Obamacare essentially has been picking winners and losers and has been geared towards the bigger insurance companies. The big corporations Democrats and left wingers like you love to rage against have been the biggest beneficiaries since Obamacare has been implemented.


You don't understand how insurance works it seems. The way it works is the healthy help pay the costs for the sick then when the healthy get sick they are covered. That is the point of insurance. There is nothing wrong with the individual mandate making you buy medical insurance. You are forced to buy car insurance, and no one ever has an issue with that, even though most people never get into car accidents.

You keep claiming you would get more offerings if there was no mandate. What you would get is shit offerings, that don't cover anything, and you would just be throwing away your money because once you get sick, you would be put in the preexisting category and the next year you would be kicked off because you have a pre-existing condition now and you would be screwed.



L-DOPA said:


> But the biggest reason why Obamacare has been so destructive isn't even the individual mandates which have been bad enough. It has been the Democrats insistence on trying to cover people with pre-existing conditions even if it's at the expense of everybody else. Obamacare's terrible attempt at covering everybody including people with pre-existing conditions has been the death spiral of Obamacare and the entire health insurance industry.
> 
> Now I know I'm probably heartless to you at this point but let me explain what I mean: Obamacare has essentially mandated that people with pre-existing conditions must be covered at an affordable rate. Of course those with pre-existing conditions are much more expensive to cover due to the risk and so the funding for these people has to come from somewhere. Obama had hoped that insurance companies could use the money being paid by healthy people along with subsidies in order to cover those with pre-existing conditions. However due to the raised prices of insurance as the individual mandates have forced insurance companies to cover more in all of their plans, not enough healthy people are buying insurance. This has left a huge hole for insurance companies in order to fill and so insurance premiums have had to keep increasing. This is the main reason why insurance premiums have gone up so high.


Again you don't understand how insurance works like I said the whole point is for people that are healthy to hel[ pay for the sick than when you get sick, you are covered by healthy people. But yes you are right democrats don't want to see people die because they can't get health insurance, unlike Republicans. 

Insurance should cover everything in their plans, it's a joke you would even claim that is a negative. A real death spiral is no covering people with preexisting conditions and just letting them die not having healthy people help pay for their coverage.




L-DOPA said:


> Young healthy people especially aren't buying their own insurance for a number of reasons: they are often earning less money as they are at the start of their working life so it is too expensive for one. And secondly, Obamacare again by mandate essentially encouraged younger adults to stay on their parents insurance till their 26. To top it all off, Obama also legislated a fine for those who don't buy insurance which of course is incredibly compassionate and caring towards the poor ( ) and the fines themselves are cheaper than the cost of the insurance. So people instead of buying insurance before they are sick are waiting until they are sick to buy insurance, knowing that the costs will be subsidized and that premiums are going to keep skyrocketing. The consumer has already worked out there's no point in buying insurance healthy in today's Obamacare insurance model world.


You totally lose me here. You say young people aren't buying their own insurance because they are starting their work life and too experience but then you also bash how they can stay on their parent's insurance till they are 26. So by 26 they should be able to afford their own insurance. 

You should be fined for not having insurance, just like car insurance. If healthy people are not paying into the system then there won't be any money to help pay for the sick. Again that is the whole point of insurance, something that seems to keep going over your head.

You should have to buy insurance before you are sick , you need to pay into the system so get something out of it on the back end when you get sick. I see what you want, and you talk about democrats wanting handouts LOL. You want to not be able to pay for insurance when you are healthy but once you get sick, you think you should be able to buy insurance and be covered but that makes you a hypocrite because you dont think you should have to pay for people with preexisting conditions, but I guess just when you have one, its ok right?

As for the fine for the poor, under Obamacare the poor get cheaper insurance since its subsidized but Trump and Rand are taking that away under their plans, and with Trumps EO last week, has already started doing that. 






L-DOPA said:


> This has essentially left many counties with only one provider of health insurance in an effective monopoly. Any economist who is worth their salt will tell you that monopoly is the absolute worst position for the consumer to find themselves in an economic market. It essentially gives the insurance companies carte blanche to charge whatever they want and they have the excuse to do it due to the problems of funding those with pre-existing conditions and because of the increased cost of providing insurance that fits within the Obamacare regulations and mandates.
> 
> Covering pre-existing conditions on the surface sounds like a noble goal and it's not that I'm saying it shouldn't be done but when you cover 20 million at the expense of 200+ million people then it's no longer a noble goal at all.
> 
> What amazes me is that this is absolutely the biggest corporate scam devised in the healthcare market, it has effectively:
> 
> * put many smaller and medium sized insurance companies out of business and increased the market share of the corporate insurance companies.
> 
> * Made insurance prices too high for young healthy people to buy.
> 
> * Is punishing poorer individuals and families for not having insurance by fining them.
> 
> Yet all I see is Democrat loyalists and leftists, those who say they are compassionate and care about the poor, the workers and middle class who defend this clearly corporatist policy where only the rich and the sick benefit. It is mind boggling .



Do you have any evidence that some counties only have one healthcare provider? Please show me that because when I look on my health connector, I have tons. I bet if there is one, its a red state.

Again with your comment *Coveing 20 million at the expense of 200+ million people then it's no longer a noble goal at all.* of course that is noble, again its how insurance is supposed to work. This really is a theme with you, you just don't understnad how insurance works. Using your logic, well why should you buy car insurance you don't get into accidents, why should you pay for other peoples accidents.

You are going to get sick at some point, or need some sort of operation at some point in your life, that is why you are paying into insurance now for when you get sick, then olthers will pay for you. not sure why people like you don't understand this. But the right is always selfish and dont wnat to help others, they just want something when it effects them.



L-DOPA said:


> All of this is important because it leads us to why Rand's proposal matters and why it is crucial. One of the last remaining virtues of the American health insurance market is group based employer provided health insurance. If you are lucky enough to be employed by a big company with lots of employees, then your employer will essentially negotiate on your behalf for the price of your insurance and with a bigger net pool and demand that the company has to offer, it means they can essentially bargain down the price of insurance to a decent price. Even in these hard times for the American healthcare market.
> 
> But it does have it's problems, the biggest being if you get another job, leave your job or get fired then you lose your health insurance. This of course is not good because it's a very inflexible system which forces you to lose your health insurance even if you like it (I wonder what that reminds me of.......).
> 
> There are a couple of other relevant problems with the American healthcare market. The first is the individual market which is absolutely terrible, it was terrible before Obamacare and it is even worse now that we've seen insurance costs and premiums go rapidly skywards. If you are a pool of 1, you essentially have no bargaining power and if you are unlucky enough to live in a county with one provider then you essentially have no choice but to try and purchase from that company. And compared to group based insurance through employment the costs are huge.
> 
> The second problem is with Obamacare, those small businesses where every cent counts and where they are struggling to make ends meet have been hit incredibly hard by Obamacare due to the increased costs of insurance that have to abide by the Obamacare mandates and regulations. This has seen many businesses end up going bankrupt or cutting costs through either cutting hours and jobs. Small and Medium sized businesses have been some of the biggest victims of the Obamacare system and nothing has been done to fix the problem or to make their life easier. Again, so much for caring about the middle class...
> 
> So to summarize:
> 
> * If you have employment based insurance and leave the job for whatever reason you lose your insurance.
> 
> * If you are in the individual healthcare market, the costs are so enormous that either you are paying out an extortionate amount to cover yourself or you are better off not getting any insurance at all.
> 
> * Small and Medium sized businesses have suffered under the weight of trying to cover their employees with Obamacare, meaning they either go bankrupt or cut costs through hours or jobs.
> 
> 
> Rand is one of the few who recognizes all of these problems.
> 
> His idea to try and help alleviate some of these problems is to allow individuals and small businesses to either join or form voluntary associations in a similar way to but not tied to employment in order to essentially consumer lobby the insurance companies to negotiate and lower prices.
> 
> And that is what is in this executive order.
> 
> It essentially takes what is already a good but flawed aspect of the insurance market and extends it to individuals and to smaller businesses who are struggling to cover themselves and their employees. Anyone who knows the benefits of employer based insurance not only in the US but also in places like Holland and Switzerland would know that this is not only a great but fantastic idea.
> 
> Would it solve all of the problems of the US healthcare market? Of course not. There are too many to begin with and as we have seen, Congress have struggled to even to repeal Obamacare due to the establishment Republicans yet alone come up with a plan everyone can agree on. And yes I blame the Republicans 100% for that.
> 
> But it essentially takes what is an almost monopolized industry and in which costs have spiraled out of control largely due to Obamacare and has given the consumer some resemblance of control and a lifeline out of having to settle for whatever insurance company is offering with their Obamacare plans. It gives individuals a chance to increase their bargaining power and gain better prices. What's better is that it's completely voluntary and not mandated like Obamacare.
> 
> I know what the standard response from you and BM for example will be:
> 
> "We should have a medicare for all system instead of this!"
> 
> It would take too long to explain my thoughts on that and particularly Bernie's plan and this post is already very long. I am planning to do a post on it very soon. What I will say for now is that the only progressive talking point I agree with on it is that Obama could have very easily installed it when the Democrats had a super majority in Congress early on in Obama's presidency.
> 
> Instead, he settled for the establishment Republican plan which you are now defending despite its disastrous effects. But that's partisan politics for you


Rand does not give a shit about anyone, his plan is a disaster and will fuck over everyone.

All Rands plan does is let healthy people buy cheap shit insurance that won't cover anything, and would have sky high deductibles, and once someone gets sick they will get kicked off their plan and not be able to get insurance because they now have a preexisting condition. 

Not to mention this whole selling across state lines BS, will make insurance even more of a joke and cover even less, because insurance companies will run to the state with the least regulations, then good luck finding a DR in your out of state network. 


And yes we should do Medicare for all because it works, as for me defending Obamacare, i have never defended it, i just think Trump and Rands plan is way worse. I like parts of Obamacare but those are the parts that are also in Medicare for all. If I designed obamacare so much why would i want medicare for all?

If you want to say me not wanting something worse and would rather keep obamacare than Trumpcare or Randcare, then sure call that defending.

But medicare for all is what I want.


----------



## Stephen90

FriedTofu said:


> At least he's smart about who he is pandering to. These people come out in full force to vote.


Of course Trump knows Christians are gullible in shit.


----------



## Empress

I'm not the biggest Eminem fan but appreciate him blasting Trump. I was all for it. President Obama wasn't perfect but in comparison to Trump, he may as well have been. Trump is purposefully sabotaging Obamacare, interfering in private business with demands of forced patriotism (NFL), telling Puerto Rico that they are on limited time to recover from a hurricane while emboldening the Christian right to impose their morality on workers (birth control mandate/LGBTQ protection). Trump doesn't pause to care how his actions impact those outside his base. If Eminem getting under his skin is the only recourse to allow him a taste of what many in this country feel, so be it. He has poisoned the well. 

Rand Paul is also a hypocrite. He, Trump and the Republican establishment loathed Obama issuing executive orders. So much so that Republicans filed suit. Now they are the biggest advocates of it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Love Jones said:


> I'm not the biggest Eminem fan but appreciate him blasting Trump. I was all for it. President Obama wasn't perfect but in comparison to Trump, he may as well have been. Trump is purposefully sabotaging Obamacare, interfering in private business with demands of forced patriotism (NFL), *telling Puerto Rico that they are on limited time to recover from a hurricane* while emboldening the Christian right to impose their morality on workers (birth control mandate/LGBTQ protection). Trump doesn't pause to care how his actions impact those outside his base. If Eminem getting under his skin is the only recourse to allow him a taste of what many in this country feel, so be it.


to add onto the bolded part, while at the same time telling TX and FL he will give them all the time and attention they need to recover for as long as it takes.


----------



## Stephen90

birthday_massacre said:


> to add onto the bolded part, while at the same time telling TX and FL he will give them all the time and attention they need to recover for as long as it takes.


A lot of his supporters are in Texas and Florida are course he'll take care of them before he does Puerto Rico.


----------



## birthday_massacre

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/...-450896233.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_CTBrand

Pro-Trump States Most Affected by His Health Care Decision

An estimated 4 million people were benefiting from the cost-sharing payments in the 30 states Trump carried

President Donald Trump's decision to end a provision of the Affordable Care Act that was benefiting roughly 6 million Americans helps fulfill a campaign promise, but it also risks harming some of the very people who helped him win the presidency.
Nearly 70 percent of those benefiting from the so-called cost-sharing subsidies live in states Trump won last November, according to an analysis by The Associated Press. The number underscores the political risk for Trump and his party, which could end up owning the blame for increased costs and chaos in the insurance marketplace.

The subsidies are paid to insurers by the federal government to help lower consumers' deductibles and co-pays. People who benefit will continue receiving the discounts because insurers are obligated by law to provide them. But to make up for the lost federal funding, health insurers will have to raise premiums substantially, potentially putting coverage out of reach for many consumers.
Some insurers may decide to bail out of markets altogether.

Trump Promises Push on Health Care Reform[NATL] Trump Promises Push on Health Care Reform

President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order allowing small businesses to buy health insurance plans that may not meet Obamacare standards as a way to push through health care reform with lower-premium plans. Speaking in Harrisburg, Penn., on Wednesday, Trump also directed an order to Congress, telling lawmakers that his proposed t... Read more(Published Thursday, Oct. 12, 2017)
"I woke up, really, in horror," said Alice Thompson, 62, an environmental consultant from the Milwaukee area who purchases insurance on Wisconsin's federally run health insurance exchange.
Thompson, who spoke with reporters on a call organized by a health care advocacy group, said she expects to pay 30 percent to 50 percent more per year for her monthly premium, potentially more than her mortgage payment. Officials in Wisconsin, a state that went for a Republican presidential candidate for the first time in decades last fall, assumed the federal subsidy would end when they approved premium rate increases averaging 36 percent for the coming year.

An estimated 4 million people were benefiting from the cost-sharing payments in the 30 states Trump carried, according to an analysis of 2017 enrollment data from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Of the 10 states with the highest percentage of consumers benefiting from cost-sharing, all but one — Massachusetts — went for Trump.
Key Questions and Answers About Trump's Health Care Move
Kentucky embraced former President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act under its last governor, a Democrat, and posted some of the largest gains in getting its residents insured. Its new governor, a Republican, favors the GOP stance to replace it with something else.

Roughly half of the estimated 71,000 Kentuckians buying health insurance on the federal exchange were benefiting from the cost-sharing subsidies Trump just ended. Despite the gains from Obama's law, the state went for Trump last fall even as he vowed to repeal it.

Consumers such as Marsha Clark fear what will happen in the years ahead, as insurers raise premiums on everyone to make up for the end of the federal money that helped lower deductibles and co-pays.
Trump Signs Executive Order Re-Working Parts of Health Care[NATL] Trump Signs Executive Order Re-Working Parts of Health Care
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday, Oct. 12, 2017, seeking to expand insurance coverage across state lines through so-called association health plans. Those health plans will not exclude workers or charge more to those in poorer health, according to the White House.(Published Thursday, Oct. 12, 2017)
"I'm stressed out about the insurance, stressed out about the overall economy, and I'm very stressed out about our president," said Clark, a 61-year-old real estate broker who lives in a small town about an hour's drive south of Louisville. She pays $1,108 a month for health insurance purchased on the exchange.

While she earns too much to benefit from the cost-sharing subsidy, she is worried that monthly premiums will rise so high in the future that it will make insurance unaffordable.
Sherry Riggs has a similar fear. The Fort Pierce, Florida, barber benefits from the deductible and co-pay discounts, as do more than 1 million other Floridians, the highest number of cost-sharing beneficiaries of any state.
Bannon on GOP Establishment: 'Nobody Can Run and Hide'

She had bypass surgery following a heart attack last year and pays just $10 a visit to see her cardiologist and only a few dollars for the medications she takes twice a day.
Her monthly premium is heavily subsidized by the federal government, but she worries about the cost soaring in the future. Florida, another state that swung for Trump, has approved rate increases averaging 45 percent.
"Probably for some people it would be a death sentence," she said. "I think it's kind of a tragic decision on the president's part. It scares me because I don't think I'll be able to afford it next year."
Trump Says Iran Deal Not in US National Security Interests[NATL] Trump Says Iran Deal Not in US National Security Interests
"We will not continue down a path whose predictable conclusion is more violence, more terror and the very real threat of Iran's nuclear breakout," President Donald Trump said on Friday, Oct. 13, 2017.(Published Friday, Oct. 13, 2017)

Rates already were rising in the immediate aftermath of Trump's decision. Insurance regulators in Arkansas, another state that went for Trump, approved premium increases on Friday ranging from 14 percent to nearly 25 percent for plans offered through the insurance marketplace. Had federal cost-sharing been retained, the premiums would have risen by no more than 10 percent.
In Mississippi, another state Trump won, an estimated 80 percent of consumers who buy coverage on the insurance exchange benefit from the deductible and co-pay discounts, the highest percentage of any state. Premiums there will increase by 47 percent next year, after regulators assumed Trump would end the cost-sharing payments.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners has estimated the loss of the subsidies would result in a 12 percent to 15 percent increase in premiums, while the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has put the figure at 20 percent. Experts say the political instability over Trump's effort to undermine Obama's health care law could prompt more insurers to leave markets, reducing competition and driving up prices.
How 'Obamacare' Cost-Sharing Subsidies Work

Trump's move concerned some Republicans, worried the party will be blamed for the effects on consumers and insurance markets.
"I think the president is ill-advised to take this course of action, because we, at the end of the day, will own this," Republican Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania said Friday on CNN. "We, the Republican Party, will own this."
Dent is not running for re-election.

President Trump Gets Big Reaction After He Says 'Huge'[NATL] President Trump Gets Big Reaction After He Says 'Huge'
President Trump received a big reaction after using one of his Trump-isms at a speech in Pennsylvania.(Published Wednesday, Oct. 11, 2017)
In announcing his decision, Trump argued the subsidies were payouts to insurance companies, and the government could not legally continue to make them. The subsidies have been the subject of an ongoing legal battle because the health care law failed to include a congressional appropriation, which is required before federal money can be spent.
The subsidies will cost about $7 billion this year.

Many Republicans praised Trump's action, saying Obama's law has led to a spike in insurance costs for those who have to buy policies on the individual market.
Trump Keeps US in Iran Nuke Deal, Tells Congress to Fix It
Among them is Republican Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona, a state Trump won. An estimated 78,000 Arizonans were benefiting from the federal subsidies for deductibles and co-pays.
"While his actions do not take the place of real legislative repeal and revitalization of free-market health care, he is doing everything possible to save Americans from crippling health care costs and decreasing quality of care," Biggs said.
Cassidy reported from Atlanta, Georgia. Hoyer, an AP data Associated Press writers Jeff Amy in Jackson, Mississippi; Scott Bauer in Madison, Wisconsin; Kelli Kennedy in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Philip Marcelo in Boston; and Kevin Vineys in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.


Source: Pro-Trump States Most Affected by His Health Care Decision - NBC Connecticut http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/...l?_osource=SocialFlowFB_CTBrand#ixzz4vVrfVmvE 
Follow us: @nbcconnecticut on Twitter | NBCConnecticut on Facebook


----------



## Miss Sally

RED30000 idk said:


> Maybe Obama just didn't directly piss him off. Like I said he has made fun of everyone else.
> 
> I really think Trumps twitter wars is what made him attack.
> 
> Feb. was the first time He widely called Trump a bitch in a song with big sheen or whatever. So whatever Trump said in Jan. or Feb. is what pissed him off, and the incident with Kapernick made him take it further.
> 
> If Trump wasn't on Twitter everyday I don't believe he would have even spit that freestyle.
> 
> "but we better give obama props 'cause what we got in office now's a kamikaze"
> 
> That quote gives me reassurance that he was indifferent about him, and didn't give Obama props till someone worse came.


Could very well be, but again some of the scandals mentioned are far worse than Billy boy or Hilldawg ever did, well until recently. They were never liked so, again easy targets. You'd think with him taking offense to minor things done by the people he's gone after that he'd say something but then again his "controversy" has always been overblown.

I do have to laugh at Olbermann and other talking heads praising Em for his Trump rap while just a few years ago getting all irate at his homophobic and hard lyrics. I guess that all can be forgiven, it's not like he's changed.

It's funny, there have been plenty of black rappers way before Em talking about the Government, corruption, Police brutality and how hard it is growing up in poor and gang infested areas.. yet none of these people ever paid attention. :laugh:


----------



## Empress

Miss Sally said:


> *I do have to laugh at Olbermann and other talking heads praising Em for his Trump rap while just a few years ago getting all irate at his homophobic and hard lyrics. I guess that all can be forgiven, it's not like he's changed.
> 
> It's funny, there have been plenty of black rappers way before Em talking about the Government, corruption, Police brutality and how hard it is growing up in poor and gang infested areas.. yet none of these people ever paid attention.* :laugh:


I agree with this 100%. Olberman was rightfully criticized for being tone deaf to what other rappers, especially Black ones, have said for years in regards to the government. Raise the bar, Keith. I enjoyed Em's freestyle for the pettiness of it all, not because I hadn't heard it all before. 


I'm a liberal but one thing that annoys me about the resistance movement is assigning Trump blame/credit for everything. Society has been tearing apart at its fabric for a while and Trump did not encourage all people to suddenly become involved or "woke". I'm beginning to hate the latter word since it's become so bastardized but it's the one flung around the most.


----------



## Draykorinee

Too many wall of texts guys. Ain't nobody got time for that.


----------



## DOPA

birthday_massacre said:


> Obamacare made it so insurance companies cannot refuse giving someone insurance or skyrocket their premiums because they have a preexisting condition like they could do before and like Rand and Trump want to allow again.


Yes Obamacare made it so that those with pre-existing conditions cannot be refused or skyrocket their premiums but in the process, premiums have skyrocketed for everybody else. Hence why I stated the 20 million vs 200 million argument. I'm not against covering those with pre-existing conditions but the way in which Obamacare has been doing it clearly isn't working.

I don't want government legislation picking winners and losers, where the rich and the sick benefit but working individuals and families lose out. That is what has been happening.

And again, Obamacare has been terrible for workers. This is an undeniable truth: https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...an-worker-wages-under-obamacare/#4178b86afe7e



> Regrettably, not a word was mentioned about health care in last night's face-off between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Last time I checked, Americans were far more concerned about health care than they were about tangential issues such as birtherism or whether Donald Trump has released his tax returns. So hopefully the radio silence on such a critical issue will be rectified in future debates.
> 
> Obamacare continues to be a slow-motion train wreck. An analysis by Charles Gaba (an ACA supporter) shows that average premium increases in the non-group market will average 24% for 2017. Last month's decision by Aetna AET -0.93% (the nation's third largest insurer) to dump 80% of its Obamacare subscribers for 2017 came on the heels of the decision by UnitedHealth (the nation's largest health insurer) to likewise cut back enormously on its participation in the Obamacare exchanges (3 states in 2017 vs. 34 states this year). Yet another of the nation's "big 5" health insurers, Humana HUM -1.54%, will offer coverage in just 156 counties in 2017, 88 percent fewer than this year.
> 
> Unfortunately, Obamacare enthusiasts cannot look to the employer market for health coverage for good news. As I reported last fall, there was no evidence that Obamacare had slowed down the rate of health insurance premium increases faced by workers relative to the rise in wages. Regrettably, the most recent version of the KFF/HRET Employer Health Benefits Survey confirms that this trend has continued. *For family health insurance policies--the ones most difficult for workers to afford in the first place--premiums continue to rise faster than wages.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it probably should not be a surprise to learn that last month a survey by the *Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that 20.9% of manufacturing firms in the state said they were employing fewer workers because of Obamacare, while 16.8% of respondents in the service sector said the same.
> *
> Obamacare's fiercest defenders dismiss these criticisms as overblown, pointing out that the risk of being uninsured is the lowest it's been in decades and that Medicaid expansion has been very successful in achieving this. But this Pollyannish view ignores the brutal reality that the per enrollee cost of the *Medicaid expansion is already 49% higher than originally projected by the Department of Health and Human Services just one year ago. Medicaid already had perverse incentives for states to waste money and crowd out other priorities such as education and criminal justice.* The Obamacare Medicaid expansion effectively put those perverse incentives on steroids, as a recent Mercatus Center analysis demonstrates in great detail.
> 
> In short, Obamacare is failing miserably across a variety of dimensions. Yet Hillary Clinton's answer is to double-down on Obamacare and expand it to more people--including illegal immigrants! [1] Donald Trump's answer is to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better--although he has not been very good about explaining what such a replacement plan might look like. In light of these sharp policy differences, Obamacare is a highly relevant campaign issue to workers and taxpayers alike. It merits a spirited presidential debate. Let's get to it.






birthday_massacre said:


> It's happening because Trump has said he is going to kill Obama and all its subsidies and he has already started doing that. He just killed subsidies that would help low-income families who can't afford insurance but don't qualify for Medicare.


That simply isn't true. There were predictions of this well before Trump took office this year: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37758742



> The cost of healthcare insurance in the US under the Affordable Care Act is expected to rise by an average of 25% in 2017, according to the government.
> 
> About one in five consumers will also only be able to pick plans from a single insurer, it said.
> 
> But it said federal subsidies will also rise, and about 70% of people will find plans for less than $75 (£61) a month.
> 
> Republican nominee Donald Trump vowed on Tuesday to repeal the law, which is known as Obamacare.
> 
> It is a major part of President Barack Obama's legacy, and his signature piece of legislation.
> 
> "Obamacare is just blowing up," said Mr Trump, who has promised his own plan would deliver "great healthcare at a fraction of the cost".
> 
> The enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 mandated that every American had to purchase private insurance, and prohibited insurers from turning away the sick. It also provided subsidies.
> But Republicans want to repeal it.
> 
> According to the report from the Department of Health and Human Services, for a 27-year-old consumer, in the prime age group sought by insurers, the average monthly premium for a benchmark plan would be $302 next year, up from $242 this year.
> 
> The average increase of 25% in benchmark premiums on the federal exchange compares with increases of 2% in 2015 and 7% this year.
> Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has said she supports the Affordable Care Act, but has denounced "skyrocketing out-of-pocket health costs", saying the federal government should have the power to block or modify unreasonable rate increases.


And even if it weren't predicted well before Trump came to office, it still wouldn't be true. The reason why premiums have skyrocketed is because of the reinsurance and risk corridors put into the system which didn't work out as intended. Politifact illustrates this clearly: 

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...g-paul-ryan-claim-obamacare-premium-increase/



> Obamacare premiums are rising far more in part because of several mechanisms built into the healthcare law that have ended or not worked as intended — reinsurance and risk corridors.
> 
> Both were set up as temporary measures from 2014 to 2016 to subsidize the marketplace, artificially keeping prices low.
> 
> Reinsurance was designed to reduce the incentive for insurers to charge higher premiums to higher-cost policyholders in the first years of Obamacare, which was accomplished by transferring funds to the plans for those policyholders.
> 
> Risk corridors were designed to transfer money from profitable insurers to those losing money on the ACA exchange, discourage insurers from setting high premiums due to the uncertainty of the new market.
> 
> They were originally pitched as a mechanism that would bring in money, then as one that would break even. *But the latest data shows in 2015 claims from insurers for payment through the program outweighed the money paid in by $5.8 billion, so the expected funds weren’t available to redistribute*.
> 
> Now that the programs have ended as designed, premiums are rising to more closely match what it actually costs insurers to offer plans in the marketplace.


Essentially Obama tried to game the market through temporary provisions and didn't come close to the level of funding he expected and so now the redistribution isn't there to artificially keep the prices down, so now the premiums are operating at what it actually costs to offer the mandated plans. Simply put, it is a long time viable solution and it is showing with the outcomes.






birthday_massacre said:


> You don't understand how insurance works it seems. The way it works is the healthy help pay the costs for the sick then when the healthy get sick they are covered. That is the point of insurance. There is nothing wrong with the individual mandate making you buy medical insurance. *You are forced to buy car insurance, and no one ever has an issue with that, even though most people never get into car accidents.*


In insurance models in other markets you don't have the option to opt into an insurance plan after going through what the insurance is supposed to cover. You can't get car insurance after a car crash and you can't get house insurance after your house is either burgled or set on fire. The comparison you use is false because you expect me to use the same logic for Obamacare when Obamacare explicitly mandates that insurers must cover people if they are sick even if they have no health insurance.

It's fine if you believe those people should be covered but don't use that line of argumentation to justify your position, it's not logically consistent and doesn't work.

I know how health insurance works. Much like house or car insurance, you are supposed to get the insurance before you fall ill to whatever it is covered in your plan. It is through consumers buying insurance that when you do fall sick, the costs are covered through the costs being paid by other people.

The problem with Obamacare is because it mandates that those with pre-existing conditions must be covered even if they had no previous health insurance and that their premiums must not skyrocket that the costs of covering these people becomes massive. So it must be covered some other way and subsidies just aren't going to cut in the long run because even the US government with all of it's frivolous spending has a budget to run on, so the premiums had to eventually increase significantly in order to cover the costs and that's exactly what it does.




birthday_massacre said:


> Insurance should cover everything in their plans, it's a joke you would even claim that is a negative. A real death spiral is no covering people with preexisting conditions and just letting them die not having healthy people help pay for their coverage.


It's a negative because it's negatively effecting the working and middle classes who in many cases are having to pay triple the premium in order to have some sort of health insurance. It is squeezing their income whilst giving them less choice on the market to choose from, lowering their options away from the government provided insurance.

Here's the *very pro-Trump CNN *explaining how Obamacare fails the working and middle class: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/04/opinion/atlas-obamacare-poor-middle-class/index.html



> Health care access for middle-class Americans is also significantly worsened by Obamacare's private insurance decrees.
> 
> The law already forced termination of health insurance for millions of Americans estimated as 4.7 million by the Associated Press -- insurance they personally had chosen to buy. The Congressional Budget Office now projects that a stunning 10 million Americans will be forced off their chosen employer-based health insurance by 2021 -- a tenfold increase in the number that was initially projected back in 2011, at the onset of the law.
> Along with that forced change of coverage, many suddenly find themselves without access to their chosen doctors.
> 
> Despite the assertion that the law increases insurance choices, the Obamacare exchanges do quite the opposite for those dependent on them and their government's subsidies. McKinsey reported 68% of Obamacare insurance options only cover narrow or very narrow provider networks, double that of the previous year.




I have no issue with people with pre-existing conditions but I don't want to see individuals and families struggling and making them poorer in the process. There has to be a better way than that (inb4 medicare for all).




birthday_massacre said:


> You totally lose me here. You say young people aren't buying their own insurance because they are starting their work life and too experience but then you also bash how they can stay on their parent's insurance till they are 26. So by 26 they should be able to afford their own insurance.


I'm not bashing young adults for taking advantage of the situation and staying on their parents insurance if it is economically the right move for them. 

I'm bashing the policy makers who want to have enough people on insurance to cover people with pre-existing conditions yet make it harder for enough people to be on insurance due to having the individual mandates which have contributed to making insurance on the whole more expensive and decreasing competition whilst giving incentive for more young people to not buy insurance to cover the costs of the sick.

There's no logic here policy wise, economics are all about incentives. If your incentive is to cover those with pre-existing conditions, why would you advocate for policies in which not only make insurance more expensive but also encourage more young people to not get insurance of their own? Again I'm not bashing young people (I'm in my 20's myself :lol), I'm bashing the policy.





birthday_massacre said:


> You should be fined for not having insurance, just like car insurance. If healthy people are not paying into the system then there won't be any money to help pay for the sick. Again that is the whole point of insurance, something that seems to keep going over your head.
> 
> *You should have to buy insurance before you are sick* , you need to pay into the system so get something out of it on the back end when you get sick. I see what you want, and you talk about democrats wanting handouts LOL. You want to not be able to pay for insurance when you are healthy but once you get sick, you think you should be able to buy insurance and be covered but that makes you a hypocrite because you dont think you should have to pay for people with preexisting conditions, but I guess just when you have one, its ok right?


First of all it's amusing that you say you should have to buy insurance before you get sick when you want those with pre-exisiting conditions and those who are sick to be able to buy health insurance.

Secondly, no, that's not what I want. My whole point is that the policies and incentives in Obamacare is encouraging people to not buy health insurance because it's too expensive and that it would be cheaper for them to wait until they are sick because they will be subsidized so that the payment is cheaper.

You completely missed my point and didn't understand at all why I pointed those things out.



birthday_massacre said:


> Do you have any evidence that some counties only have one healthcare provider? Please show me that because when I look on my health connector, I have tons. I bet if there is one, its a red state.





















Should have clarified that I mean't Obamacare providers. My bad.



birthday_massacre said:


> Again with your comment *Coveing 20 million at the expense of 200+ million people then it's no longer a noble goal at all.* of course that is noble, again its how insurance is supposed to work. This really is a theme with you, you just don't understnad how insurance works. Using your logic, well why should you buy car insurance you don't get into accidents, why should you pay for other peoples accidents.


Again, using a false comparison. You can't buy car insurance after an accident but under Obamacare, you can buy insurance when you are sick. My problem is that again, using the evidence I have provided in this thread, working and middle class individuals and families are being negatively effected by Obamacare. 

Once again, it's amazing you insinuate that I am selfish when I am arguing for the interests of the majority of people. I don't want working and middle class families to end up being poorer due to government insurance plans and that's exactly what is happening.

It's not about denying those with pre-existing conditions but not doing it in a way that picks winners and losers.

I'll have to post my thoughts on medicare for all sometime this week .


----------



## Tater

Health insurance, should not, be a for-profit industry. Full stop.

Now, I am open to debate on what would be the most efficient way to provide healthcare insurance. We should be striving to achieve a system that covers every citizen for the least amount of cost possible. We should be looking at other healthcare systems around the world, seeing what works best, and implementing it. If there is room for improvement, we should be open to that as well. We shouldn't lock ourselves into a system that does not allow for changes to it to increase efficiency and lower costs. Maybe a national system would work best. Maybe systems run by each individual state would be best. Maybe state systems with federal support would be best. Maybe 5 or 6 regional systems would be best. I am open to whatever anyone can come up with that is going to be the best system possible.

However, every single conversation revolving around healthcare should start with the basic premise that we shouldn't be deciding who does and doesn't get healthcare based on their ability to pay. You know what should be for-profit? Cars and couches and shoes and shampoo and cell phones and etc, because you're not going to prematurely fucking die if you don't get those things. You know what will cause premature death? Not getting proper healthcare because you do not have enough money. 

Fuck you if you think money is worth more than life. I sincerely mean that from the bottom of my heart. Not every fucking thing in life needs to be a for-profit industry. The USA isn't going to break out in a bad case of the commies if we provide such a basic and valuable service to our citizens.


----------



## birthday_massacre

L-DOPA said:


> Yes Obamacare made it so that those with pre-existing conditions cannot be refused or skyrocket their premiums but in the process, premiums have skyrocketed for everybody else. Hence why I stated the 20 million vs 200 million argument. I'm not against covering those with pre-existing conditions but the way in which Obamacare has been doing it clearly isn't working.
> 
> I don't want government legislation picking winners and losers, where the rich and the sick benefit but working individuals and families lose out. That is what has been happening.
> 
> And again, Obamacare has been terrible for workers. This is an undeniable truth: https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...an-worker-wages-under-obamacare/#4178b86afe7e
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That simply isn't true. There were predictions of this well before Trump took office this year: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37758742
> 
> 
> 
> And even if it weren't predicted well before Trump came to office, it still wouldn't be true. The reason why premiums have skyrocketed is because of the reinsurance and risk corridors put into the system which didn't work out as intended. Politifact illustrates this clearly:
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...g-paul-ryan-claim-obamacare-premium-increase/
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially Obama tried to game the market through temporary provisions and didn't come close to the level of funding he expected and so now the redistribution isn't there to artificially keep the prices down, so now the premiums are operating at what it actually costs to offer the mandated plans. Simply put, it is a long time viable solution and it is showing with the outcomes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In insurance models in other markets you don't have the option to opt into an insurance plan after going through what the insurance is supposed to cover. You can't get car insurance after a car crash and you can't get house insurance after your house is either burgled or set on fire. The comparison you use is false because you expect me to use the same logic for Obamacare when Obamacare explicitly mandates that insurers must cover people if they are sick even if they have no health insurance.
> 
> It's fine if you believe those people should be covered but don't use that line of argumentation to justify your position, it's not logically consistent and doesn't work.
> 
> I know how health insurance works. Much like house or car insurance, you are supposed to get the insurance before you fall ill to whatever it is covered in your plan. It is through consumers buying insurance that when you do fall sick, the costs are covered through the costs being paid by other people.
> 
> The problem with Obamacare is because it mandates that those with pre-existing conditions must be covered even if they had no previous health insurance and that their premiums must not skyrocket that the costs of covering these people becomes massive. So it must be covered some other way and subsidies just aren't going to cut in the long run because even the US government with all of it's frivolous spending has a budget to run on, so the premiums had to eventually increase significantly in order to cover the costs and that's exactly what it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a negative because it's negatively effecting the working and middle classes who in many cases are having to pay triple the premium in order to have some sort of health insurance. It is squeezing their income whilst giving them less choice on the market to choose from, lowering their options away from the government provided insurance.
> 
> Here's the *very pro-Trump CNN *explaining how Obamacare fails the working and middle class: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/04/opinion/atlas-obamacare-poor-middle-class/index.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no issue with people with pre-existing conditions but I don't want to see individuals and families struggling and making them poorer in the process. There has to be a better way than that (inb4 medicare for all).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not bashing young adults for taking advantage of the situation and staying on their parents insurance if it is economically the right move for them.
> 
> I'm bashing the policy makers who want to have enough people on insurance to cover people with pre-existing conditions yet make it harder for enough people to be on insurance due to having the individual mandates which have contributed to making insurance on the whole more expensive and decreasing competition whilst giving incentive for more young people to not buy insurance to cover the costs of the sick.
> 
> There's no logic here policy wise, economics are all about incentives. If your incentive is to cover those with pre-existing conditions, why would you advocate for policies in which not only make insurance more expensive but also encourage more young people to not get insurance of their own? Again I'm not bashing young people (I'm in my 20's myself :lol), I'm bashing the policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all it's amusing that you say you should have to buy insurance before you get sick when you want those with pre-exisiting conditions and those who are sick to be able to buy health insurance.
> 
> Secondly, no, that's not what I want. My whole point is that the policies and incentives in Obamacare is encouraging people to not buy health insurance because it's too expensive and that it would be cheaper for them to wait until they are sick because they will be subsidized so that the payment is cheaper.
> 
> You completely missed my point and didn't understand at all why I pointed those things out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should have clarified that I mean't Obamacare providers. My bad.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, using a false comparison. You can't buy car insurance after an accident but under Obamacare, you can buy insurance when you are sick. My problem is that again, using the evidence I have provided in this thread, working and middle class individuals and families are being negatively effected by Obamacare.
> 
> Once again, it's amazing you insinuate that I am selfish when I am arguing for the interests of the majority of people. I don't want working and middle class families to end up being poorer due to government insurance plans and that's exactly what is happening.
> 
> It's not about denying those with pre-existing conditions but not doing it in a way that picks winners and losers.
> 
> I'll have to post my thoughts on medicare for all sometime this week .



I am not going to quote each post vs. post since that is too much work, unless there is a simple way of doing it and I just do it wrong by dong it manually loll.

The way Trump and Rand want healthcare that is only going to benefit the rich and screw over the poor and middle class. So if you really want it so the rich don’t benefit at the expense of the middle class and poor not sure why you are backing Trump and Rand when its fucking over the poor and middle class.

Yes it is true, because the whole GOP thing is to kill Obamacare, that is what their plan has always been, they were getting ready for if and when a republican got into office and it happened. And sure enough Trump is doing everything he can to kill Obama care. Since he couldn't get the votes now he is doing it by killing the subsidies that are vital for Obama care.

You can't get car insurance after a car crash because you have to have it before you go into one. And if you are driving without insurance you are fucked. Just like if you don’t have insurance and you get sick, you are fucked, especially under Trump and Rand who will make it near impossible to get covered if you have a preexisting condition.

Its logically consistent with healthcare insurance and I just showed how it was. You are forced to buy car insurance, but no one ever bitches about that like they do health insurance. 

If you know how insurance is supposed to work stop complaining about the healthy having to pay for the sick. 

As for the problem with Obamacare is because it mandates that those with pre-existing conditions must be covered even if they had no previous health insurance that is simply BS and you are being disengeous with this. What happens is someone has a job then gets sick, they lose their job thus lose their insurance, and try to get new insurance but can't because of their new preexisting condition. Obama made it so they can't not give you insurance anymore.

Its funny how people like you think the govt should stay out of healthcare / insurance yet you also bitch when you have to help pay the bill for sick people. If the govt pays less or even no subsidies that means the consumer will be paying even more since the got is no longer helping with the costs.

I also love how you keep pointing how where Obamacare failed, which it did in a lot of areas but keep ignoring how Trump care or Randcare will be even worse. We all know Obama care is not perfect but it’s still better than what Trump and Rand want. 

It’s also funny how you keep saying there has to be a better way, then say in before Medicare for all. WE all know Medicare for all is the answer but you keep lying to yourself its not. 
You should be force to have insurance when you are young and healthy if you are going to want it when you are older and sick. Sorry but if you are not going to pay into insurance when you are healthy you shouldn’t get it when you are sick.

There is a huge difference if you refuse to pay into insurance for 20-40 years then when you get sick say oh I want insurance now because oh i'm sick. Vs. someone who has been paying into it for years then gets sick or someone who was born sick and needs it once they are no longer on their parent's health insurance anymore.

If you are just starting out and cannot afford insurance you can get subsidies from the govt. to help you pay for that. 

The incentive to pay for insurance when you are healthy is to be able to use that insurance when you get sick. Your whole thing is oh you shouldn’t have to pay for healthcare when you are healthy but you should be able to get it once you get sick. That is not how insurance works. Your system is beyond fucked up and broken. Oh sure no one should have to pay for insurance until they get sick LOL And you are against handouts but I guess its ok when the handout is for you when you get sick after not paying insurance when you are healthy. But that is the GOP way.

I already explained to you how the whole pre-existing conditions thing works. You are being so dishonest acting like its something different. I expect more from you.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> *Health insurance, should not, be a for-profit industry. Full stop.*
> 
> Now, I am open to debate on what would be the most efficient way to provide healthcare insurance. We should be striving to achieve a system that covers every citizen for the least amount of cost possible. We should be looking at other healthcare systems around the world, seeing what works best, and implementing it. If there is room for improvement, we should be open to that as well. We shouldn't lock ourselves into a system that does not allow for changes to it to increase efficiency and lower costs. Maybe a national system would work best. Maybe systems run by each individual state would be best. Maybe state systems with federal support would be best. Maybe 5 or 6 regional systems would be best. I am open to whatever anyone can come up with that is going to be the best system possible.
> 
> However, every single conversation revolving around healthcare should start with the basic premise that we shouldn't be deciding who does and doesn't get healthcare based on their ability to pay. You know what should be for-profit? Cars and couches and shoes and shampoo and cell phones and etc, because you're not going to prematurely fucking die if you don't get those things. You know what will cause premature death? Not getting proper healthcare because you do not have enough money.
> 
> Fuck you if you think money is worth more than life. I sincerely mean that from the bottom of my heart. Not every fucking thing in life needs to be a for-profit industry. The USA isn't going to break out in a bad case of the commies if we provide such a basic and valuable service to our citizens.


Exactly, as long as insurance companies are breaking even, that is all that should matter. They could cut the costs of all insurance plans by 75% and still make millions. The people to blame the most for the rising cost of insurance are the insurance companies themselves. They make billions each year.

That profit should be given to making insurance cheaper.


----------



## stevefox1200

I don't get the Eminem thing 

does no one remember this?






First track on one of his hottest albums?

used to blast it middle school

His never held back on political rap


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> Exactly, as long as insurance companies are breaking even, that is all that should matter. They could cut the costs of all insurance plans by 75% and still make millions. The people to blame the most for the rising cost of insurance are the insurance companies themselves. They make billions each year.
> 
> That profit should be given to making insurance cheaper.


Well it could go the way of "non-profit" hospitals, where you give so much back to your employees/community and do enough free treatment to get lower taxes/tax exemptions thus still making money by charging insurances.

Insurance companies could charge still but be it at a lower rate and they have to pay less taxes thus keeping profits. Incentives can be cutting costs by reducing waste, getting rid of the impractical licencing of medical equipment so therefore there is more competition in the area and also working with Hospitals to find ways to stretch every dollar without reducing the quality of care.

The Government should also create spending accounts for everyone, when you work a % of pre-tax dollars goes to it. Unlike Social Security which you and I will never see, this would help people ensure they always have cash for medical expenses. 

Just some simple brain storming here.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> Well it could go the way of* "non-profit" hospitals, where you give so much back to your employees/community and do enough free treatment to get lower taxes/tax exemptions thus still making money by charging insurances.
> *
> *Insurance companies could charge still but be it at a lower rate and they have to pay less taxes thus keeping profits. Incentives can be cutting costs by reducing waste, getting rid of the impractical licencing of medical equipment so therefore there is more competition in the area and also working with Hospitals to find ways to stretch every dollar without reducing the quality of care.*
> 
> The Government should also create spending accounts for everyone, when you work a % of pre-tax dollars goes to it. Unlike Social Security which you and I will never see, this would help people ensure they always have cash for medical expenses.
> 
> Just some simple brain storming here.


You have some good ideas in there except for the pending accounts those never work and wouldn't even scratch the surface of how much medical costs are.

To add on to the good ideas you had which I bolded, the biggest problem with insurance is the BS prices the charge. Have you ever had surgery or a hospital stay and look at the break down of the bill?

On my bill, it said it cost $10,000 for a hospital room, that I only spend a few hours in for recovery. There is no way it costs that much for a hospital room, they should charge the actual cost for the turn over and the cost of the people working in it. But they astronomically up the cost and that is why insurance is so high. 

Also on my bill, there was a charge of $500 just for the DR to come in after surgery to check on me , he was there for all of 30 seconds. 
If you ever look at the break down you will see how BS the cost are, its like they just made the numbers up.

Not to mention the line item addition fee or whatever it was called for like for like $2,0000 or something like that.

The total cost of my bill before insurance was like $60,0000. I ended up only paying about $1000 of that, but shit, if they put in the actual cost of all of it, it would barely reach $10.000 if that, just think how much insurance would cost if the didnt over inflate the price.

There is no need for the insurance companies to be making billions when people can't have trouble paying it because its so high or afford insurance and are dying because they cant get it.

If I can ever find the bill again, (i had the surgery a few years ago) I would list all the costs in the bill. But its crazy what the hospitals charge insurance companies.


----------



## Vic Capri

Haters: Donald Trump is literally Hitler!

Haters: Donald Trump needs to take away guns!

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

Vic Capri said:


> Haters: Donald Trump is literally Hitler!
> 
> Haters: Donald Trump needs to take away guns!
> 
> - Vic


Lovers: Trump is not Hitler

Lovers: Trump blame a religious people for our problems and keep them out of our country.


----------



## DOPA

@birthday_massacre That is the second time now that you have misrepresented my arguments and views overall on insurance. The first time this happened I just figured it was a simple misunderstanding of the points I am making and I'd like to believe this is the case. But now I have clarified my viewpoints and yet you still continue to use the same arguments and have double downed on what are supposedly my views on insurance are. I really hope you aren't deliberately doing this because it would be extremely poor form on your part.

Let me quote what you are claiming that I am advocating for because that really is the most important part in the whole of your 2nd response and underlines your thoughts on what I am arguing:




birthday_massacre said:


> The incentive to pay for insurance when you are healthy is to be able to use that insurance when you get sick. *Your whole thing is oh you shouldn’t have to pay for healthcare when you are healthy but you should be able to get it once you get sick*. That is not how insurance works. Your system is beyond fucked up and broken. *Oh sure no one should have to pay for insurance until they get sick LOL And you are against handouts but I guess its ok when the handout is for you when you get sick after not paying insurance when you are healthy.* But that is the GOP way.


So let me get this straight, you think that because I have analyzed Obamacare's policies and what it does and have come to the conclusion that the way in which pre-existing conditions have been mandated has had a tremendous effect on skyrocketing the premiums of ordinary American's health insurance; and because I criticized policies that are in Obamacare which do the opposite of helping to fund those with pre-existing conditions so they don't have sky high premiums such as building in an incentive for young people to stay on their parents insurance till they are 26 and fining people for not having insurance below what the amount of insurance actually costs due to the individual mandates pushing up prices, that I am for people buying insurance after they are sick and against healthy people getting insurance?

Not only is that a completely inaccurate and wrong argument to make about what I actually think about health insurance but it is an absolutely ludicrous analysis of the points I am making. It is clear you have absolutely no idea or clue about the arguments I am making or why I am making them.

So let me put this in crystal clear terms that even you may be able to understand: The reasons why I have specifically argued the points you just read again above you are *precisely the opposite of what you are claiming.*

The reason why I mention that premiums are skyrocketing due to the individual mandates, the way in which Obamacare has mandated pre-existing conditions so that not only can you not be refused but their premiums have to be kept low and the fact that the temporary measures of reinsurance and risk corridors put into the system are not driving nearly enough revenue to keep the costs of premiums down is because *not enough healthy people are buying insurance in order to cover the redistribution needed for those with pre-existing conditions.* 

That was the whole point of my argument, and if it were the case that enough healthy people were buying, then premiums would not go up on an average of 25%. They would still go up sure, because at least we both agree that the American system is broken and has been for a long time, but not on as high an average as that.

And the main reason why I brought up the fines for example was not because I want more people to buy insurance sick, I precisely laid out the opposite when I gave a basic definition of what insurance is supposed to do. You even acknowledged this yourself! The reason why I mentioned it is because of the opposite, too many people are waiting to buy insurance when they are sick due to the incentives built in to the system, where it's cheaper to pay the fine than to actually buy health insurance. It is a double whammy of errors, if you are going to fine people for not having insurance you better make damn sure that the policies you are enacting makes insurance affordable so that there is an incentive to be covered and not pay the penalty. When there are people deliberately not getting insurance and waiting until they are sick because a) They are guaranteed to be subsidized so that there insurance is cheaper and b) it is actually cheaper to pay the fine than to get insurance in the first place then you know the system is broken.

After explaining all of that, if you don't understand now that the reasons I am critical is because *I want more healthy people to buy insurance at affordable rates and don't want anybody to be able to buy insurance after they are sick* then you are beyond helping. I cannot help you.

So that's the whole premise of your arguments about what I apparently want in a health insurance market out of the way. Yet I can't help but notice a *slightly different* argument you also threw in earlier in your response:




birthday_massacre said:


> Its funny how people like you think the govt should stay out of healthcare / insurance *yet you also bitch when you have to help pay the bill for sick people.* If the govt pays less or even no subsidies that means the consumer will be paying even more since the got is no longer helping with the costs.


So hold on a minute, so I'm against healthy people buying insurance and want people to wait until they are sick to get handouts (thus apparently making me a hypocrite.....:HA.), yet I'm also against handouts being paid out to level the cost and am against people having to pay the bill for sick people?

Which one is it?! Am I for or against sick people being paid for? Am I for or against handouts for health insurance for the sick? You can't have it both ways, I'm not going to let this obvious contradiction slide. *Pick one. Pick one and stick with it.* At least you might have a better chance at arguing my positions.

Your response to me was a complete mess. It is clear that you did not even read back to yourself what it is you are actually arguing, otherwise you would have noticed this obvious contradiction. All you did was double down on your original positions and then gave a confused contradictory mess of an analysis of what I supposedly am advocating for. None of which was actually true. You are so stuck in your ideological positions that you cannot even read the arguments that I am presenting which are different from yours and even accurately evaluate what they are, let alone take them into consideration and respond accordingly.

Here's what I actually think about people paying into insurance so that when those who have an insurance plan get sick: I'm not against it. SHOCKING I know right? What I am against is the way it has been mandated for insurance companies to cover them and keep their premiums down because it has had the adverse effect of raising premiums for the rest of working Americans on Obamacare plans. I simply want a better way for it to be done, I am not against people with pre-existing conditions being covered, I just don't want other people suffering at the expense of doing so. That is what has been happening, you can argue that it isn't but it is.

We obviously have different ideas on how to improve healthcare in the US, that's fine. But what I want is for at least for you to respond to what I am actually arguing, not some phantom made up nonsensical version you have portrayed.

I could have gone through all of your points one by one and addressed them but to be honest, if you can't even understand what it is I am actually arguing and why then what is the point. I'd just be wasting my time.


----------



## Tater

L-DOPA said:


> the American system is broken and has been for a long time


The American system is broken because it places a higher value on profit than it does on the health of American citizens. It should also be reminded that Obamacare IS the right wing Republican healthcare plan, which is why the GOP has no clue what to replace it with, because the Democrats already took their healthcare plan and implemented it themselves.


----------



## birthday_massacre

L-DOPA said:


> @birthday_massacre
> 
> After explaining all of that, if you don't understand now that the reasons I am critical is because *I want more healthy people to buy insurance at affordable rates and don't want anybody to be able to buy insurance after they are sick* then you are beyond helping. I cannot help you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I simply want a better way for it to be done, I am not against people with pre-existing conditions being covered, I just don't want other people suffering at the expense of doing so. That is what has been happening, you can argue that it isn't but it is.


You wonder why you claim I contradict myself when I didn't, you are the one conducting yourself.


You talk about me picking an argument and sticking with it, you should take that advice yourself. 

In one sentence you claim you don't want anyone to be able to buy insurance after they are sick yet later you say you are not against people with pre-existing conditions being covered.

Which is it, make up your mind. You wonder why i am confused.


----------



## DOPA

Tater said:


> The American system is broken because it places a higher value on profit than it does on the health of American citizens. It should also be reminded that Obamacare IS the right wing Republican healthcare plan, which is why the GOP has no clue what to replace it with, because the Democrats already took their healthcare plan and implemented it themselves.


I actually mentioned in my original response to a user before BM chimed in that the system he was defending was what the establishment Republicans advocated for showing that it was a partisan play to defend Obamacare because a Democrat introduced it.

Might I suggest you take a look into the social insurance model of the likes of Switzerland, the Netherlands, Singapore and Germany? That is what I am advocating for as a replacement to the terrible single payer system we have in the UK in the form of the NHS .

You might at least find the concept an interesting one. And the system is universal.


----------



## birthday_massacre

L-DOPA said:


> I actually mentioned in my original response to a user *before BM chimed in that the system he was defending was what the establishment Republicans advocated for* showing that it was a partisan play to defend Obamacare because a Democrat introduced it.
> 
> Might I suggest you take a look into the social insurance model of the likes of Switzerland, the Netherlands, Singapore and Germany? That is what I am advocating for as a replacement to the terrible single payer system we have in the UK in the form of the NHS .
> 
> You might at least find the concept an interesting one. And the system is universal.


I have always said this LOL Not sure why you are pretending I have not, the fact is most times when I bring up how Obamacare was first a GOP plan, people claim on no it wasn't, the make excuses why it was not.

Obamacare is based on the heritage funds plan and what Romney did in Massachusettes. I should know since I live in MA and have always made this point about Obamacare

that being said why dont you explain the basic plans fo those countries to show why its so good and better than Medicare for all.

If it is indeed better i would be all for it.


----------



## DOPA

birthday_massacre said:


> I have always said this LOL Not sure why you are pretending I have not, the fact is most times when I bring up how Obamacare was first a GOP plan, people claim on no it wasn't, the make excuses why it was not.
> 
> Obamacare is based on the heritage funds plan and what Romney did in Massachusettes. I should know since I live in MA and have always made this point about Obamacare.


I wasn't referring to you, the person I responded to before was Cabanarama or whatever his name was.


----------



## birthday_massacre

L-DOPA said:


> I wasn't referring to you, the person I responded to you before was Cabanarama or whatever his name was.


You mentioned me by name in your post.


----------



## DOPA

birthday_massacre said:


> You mentioned me by name in your post.


Because you were the one who responded to it, I only mentioned you to essentially detail to Tater that I had already mentioned that Obamacare was essentially based off of establishment Republican plans.

I didn't want to confuse people by suggesting that you were the one who was defending Obamacare and so mentioned that I was responding another person before we had our back and forth.

Clearly that didn't work :lol.


----------



## Tater

L-DOPA said:


> I actually mentioned in my original response to a user before BM chimed in that the system he was defending was what the establishment Republicans advocated for showing that it was a partisan play to defend Obamacare because a Democrat introduced it.
> 
> Might I suggest you take a look into the social insurance model of the likes of Switzerland, the Netherlands, Singapore and Germany? That is what I am advocating for as a replacement to the terrible single payer system we have in the UK in the form of the NHS .
> 
> You might at least find the concept an interesting one. And the system is universal.


Correct me if I'm wrong but the UK doesn't have a single payer system. Single payer, as I understand it, is government run healthcare insurance that singularly pays for privately provided healthcare. I was under the impression that the NHS is government run everything, as in the government owns the hospitals and employs the doctors. That's something I am not in favor of. I don't think the government should be taking over the hospitals. My position is that the insurance itself should not be a for-profit industry. I am open to suggestion on how to best implement it.


----------



## BruiserKC

I'm torn by what's going on right now. On one hand, I appreciate the fact that Congress needs to get off their collective asses and start doing their jobs regarding getting legislation put together. Many of these people are extremely useless and the fact people keep voting them in just makes my head explode. 

On the other hand, the idea of ruling by executive order didn't sit well with me during the Obama years and doesn't here with Trump either. Yes, I understand Congress isn't doing anything about it so he feels the need to act. He seems to be wanting to put the onus on Congress that he can say if nothing gets done they are fully to blame. Yet, many of these regulations are still the law of the land. The Affordable Care Act is still law, the Iran nuclear deal is still in tact, etc. Executive orders do not change that fact, it is up to Congress to change that and pass legislation. 



Tater said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but the UK doesn't have a single payer system. Single payer, as I understand it, is government run healthcare insurance that singularly pays for privately provided healthcare. I was under the impression that the NHS is government run everything, as in the government owns the hospitals and employs the doctors. That's something I am not in favor of. I don't think the government should be taking over the hospitals. My position is that the insurance itself should not be a for-profit industry. I am open to suggestion on how to best implement it.


Many of the other nations that we define as single-payer have in reality a two-tiered system. There is the basic coverage for all, and then some nations require private insurance (Trump has taken a liking to that system that has been implemented in Australia and Switzerland). Here is an article Breitbart put out a few months ago regarding this. 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...or-all-private-insurance-for-everything-else/


----------



## Smarky Mark

Tater said:


> The American system is broken because it places a higher value on profit than it does on the health of American citizens.


Whatever the system is, be it private or public, if it is not profitable then it cannot continue to operate.

- High Quality Healthcare
- Free/Low Cost Healthcare
- Unlimited Healthcare

You can have 2 but you can't have all 3. Republicans understand this, Democrats do not.


----------



## DOPA

Tater said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but the UK doesn't have a single payer system. Single payer, as I understand it, is government run healthcare insurance that singularly pays for privately provided healthcare. I was under the impression that the NHS is government run everything, as in the government owns the hospitals and employs the doctors. That's something I am not in favor of. I don't think the government should be taking over the hospitals. My position is that the insurance itself should not be a for-profit industry. I am open to suggestion on how to best implement it.


You are half right and half wrong :lol. Single payer as a system is essentially a form of healthcare which is provided for by one single public authority/system. This can be done either in the form of healthcare insurance or services through contracting out to private organizations such as in Canada or the government owning and providing healthcare resources and personnel themselves like in the UK. 

I am against both forms because I am against economic monopoly, having one single entity providing the basis for healthcare is a disastrous model because even in Canada's case where they outsource and contract out their services, you have very little choice in the form of where you are able to get your healthcare. I prefer having a system where you can realistically opt out of the healthcare you are being provided and go to another source, whether it's social insurance or private insurance. This is why I want a mixed or a fully private social insurance model to replace the NHS.

In the UK it's worse, we have started outsourcing contracts and services like the Canadians have done and essentially have 2 or 3 big corporations providing those contracts, and it has left around a £30 billion hole in the healthcare budget and is costing £11 million more than previous. You don't want a system where big corporations like HSBC and RBS are essentially running parts of your healthcare system, nor do you want the government being the sole insurer and provider of healthcare, essentially running the healthcare business themselves. 

Either one of these scenarios is what you would get with Medicare For All, which is a single payer model.


----------



## Draykorinee

If you'd have asked me 5 years ago would I ever contemplate replacing the NHS with a different system I'd have told you you're an idiot, but the Tories have had it for a few years and have fucked it, like royally fucked it up. They're basically doing a Trump and just setting it up to fail. Quite frankly the NHS since its inception has been one of the biggest successes, and it only took the Tories 5 years to break it. So whilst I don't like to agree with L-Dopa on this, maybe its time we saw a change, although personally I'd rather that change was with the government and not the way our health service works but I think its too late.

I'd still take the NHS over what America has mind, every day of the week.


----------



## Tater

L-DOPA said:


> Single payer as a system is essentially a form of healthcare which is provided for by one single public authority/system.


Actually, no, it's not. Single payer, in this context, is publicly funded insurance to pay for privately provided healthcare. This is not that difficult a concept to understand. There's a huge difference between the NHS, which acts as both insurer and provider, and single payer, which only acts as the insurer, not the provider. 

We're not in disagreement over the NHS. I'm with you in the belief that the government should not be both the insurer and the provider. We're on the same page regarding hospitals and doctors being in the private sector. Where we part ways is over how to pay for healthcare. My beliefs are not set in stone about how we should set up a non-profit healthcare insurance system. My belief that *is* set in stone is that healthcare insurance should not be a for-profit industry. Bernie Sanders is advocating for government run insurance but I would like it better if the citizens themselves running things and keeping the politicians out of it, so they can't play games for political points. Hire qualified people to do the job of running the organization, maybe set up a citizen's counsel to do the hiring and pay for it all with public funding. Again, I am open to suggestion as how to best implement a publicly funded insurance system, just so long as we stick to the basic premise that there should not be a profit motive involved. However it's done, it should be easy to comprehend for anyone who is being honest about it that healthcare insurance is going to cost less if you aren't having to pay extra so someone can make a profit.



L-DOPA said:


> I am against both forms because I am against economic monopoly


:lol Stop lying. You are perfectly fine with economic monopolies. Your far right wing economic policies are well known around these parts. Don't bullshit a bullshitter.

:saul

The bottom line is this... either you believe people should be profiting from healthcare insurance or you do not; either you believe the quality of your healthcare should be decided by the size of your wallet or you do not. If you do believe that healthcare should be a for-profit industry with the quality of your healthcare being based on your ability to pay, then whether or not you are willing to admit it, you are advocating for a system that values profit over the health of people. As long as there is a profit motive involved, there will always be poor people getting screwed over because they cannot afford their healthcare costs. That is an undeniable fact.


----------



## Tater

Regardless of how much of a train wreck President Orangtard is, I still maintain that the USA and the entire world dodged a nuclear sized bullet by keeping this fucking psycho out of the White House.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/919666829873897472

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/919669802679111680

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/919669204092985344


----------



## DOPA

Tater said:


> Actually, no, it's not. Single payer, in this context, is publicly funded insurance to pay for privately provided healthcare. This is not that difficult a concept to understand. There's a huge difference between the NHS, which acts as both insurer and provider, and single payer, which only acts as the insurer, not the provider.


Again, you are using a very narrow definition of what a single payer system actually is. There are different ways in which it can be achieved and run, it is not just the way Canada runs it's healthcare that is akin to single payer. There are different ways to run a single payer system much like there are different social insurance models that differ from country to country. It is not as simple as you describe it. Here's a business insider article which explains this, I'll quote the relevant parts:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/us-si...ngle-payer-but-private-healthcare-providers-2



> *The basics*
> 
> There are a few ways that single-payer can work, but at its core it is the government paying for healthcare services through revenue generated via taxation.
> 
> Put another way, people who live in a country pay into a pot of money through their taxes. The government then takes this pot of money and pays drugmakers, healthcare facilities, and doctors.
> 
> One of the hallmarks of a single-payer system is the ability for the government to have more control over prices.
> 
> For instance, in many single-payer systems, the government can negotiate prices for prescriptions drugs since it controls the purse for much of the spending. This makes sense because in the case of the UK, nearly 80% of the healthcare spending comes from the government. So if a drug is not bought by the government, it almost totally closes off the market to a pharmaceutical company. This gives the government a lot of bargaining power.
> 
> Payments to healthcare providers, prescription drugs, and other aspects of the system are all subject to price negotiation with the government in single-payer systems.
> 
> Across different countries, *however, it can take different forms.*





> *Canada: government single-payer, but private healthcare providers*
> 
> Canada's single-payer system is mostly run by provincial and territorial governments, but is funded heavily by the federal government. The federal government also sets baselines of standards for care at the provincial level.
> 
> Each province sets its own ambulance fees, reimbursement rates for doctors, and other system fees. Most of the costs are covered by the government or supplemental private insurance, but out-of-pocket spending accounted for 14% of all healthcare spending in 2014 (a bit higher than the 11% in the US).
> 
> The federal government does set some national cost standards, however, including for pharmaceuticals. The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board is federally run and helps to negotiate and set the prices for drugs under patent. While the Pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance handles some drugs not on patent, provincial governments handle the bulk of the negotiations over the prices.
> 
> Many Canadians opt to get additional private insurance because it covers things that aren't publicly reimbursed like dental and eye care and has some nicer benefits like private rooms in hospitals and rehab care. So while public insurance is a base layer, the optional private insurance goes a step beyond.
> 
> While two-thirds of Canadians have private insurance, the bulk (94%) of the costs are paid by employers, unions, and groups. Private insurance costs made up roughly 12% of total healthcare spending in 2014, compared to 33% of healthcare spending in the US. (The rest is Medicare and Medicaid.)
> 
> In terms of facilities, most primary-care doctors are private individuals or groups who receive reimbursement from the government. Hospitals are a mix of public and private, with a bulk being nonprofit, with some provinces having a heavier weighting toward private facilities.





> *The UK: nationalized hospitals, private insurers*
> 
> The UK technically has four different national healthcare systems, one for each country that makes up the union, but the general construct is known as the National Health System.
> 
> Within the NHS, there is a system of smaller community health boards that help ensure that national standards for care, cost, and efficiency are maintained.
> 
> For patients, the NHS is generally "free at the point of use," meaning that when you go to a hospital or doctor's office there are no bills or co-pays.
> 
> The UK pays for all this using both a specific national insurance tax on people making more than £157 per week and general tax funds to provide 98.8% of the funding for the NHS. The other 1.2% is paid for by out-of-pocket costs for things like prescriptions and dental care. The cost of co-payments for the out of pocket procedures are set by the NHS.
> 
> About 66% of primary-care doctors are private contractors. The doctors, called general practitioners (GPs), receive payment at a rate set between their lobbying group the British Medical Association and the NHS. In contrast to the US, many doctors assign a patient a specific time to arrive at the doctor, rather than providing options the patient can choose from.
> 
> A large majority of patients get their services from NHS-funded hospitals, but there are private-care facilities that can offer more specialized care or shorter wait times. According to the government, in 2012-2013, 8.77 million people received surgery at a NHS hospital compared to 1.61 million in private facilities.
> 
> There is some private insurance that can be added on top of the basic NHS policy, but in 2015 only 10.5% of those in the UK elected to add on the coverage. Most of these policies do not cover the basics from the NHS, but provide additional coverage for specialized care or going to a private healthcare provider.


And for context and comparison, here's Germany, an example of a social insurance model, again this is one example, it is different in for example Singapore, Holland and Switzerland, so have a read up on several:



> If the US swings left and decides to move toward true universal healthcare, it may end up looking more like Germany's compulsory health-insurance system rather than a traditional single-payer like the UK.
> 
> There are two types of coverage in Germany: statutory health insurance (SHI), aka sickness funds, and private health insurance (PHI).
> 
> As a way to think of it, the SHIs are more like the single-payer government-funded plans like the UK and Canada, while the PHIs operate like the US system. Since there are two groups, this means the country does not qualify as single payer.
> 
> SHIs are made up of nonprofit firms that compete to sign up Germans, funded through a premium-based payroll tax split between the worker and their employer and taxes in the German Health Care Fund. SHI insurers are then reimbursed by the government on a risk-adjusted basis (meaning those that have sicker customers get more, while those with a healthier pool get less). There are some co-payments for care under an SHI, but these are fairly low. For instance, co-pays for prescriptions range from five to 10 euros.
> 
> People on SHIs make up most of the population (86% of the population), with anyone making under 56,250 euros automatically enrolled in these plans. People making above the threshold can also remain in the SHI and roughly three-fourths choose to do so.
> 
> Doctors that receive SHI reimbursements are by law required to join regional associations which set the reimbursement prices.
> 
> PHIs are administered by a mix of for-profit and nonprofit companies. The payments made by PHIs look more like the US system. Premium do not increase with age, but could be affected by preexisting conditions, like asthma.
> 
> While most hospitals fall into those two categories, there's been a recent uptick in the number of private for-profit facilities because of local funding challenges.
> 
> In addition, there are some smaller private supplementary health insurance plans beyond SHIs and PHIs that can be bought voluntarily.








Tater said:


> :lol Stop lying. You are perfectly fine with economic monopolies. Your far right wing economic policies are well known around these parts. Don't bullshit a bullshitter.
> 
> :saul


I just gave you an example of where I am against economic monopoly in the form of outsourcing contracts in the NHS to major corporations such as HSBC and RBS who are raking in all the profits. Not only that but one of the major reasons why I am against Obamacare is because it is geared towards big insurance companies and is helping to further kill competition in the insurance market as medium and smaller sized health insurance companies continue to struggle.

So don't give me that line of argument please, you are better than that dude.



Tater said:


> The bottom line is this... either you believe people should be profiting from healthcare insurance or you do not; either you believe the quality of your healthcare should be decided by the size of your wallet or you do not. If you do believe that healthcare should be a for-profit industry with the quality of your healthcare being based on your ability to pay, then whether or not you are willing to admit it, you are advocating for a system that values profit over the health of people. As long as there is a profit motive involved, there will always be poor people getting screwed over because they cannot afford their healthcare costs. That is an undeniable fact.


In one of the examples I just gave in Germany, the profit motive does play a role in it's system yet it does not have the same problems as the United States. There are many problems with the US model which I won't get into now because it is too long, nor is there an easy fix without going down the universal healthcare route because there are too many things that need to be undone which have piled up over decades and which Congress would never find agreement on. With Congress on it's ass, you are probably going to go down the universal healthcare route eventually, which is good for you because that is what you want.

The point is you are simplifying a concept in healthcare down to profit vs non-profit when there are many examples of healthcare systems such as Holland, Switzerland and Germany where the profit motive is involved, and in the cases of the Swiss and especially the Dutch they are heavily involved because their systems are completely private with universal coverage.

The profit motive isn't necessarily a bad thing, even in healthcare. If that were the case, Holland and Switzerland wouldn't be so admired for their healthcare as they are. You could at least make the case that the problem is the coverage isn't universal and I could understand where you are coming from in that sense, but blaming the concept of a health insurance market which has profit incentives doesn't work because the US is not the only system which has that, but it is the only system which doesn't have everybody covered by law.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Wikileaks email shows Clinton 'sealed her OWN FATE’ in plot to make Donald Trump her rival*

https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...eaks-Hillary-Clinton-Donald-Trump-pied-pipers


----------



## birthday_massacre

AryaDark said:


> *Wikileaks email shows Clinton 'sealed her OWN FATE’ in plot to make Donald Trump her rival*
> 
> https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...eaks-Hillary-Clinton-Donald-Trump-pied-pipers


Just another reason why it was a disaster for the DNC to screw over Sanders. He would have easily beaten Trump. And the DNC is going down this road again by trying to push unlikeable establishment democrats instead of progressives.









L-DOPA said:


> Again, you are using a very narrow definition of what a single payer system actually is. There are different ways in which it can be achieved and run, it is not just the way Canada runs it's healthcare that is akin to single payer. There are different ways to run a single payer system much like there are different social insurance models that differ from country to country. It is not as simple as you describe it. Here's a business insider article which explains this, I'll quote the relevant parts:
> 
> http://uk.businessinsider.com/us-si...ngle-payer-but-private-healthcare-providers-2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And for context and comparison, here's Germany, an example of a social insurance model, again this is one example, it is different in for example Singapore, Holland and Switzerland, so have a read up on several:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you an example of where I am against economic monopoly in the form of outsourcing contracts in the NHS to major corporations such as HSBC and RBS who are raking in all the profits. Not only that but one of the major reasons why I am against Obamacare is because it is geared towards big insurance companies and is helping to further kill competition in the insurance market as medium and smaller sized health insurance companies continue to struggle.
> 
> So don't give me that line of argument please, you are better than that dude.
> 
> 
> 
> In one of the examples I just gave in Germany, the profit motive does play a role in it's system yet it does not have the same problems as the United States. There are many problems with the US model which I won't get into now because it is too long, nor is there an easy fix without going down the universal healthcare route because there are too many things that need to be undone which have piled up over decades and which Congress would never find agreement on. With Congress on it's ass, you are probably going to go down the universal healthcare route eventually, which is good for you because that is what you want.
> 
> The point is you are simplifying a concept in healthcare down to profit vs non-profit when there are many examples of healthcare systems such as Holland, Switzerland and Germany where the profit motive is involved, and in the cases of the Swiss and especially the Dutch they are heavily involved because their systems are completely private with universal coverage.
> 
> The profit motive isn't necessarily a bad thing, even in healthcare. If that were the case, Holland and Switzerland wouldn't be so admired for their healthcare as they are. You could at least make the case that the problem is the coverage isn't universal and I could understand where you are coming from in that sense, but blaming the concept of a health insurance market which has profit incentives doesn't work because the US is not the only system which has that, but it is the only system which doesn't have everybody covered by law.



When people talk about single payer in the US they are talking about doing medicare for all, like the US does now for people over 70 (or is it 65, what ever the age cut off is).

So if you want to see what at least i am talking about, look into medicare for all for for the US. That should be the starting point.


----------



## Tater

L-DOPA said:


> Again, you are using a very narrow definition of what a single payer system actually is.


We're arguing semantics here. Don't like the definition I'm using of single payer? Fine. Call one of them the flippity doo *** system and call the other one the fuggly wuggly system. In the flippity doo *** system, the government is both the payer and the provider. In the fuggly wuggly system, the government is only the payer and the provider comes from the private sector. Whatever the hell you want to call them, they are quite obviously different systems. Your attempt to lump both of them under the term single payer is you being intellectually dishonest.



L-DOPA said:


> There are different ways in which it can be achieved and run, it is not just the way Canada runs it's healthcare that is akin to single payer. There are different ways to run a single payer system much like there are different social insurance models that differ from country to country. It is not as simple as you describe it.


What I am talking about is very simple. You're the one making it more complicated than it needs to be by talking about all the different healthcare systems from all the different countries. All I'm doing is making a very simple point that healthcare insurance is going to cost less if there is no money being skimmed off the top for profit and saying that it's my own personal belief that healthcare insurance should not be a for-profit industry. I'm really not interested in debating with you over the pros and cons of how they specifically set up healthcare insurance in other countries.



L-DOPA said:


> I just gave you an example of where I am against economic monopoly in the form of outsourcing contracts in the NHS to major corporations such as HSBC and RBS who are raking in all the profits. Not only that but one of the major reasons why I am against Obamacare is because it is geared towards big insurance companies and is helping to further kill competition in the insurance market as medium and smaller sized health insurance companies continue to struggle.
> 
> So don't give me that line of argument please, you are better than that dude.


You don't give a shit about massive corporations fucking over small businesses and you never have, so don't *you* give me that argument please, and I can't say that you're better than that dude, because you won't even admit that the policies you favor provably do not result in the outcomes you claim to desire. The economic policies you advocate for are the kind that benefit modern feudal lords and you're not even honest enough to admit it. This is something I have called you out on in the past. Sure, you might claim to be opposed to economic monopolies but you also hate government regulations, which is the only thing that prevents monopolies from happening. Anti-trust laws exist for a reason. Free markets do not remain free without rules in place to keep them free markets. It would be nice if you would stop lying to yourself and everyone else and just admit that you support a system that values profit more than it does the lives of people and that you believe the vast majority of mankind should be laborers for the benefit of a small handful of oligarchs who own everything of importance in this world.

Since I cannot bring myself to believe you're not smart enough to figure these things out, the only logical conclusion I can come to is that you are either wittingly or unwittingly allowing your ideology to get in the way of empirical evidence.



L-DOPA said:


> In one of the examples I just gave in Germany, the profit motive does play a role in it's system yet it does not have the same problems as the United States. There are many problems with the US model which I won't get into now because it is too long, nor is there an easy fix without going down the universal healthcare route because there are too many things that need to be undone which have piled up over decades and which Congress would never find agreement on. With Congress on it's ass, you are probably going to go down the universal healthcare route eventually, which is good for you because that is what you want.
> 
> The point is you are simplifying a concept in healthcare down to profit vs non-profit when there are many examples of healthcare systems such as Holland, Switzerland and Germany where the profit motive is involved, and in the cases of the Swiss and especially the Dutch they are heavily involved because their systems are completely private with universal coverage.
> 
> The profit motive isn't necessarily a bad thing, even in healthcare. If that were the case, Holland and Switzerland wouldn't be so admired for their healthcare as they are. You could at least make the case that the problem is the coverage isn't universal and I could understand where you are coming from in that sense, but blaming the concept of a health insurance market which has profit incentives doesn't work because the US is not the only system which has that, but it is the only system which doesn't have everybody covered by law.


Again, I don't really care what they are doing in other countries, as I am not nor was I ever trying to debate you the specifics of how other systems work and what specific system we should set up here. I am only speaking of the very basic concepts that I have already laid out for you. Think of this as a philosophical debate instead of a technical debate, if that helps you understand where I'm coming from. You believe it's perfectly fine to profit from suffering and sickness and death. I, do not. Life is more important to me than money. I cannot say the same about you, my friend. How healthcare is paid for should always be secondary to the conversation about how to make sure every citizen in the country, rich or poor, gets the best possible healthcare available.

And since I really don't like having to be the one to call you on your bullshit, here are some dancing kitties to brighten your day. (Y)


----------



## Stephen90

AryaDark said:


> *Wikileaks email shows Clinton 'sealed her OWN FATE’ in plot to make Donald Trump her rival*
> 
> https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...eaks-Hillary-Clinton-Donald-Trump-pied-pipers


Of course she did Hillary thought Trump would be the easiest candidate and a guaranteed victory. This is why people voted for Johnson or Stein or didn't vote at all. She also insulted the Bernie supporters as well.


----------



## yeahbaby!

BruiserKC said:


> Many of the other nations that we define as single-payer have in reality a two-tiered system. *There is the basic coverage for all, and then some nations require private insurance (Trump has taken a liking to that system that has been implemented in Australia and Switzerland)*. Here is an article Breitbart put out a few months ago regarding this.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...or-all-private-insurance-for-everything-else/


There is no requirement for private insurance in Australia, but I believe the thing is if you earn over a certain amount of money per year (It may be 90K) and you don't have private, you need to pay extra during tax time for a levy.

Mostly though if you're relatively healthy IMO you don't need private insurance. I'm generally healthy apart from my epilepsy, even then all my specialist appointments I've had and my MRIs that i've had etc are all covered by medicare.

I have had private for about 5 or so years now because I was under the impression you 'had to get it' basically, but I don't use it that much and financially now I would better off had I been putting that premiums money under the bed.


----------



## BruiserKC

yeahbaby! said:


> There is no requirement for private insurance in Australia, but I believe the thing is if you earn over a certain amount of money per year (It may be 90K) and you don't have private, you need to pay extra during tax time for a levy.
> 
> Mostly though if you're relatively healthy IMO you don't need private insurance. I'm generally healthy apart from my epilepsy, even then all my specialist appointments I've had and my MRIs that i've had etc are all covered by medicare.
> 
> I have had private for about 5 or so years now because I was under the impression you 'had to get it' basically, but I don't use it that much and financially now I would better off had I been putting that premiums money under the bed.


I know Switzerland requires private insurance with the basic government insurance. I just know I have seen my insurance premiums triple over the last eight years and know the government screws up most everything it touches so not crazy about single payer. Besides, California and Vermont both scrapped the idea of single payer when it realized their budgets would be in the red.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/919694695286099968
:ha


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> Just another reason why it was a disaster for the DNC to screw over Sanders. He would have easily beaten Trump. And the DNC is going down this road again by trying to push unlikeable establishment democrats instead of progressives.


Sanders lost to Hillary, Hillary lost to Trump, but you believe Sanders could have beaten Trump?

This is a wrestling forum, you know that booking doesn't make any sense.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> Sanders lost to Hillary, Hillary lost to Trump, but you believe Sanders could have beaten Trump?
> 
> This is a wrestling forum, you know that booking doesn't make any sense.


Sanders lost to Hillary because the DNC rigged it against him. ON election night Sanders would have beaten Trump by 19 points.

Sanders is the most popular politician in the country, Trump and Hillary were the two least popular.


We have been over this before.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> Sanders lost to Hillary because the DNC rigged it against him. ON election night Sanders would have beaten Trump by 19 points.
> 
> Sanders is the most popular politician in the country, Trump and Hillary were the two least popular.
> 
> 
> We have been over this before.


Then why were more people tuning in to watch Trump during the primaries?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/11/media/cnn-republican-debate-ratings/index.html
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/07/media/cnn-democratic-debate-flint-ratings/index.html
https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016...tly-draw-more-viewers-than-democratic-events/


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> Then why were more people tuning in to watch Trump during the primaries?
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/11/media/cnn-republican-debate-ratings/index.html
> http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/07/media/cnn-democratic-debate-flint-ratings/index.html
> https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016...tly-draw-more-viewers-than-democratic-events/
> http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/11/media/cnn-republican-debate-ratings/index.html


go back and read the old threads on this issue. Its been done to death. You can deny the facts all you want.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders

I am not going over all of this again.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> go back and read the old threads on this issue. Its been done to death. *You can deny the facts all you want.
> *
> I am not going over all of this again.


You mean alternate facts.

But here are the actual facts:


1. The majority of americans favor capitalism over socialism.

2. Donald Trump dominated in the electoral college.


I obviously do not have a crystal ball so I can't comment on the parallel universe where Sanders ran against Trump, but based on those facts alone I would guess that he would have got beat also. Don't see how you could say it would have been a clear cut victory. That sounds like it's founded on emotion.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> You mean alternate facts.
> 
> But here are the actual facts:
> 
> 
> 1. The majority of americans favor capitalism over socialism.
> 
> 2.* Donald Trump dominated in the electoral college.*
> 
> 
> I obviously do not have a crystal ball so I can't comment on the parallel universe where Sanders ran against Trump, but based on those facts alone I would guess that he would have got beat also. Don't see how you could say it would have been a clear cut victory. That sounds like it's founded on emotion.


Last post toward you because you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

Trump did not dominate the EC, he had one of the lowest EC wins of any president EVER. He was in the bottom 1/4 or lowest EC wins. He also lost the popular vote by 3 million.

Sanders would have won the swing states Hillary lost and the other ones that turned red.

You really should do more research and not listen to Trumps BS about how he dominated lol


----------



## Stephen90

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/919694695286099968
> :ha


Can this bitch just learn to fuck off. She's a whiny little bitch just like Trump.


----------



## Goku

l-dopa arguing economics with socialists in fun to watch in a 'stop hitting yourself, why are you hitting yourself' sorta way. :lol


----------



## MickDX

Smarky Mark said:


> You mean alternate facts.
> 
> But here are the actual facts:
> 
> 
> 1. The majority of americans favor capitalism over socialism.
> 
> 2. Donald Trump dominated in the electoral college.
> 
> 
> I obviously do not have a crystal ball so I can't comment on the parallel universe where Sanders ran against Trump, but based on those facts alone I would guess that he would have got beat also. Don't see how you could say it would have been a clear cut victory. That sounds like it's founded on emotion.


You clearly don't understand socialism. There are a lot of socialistic parties in capitalist countries. Usually they are left-wing and people with few income support them. Communism is a different matter and I think you are confusing it with socialism. They are related but far from being the same.

Lol at Trump dominating the electoral college. :maury 

He barely won thanks to Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania. He lost the popular vote. Bernie would've won without a doubt. A lot of people didn't vote because they were the worst candidates in history.


----------



## Beatles123

MickDX said:


> You clearly don't understand socialism. There are a lot of socialistic parties in capitalist countries. Usually they are left-wing and people with few income support them. Communism is a different matter and I think you are confusing it with socialism. They are related but far from being the same.
> 
> Lol at Trump dominating the electoral college. :maury
> 
> He barely won thanks to Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania. He lost the popular vote. Bernie would've won without a doubt. A lot of people didn't vote because they were the worst candidates in history.


I'm not in favor of socialism OR communism :shrug I hate corporate greed as much as the next guy, but that doesn't devalue the fact that capitalism is still better than both of them.


----------



## MickDX

Beatles123 said:


> I'm not in favor of socialism OR communism :shrug I hate corporate greed as much as the next guy, but that doesn't devalue the fact that capitalism is still better than both of them.


As major ideas, I agree. But I think everyone in US should have a better basic healthcare and easier ways to study at the college. Those fees are insane for low income families. But I'm guessing keeping people uneducated is in Republican's favor so they wouldn't support something like that.


----------



## Beatles123

MickDX said:


> As major ideas, I agree. But I think everyone in US should have a better basic healthcare and easier ways to study at the college. Those fees are insane for low income families. But I'm guessing keeping people uneducated is in Republican's favor so they wouldn't support something like that.


Let's not make this into a party thing. Plenty of liberals are "Uneducated", and the division comes when we try and define what that is in elitist terms.

I don't endorse college unless one is going there to learn skills for their specific dream job. Too much political dribble seeping into them for my taste. Hell, even regular schools are like that anymore.


----------



## MickDX

Beatles123 said:


> Let's not make this into a party thing. Plenty of liberals are "Uneducated", and the division comes when we try and define what that is in elitist terms.
> 
> I don't endorse college unless one is going there to learn skills for their specific dream job. Too much political dribble seeping into them for my taste. Hell, even regular schools are like that anymore.


Of course there are uneducated people on both sides, always will be. But the correlation between uneducated people and Republican can be seen pretty clearly.

Of course I can't convince you since you are a Trump supporter.
The first result on Google about educated states:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2017/02/03/the-most-and-least-educated-states-in-the-u-s-in-2017/#6a2036ec71be
Of the last 10 states, only Nevada didn't vote Trump at the last elections. I hardly see that as a coincidence. Most of them elect Republicans about every time. 

How do you determine if it's someone's dream job? Grades don't necessarily reflect the passion for a subject, maybe someone studied at home to become more advanced in what he wants to do.


----------



## RED30000 idk

I know you guys have moved on by now. 

I finished my research and tried to give Eminem a chance, and look for hidden messages. 

I have come to the conclusion that he's an idiot. He's blinded by Obamas grace. The only guy not to get dissed.................. I voted Trump and that won't change.


----------



## DOPA

The whether or not Sanders would have beaten Trump in an election has been done to death and if were being honest with ourselves here, nobody really knows for sure. It's speculation at this point in time. We can go off on polling and how they stacked up against each other in terms of favourables and in a head to head battle, which in this case Sanders did have Trump beat at the time but we also got to remember that Hillary was ahead a lot of the time in polling and was projected to win the election. Some even predicted a landslide for Hillary, that obviously did not happen. So we can't 100% trust polling in this regards.

What I can say and I hate to admit this because I'm not a big supporter of Sanders, but the big reason why Trump won the swing states and broke the blue wall was because of the economic populist message he had in regards to being anti-NAFTA, anti-TPP, wanting to bring back American jobs from overseas and establish protectionist economic policies such as a 35% tariff on companies who take their labour overseas at the expense of cutting jobs back at home. The broken industrial states in particular resonated with that message because of how much they had been struggling. And Hillary was the perfect person to rail that message home against because she supported NAFTA, her husband signed that trade deal and was for TPP until she was forced to flip flop on the issue because it wasn't a popular position.

With Sanders, Trump wouldn't have been able to use that against him because Sanders also holds those positions and didn't support the policy positions on these issues like Hillary did. So it would have been interesting to see what Trump's line of attack would have been. But the fact is, the biggest reason why Trump won to begin with was because of his economic populist message which hit the right states in which to flip red. It wasn't racism, white supremacy or a whitelash as some users here like to claim :HA.

@birthday_massacre I'll at least give you the courtesy of looking into Bernie's proposal and plan for Medicare For All.

@Tater I'll be coming back to a response to you later .


----------



## MickDX

RED30000 idk said:


> I know you guys have moved on by now.
> 
> I finished my research and tried to give Eminem a chance, and look for hidden messages.
> 
> I have come to the conclusion that he's an idiot. He's blinded by Obamas grace. The only guy not to get dissed.................. I voted Trump and that won't change.


Sure we trust your research. :fact
If you are a blind Trump supporter and you don't even care what he does it's pretty clear you are nowhere near objective.


----------



## Stephen90

It's hilarious that Trump still can't stop talking about Hillary.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/919914000959397888


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stephen90 said:


> It's hilarious that Trump still can't stop talking about Hillary.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/919914000959397888


Trump won't even make it to 2020, it may not even make it to the end of the year at this rate


----------



## MickDX

Stephen90 said:


> It's hilarious that Trump still can't stop talking about Hillary.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/919914000959397888


They're obsessed with each other. 

As I said in a previous post, all that Trump cares is his re-election. Nothing else matters. Who gives a fuck about 2020 right now when there are a lot of issues to solve? I'm thinking Trump is bringing a lot 2020 because he is insecure as hell and he wants to see people's reaction. 

As well as his supporters as we saw in a post earlier. They realize Trump is sinking and of course they need to go on offensive and attack everyone else.

Is this for real ? http://thehill.com/homenews/news/355490-psychologists-march-through-ny-to-call-for-trumps-removal :heston


----------



## birthday_massacre

MickDX said:


> They're obsessed with each other.
> 
> As I said in a previous post, all that Trump cares is his re-election. Nothing else matters. Who gives a fuck about 2020 right now when there are a lot of issues to solve? I'm thinking Trump is bringing a lot 2020 because he is insecure as hell and he wants to see people's reaction.
> 
> As well as his supporters as we saw in a post earlier. They realize Trump is sinking and of course they need to go on offensive and attack everyone else.


His supporters know he is sinking on this forum that is why they are jumping ship from this thread lol

Trump is already campaigning like you said for 2020, the reason is he wants all that money in his pocket, especially for when he gets impeached or is forced to resign. He will just pocket it all.


----------



## Stephen90

MickDX said:


> They're obsessed with each other.
> 
> As I said in a previous post, all that Trump cares is his re-election. Nothing else matters. Who gives a fuck about 2020 right now when there are a lot of issues to solve? I'm thinking Trump is bringing a lot 2020 because he is insecure as hell and he wants to see people's reaction.
> 
> As well as his supporters as we saw in a post earlier. They realize Trump is sinking and of course they need to go on offensive and attack everyone else.


Hillary and Trump are in some ways alike. Both are know to flip flop on issue's. Both love to blame others for their failures.


----------



## MickDX

Stephen90 said:


> Hillary and Trump are in some ways alike. Both are know to flip flop on issue's. Both love to blame others for their failures.


Where are the Trump supporters who always attacked Clinton over her obsession with Trump? Conveniently they are quiet now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stephen90 said:


> Hillary and Trump are in some ways alike. Both are know to flip flop on issue's. Both love to blame others for their failures.


The only difference on their flip-flopping Hillary will flip-flop based on what group she is talking to, Trump will do it in the same sentence lol


----------



## Vic Capri

Before he became The President of The United States, Donald Trump had a Roman themed strip club on the top floor of Trump Tower in Detroit, Michigan.

*#AlternativeFacts*

- Vic


----------



## Empress

Trump has no sense of grace. I've accepted that his presidency is a revenge one against Barack Obama but I wish he would stop invoking fallen soldiers in his obsession. He and others led the charge when it came to politicizing Benghazi but now that he's President, it's just not his problem. 4 soldiers died in Niger and his response is to throw former presidents under the bus because golfing, tweeting about Hillary Clinton and the NFL has taken precedence. After a certain point, Trump's remarks aren't just beyond the pale but slander. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/919990486714208257

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/919989085133066240

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/920047451855380480


----------



## FriedTofu

Yeah that's just disgusting from Trump trying to smear past presidents after he failed to do something.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Love Jones said:


> Trump has no sense of grace. I've accepted that his presidency is a revenge one against Barack Obama but I wish he would stop invoking fallen soldiers in his obsession. He and others led the charge when it came to politicizing Benghazi but now that he's President, it's just not his problem. 4 soldiers died in Niger and his response is to throw former presidents under the bus because golfing, tweeting about Hillary Clinton and the NFL has taken precedence. After a certain point, Trump's remarks aren't just beyond the pale but slander.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/919990486714208257
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/919989085133066240
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/920047451855380480


Jesus christ rambling on and saying the same thing over again? What's wrong with this guy? Just say' Yes I've written them letters and I'll be calling at an appropriate time'. Unless you're completely bullshitting about that....


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

birthday_massacre said:


> Just another reason why it was a disaster for the DNC to screw over Sanders. He would have easily beaten Trump. *And the DNC is going down this road again by trying to push unlikeable establishment democrats instead of progressives.*


The bolded part is a good thing for two reasons:

1) It'll result in the Dems getting spanked yet again and hopefully show more and more people, especially minorities, that giving them your vote is essentially tantamount to them giving you the finger while simultaneously saying "See you in 4 years!"

2) Fuck progressivism :trump3

With that being said, I also really hope that Bannon's self-declared war against the GOP actually amounts to the GOP getting reamed hard for their continuous and inexcusable displays of idiocy and failure, especially since Trump has said that he understands why Bannon put the GOP establishment on his shitlist.


----------



## FriedTofu

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> The bolded part is a good thing for two reasons:
> 
> 1) It'll result in the Dems getting spanked yet again and hopefully show more and more people, especially minorities, that giving them your vote is essentially tantamount to them giving you the finger while simultaneously saying "See you in 4 years!"
> 
> 2) Fuck progressivism :trump3
> 
> With that being said, I also really hope that Bannon's self-declared war against the GOP actually amounts to the GOP getting reamed hard for their continuous and inexcusable displays of idiocy and failure, especially since Trump has said that he understands why Bannon put the GOP establishment on his shitlist.


Not if Bannon allies with the religious hardliners like the Roy Moores of America. The establishment might be shit, but I don't think the Taleban of America is going to be better for the world.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

FriedTofu said:


> Not if Bannon allies with the religious hardliners like the Roy Moores of America. The establishment might be shit, but I don't think the Taleban of America is going to be better for the world.


Nah, they are indeed shit and need to be flushed accordingly. :armfold

And your taliban bit is irrelevant thanks to dat dere separation of church and state, fam.

:trump


----------



## FriedTofu

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Nah, they are indeed shit and need to be flushed accordingly. :armfold
> 
> And your taliban bit is irrelevant thanks to dat dere separation of church and state, fam.
> 
> :trump


You think the people that think Christianity is above the Constitution care about that, fam?

:trump already said America worship God.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

FriedTofu said:


> You think the people that think Christianity is above the Constitution care about that, fam?
> 
> :trump already said America worship God.


I know they don't, but I'm not worried about them in the least because their chance of holding some institutional power is minimal, while they have virtually no chance of holding significant institutional power.

And while America has no state religion because of the separation of church and state and allows freedom to worship any religion as part of the constitution, I can understand why he said that, since America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and 70% of the population (as of 2014) identify as Christian.


----------



## Beatles123

MickDX said:


> Where are the Trump supporters who always attacked Clinton over her obsession with Trump? Conveniently they are quiet now.


i never left. :shrug I can tell you many haven't either. Perhaps we just don't feel the need to keep going back and forth, especially when bans are being handed out here on both sides? Thats how I feel anyway. I mean, What are any of us really accomplishing? Can you really say either side has swayed anyone here?

See, this is what I can't figure out: Why take shots like this, As if your side hasn't had the same attitud? No one of us is on the "Truly innocent" side.


----------



## birthday_massacre

FriedTofu said:


> Not if Bannon allies with the religious hardliners like the Roy Moores of America. The establishment might be shit, but I don't think the Taleban of America is going to be better for the world.


You think the GOP care more about the poor and middle class than the dems LOL

Come on now. 




Beatles123 said:


> i never left. :shrug I can tell you many haven't either. Perhaps we just don't feel the need to keep going back and forth, especially when bans are being handed out here on both sides? Thats how I feel anyway. I mean, What are any of us really accomplishing? Can you really say either side has swayed anyone here?
> 
> See, this is what I can't figure out: Why take shots like this, As if your side hasn't had the same attitud? No one of us is on the "Truly innocent" side.


Its because most Trump supporters know what a disaster he has been, and that is he going down. Him resigning or getting impeached is getting closer and closer. He may not even last the rest of the year. He def. won last 4 years like I have been saying.

If people have not changed their minds about Trump after what an utter disaster he has been, then there is no helping those people.

There is no defending Trump at this point, that is why no one is even trying anymore.


----------



## FriedTofu

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> I know they don't, but I'm not worried about them in the least because their chance of holding some institutional power is minimal, while they have virtually no chance of holding significant institutional power.
> 
> And while America has no state religion because of the separation of church and state and allows freedom to worship any religion as part of the constitution, I can understand why he said that, since America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and 70% of the population (as of 2014) identify as Christian.


When the moderate voters lose confidence in the establishment, the politicians will seek to curry favours from religious fundamentalists and the politicians that represent them. It is already happening in Malaysia and India. I wouldn't put it past it happening in America.

How many seats do the freedom caucus have? It is not impossible for the same number of religious nutjobs holding that many seats to start having an influence on policies like the freedom caucus.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Its because most Trump supporters know what a disaster he has been, and that is he going down. *Him resigning or getting impeached is getting closer and closer*. He may not even last the rest of the year. He def. won last 4 years like I have been saying.
> 
> If people have not changed their minds about Trump after what an utter disaster he has been, then there is no helping those people.
> 
> There is no defending Trump at this point, that is why no one is even trying anymore.


:lol And its the Trump supporters who are the delusional ones :lol



Stephen90 said:


> It's hilarious that Trump still can't stop talking about Hillary.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/919914000959397888


Well, she hasn't stopped complaining about him and Donald being Donald is obviously going to respond even though he really shouldn't


----------



## FriedTofu

birthday_massacre said:


> You think the GOP care more about the poor and middle class than the dems LOL
> 
> Come on now.


Not everything is about class warfare dude. They just have different ways of how to fix the issues. You can disagree with their methods but don't have to make it ones and zeroes about their intentions.


----------



## birthday_massacre

FriedTofu said:


> Not everything is about class warfare dude. They just have different ways of how to fix the issues. You can disagree with their methods but don't have to make it ones and zeroes about their intentions.


The way the GOP wants to "fix" the issue has proven it never works, time and time again, it just makes the rich richer and that is it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> :lol And its the Trump supporters who are the delusional ones :lol
> 
> 
> Well, she hasn't stopped complaining about him and Donald being Donald is obviously going to respond even though he really shouldn't


Its going to happen, and will most likely be due to the 25th amendment clause.

Trump keeps showing over and over how he is mentally unfit to be president.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

FriedTofu said:


> When the moderate voters lose confidence in the establishment, the politicians will seek to curry favours from religious fundamentalists and the politicians that represent them. It is already happening in Malaysia and India. I wouldn't put it past it happening in America.
> 
> How many seats do the freedom caucus have? It is not impossible for the same number of religious nutjobs holding that many seats to start having an influence on policies like the freedom caucus.


For all of its advancements, India has failed at stopping over a third of its population from shitting in its streets, so I don't have a high opinion of their government.

As for Malaysia, there's this interesting article: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/ca...c-state-just-a-gimmick-to-win-votes-says-mca/

With that being said, moderates outweigh the fringe here in America. So again, there's no reason to sweat bullets over them. And if you don't believe me, the Freedom Caucus has a whopping 31 seats to their name. I don't care for the FC, but they scored brownie points from me for their integral part in ensuring that Ryancare didn't come to pass.


----------



## Empress

Stinger Fan said:


> :lol And its the Trump supporters who are the delusional ones :lol
> 
> 
> Well, she hasn't stopped complaining about him and Donald being Donald is obviously going to respond even though he really shouldn't


Don't hide behind negs. If you have an issue with any post of mine, quote me.


----------



## Pratchett

birthday_massacre said:


> The way the *Dems *want to "fix" the issue has proven it never works, time and time again, it just makes the rich richer and that is it.


Fixed it for you.

Or better yet...



birthday_massacre said:


> The way the *politicians on BOTH sides* want to "fix" the issue has proven it never works, time and time again, it just makes the rich richer and that is it.


The way I see it, it is "us" (the hoi polloi, if you will) versus the political elite who manage to keep inserting themselves into positions of power while at the same time keeping us blaming each other and everyone else but them. We can continue to point fingers at each others party and ideological affiliations, but in the end all that accomplishes is to ensure that they remain entrenched in their positions of power. Power that has corrupted them completely. ALL of them.

And the "rich" who keep getting "richer"? Yeah, that would be the politicians. :mj


----------



## birthday_massacre

Empress said:


> Don't hide behind negs. If you have an issue with any post of mine, quote me.


Stinger fan can never debate, he just makes troll comments or hides behind repear who said he is no longer posting in this thread.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Pratchett said:


> Fixed it for you.
> 
> Or better yet...
> 
> 
> 
> The way I see it, it is "us" (the hoi polloi, if you will) versus the political elite who manage to keep inserting themselves into positions of power while at the same time keeping us blaming each other and everyone else but them. We can continue to point fingers at each others party and ideological affiliations, but in the end all that accomplishes is to ensure that they remain entrenched in their positions of power. Power that has corrupted them completely. ALL of them.
> 
> And the "rich" who keep getting "richer"? Yeah, that would be the politicians. :mj


But the dems always clean up and get the US back on track after the reps fuck things up. Just look at Clinton and Obama as recent examples, they both fixed the US after the disaster that was both Bush's.

The econ always does better under democracts.

https://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/th...nomy_does_better_under_democratic_presidents/

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welco....google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...conomy-is-better-under-democratic-presidents/


----------



## Empress

birthday_massacre said:


> Stinger fan can never debate, he just makes troll comments or hides behind repear who said he is no longer posting in this thread.


I'm genuinely curious as to what *some* who have opposing world views to mine. I may not agree but I can respect it to a point. But it has to be honest and a willingness to engage. He took exception because I think Trump was way out of line throwing former presidents under the bus because he couldn't reach out to the families of the fallen soldiers. It shouldn't be too much to ask that Trump step away from the golf course and acknowledge those grieving families. He's only had 12 days.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Empress said:


> I'm genuinely curious as to what *some* who have opposing world views to mine. I may not agree but I can respect it to a point. But it has to be honest and a willingness to engage. He took exception because I think Trump was way out of line throwing former presidents under the bus because he couldn't reach out to the families of the fallen soldiers. It shouldn't be too much to ask that Trump step away from the golf course and acknowledge those grieving families. He's only had 12 days.


That is because some people can't defend their world view or it's because they don't want it shattered and torn apart.

If someone does not give your view on something then someone else can't point out its possible flaws, that is why they don't give their views and instead just troll or just cheer other people on to fight their battles for them.

Its always good to debate your POV because right or wrong, maybe the other side will give you a new way of looking at it or even you info you have not heard before, or een make you change your mind. Some people just dont want to have their minds changed and for them ignorance is bliss


----------



## RED30000 idk

MickDX said:


> Sure we trust your research. :fact
> If you are a blind Trump supporter and you don't even care what he does it's pretty clear you are nowhere near objective.


Ok guy, I wasn't saying that my research was fact if that's what you were getting at. My research was for myself. I used to listen to a bit of Eminem with family years ago and just couldn't get over why he has went after Trump and did NOTHING during the Obama era. It just didn't make sense. 

No, I am not a blind Trump supporter. I do care what he does. Hillary would have not been better. 

:shrug:shrug


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

birthday_massacre said:


> But the dems always clean up and get the US back on track after the reps fuck things up. Just look at Clinton and Obama as recent examples, they both fixed the US after the disaster that was both Bush's.
> 
> The econ always does better under democracts.
> 
> https://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/th...nomy_does_better_under_democratic_presidents/
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welco....google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...conomy-is-better-under-democratic-presidents/


Economically Clinton largely benefitted from the Growth in Sillicon Valley and other Computer/Tech Industry in the 90s that would have happened with any President. The fact of the matter is Bill Clinton's policy legacy we are still dealing with the negative consequences of today. Whether it's the racist crime bill,Telecommunications Act of 1996,the repeal of the Glass-Stegall and Niegle-Reale act which is a large reason for the 08 crash and why we have "Too big to fail" banks",Nafta(something that at best had mixed results for Us but also worsened the situation for Mexico and Central America) and the expansion of the war on drugs that increased human casualties in here,Mexico and Colombia.


----------



## MickDX

Beatles123 said:


> i never left. :shrug I can tell you many haven't either. Perhaps we just don't feel the need to keep going back and forth, especially when bans are being handed out here on both sides? Thats how I feel anyway. I mean, What are any of us really accomplishing? Can you really say either side has swayed anyone here?
> 
> See, this is what I can't figure out: Why take shots like this, As if your side hasn't had the same attitud? No one of us is on the "Truly innocent" side.


I'm not taking shots, I wanted an opinion about that from Trump supporters even though those supporters attacked Hillary for the same thing.

I agree, it's pretty clear nobody is accomplishing anything. People here have their own interests and views, they aren't gonna change.


Stinger Fan said:


> :lol And its the Trump supporters who are the delusional ones :lol
> 
> 
> Well, she hasn't stopped complaining about him and Donald being Donald is obviously going to respond even though he really shouldn't


Are you blaming Hillary for Donald making references of her? When did Hillary said she wants to go in 2020? Well, at least you recognized this was wrong.



RED30000 idk said:


> Ok guy, I wasn't saying that my research was fact if that's what you were getting at. My research was for myself. I used to listen to a bit of Eminem with family years ago and just couldn't get over why he has went after Trump and did NOTHING during the Obama era. It just didn't make sense.
> 
> No, I am not a blind Trump supporter. I do care what he does. Hillary would have not been better.
> 
> :shrug:shrug


Hillary is not running in 2020, so why are you so sure there wouldn't be a better candidate against Trump in 2020?


----------



## DOPA

FriedTofu said:


> Not everything is about class warfare dude. They just have different ways of how to fix the issues. You can disagree with their methods but don't have to make it ones and zeroes about their intentions.


Not enough people say this, thank you (Y).


----------



## Stinger Fan

MickDX said:


> Are you blaming Hillary for Donald making references of her? When did Hillary said she wants to go in 2020? Well, at least you recognized this was wrong.


Yes I am, she hasn't stopped talking about him since she lost the election and because Donald can't help himself from responding to people who go after him, he's rubbing it in her face that she lost. He shouldn't be doing this but why do people act surprised ? It's Donald Trump of course he's going to respond lol


----------



## Vic Capri

You always heard about Warrior's C-SPAN speech. Here it is in its entirety.

- Vic


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/920276449378095104
:ha


----------



## virus21

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/920276449378095104
> :ha


Pretty much common knowledge at this point.


----------



## stevefox1200

Wikileaks at this point

double lolololololol

Ole JA spends his time tweeting about how Russia is protecting the world, that he dosn't release any right wing leaks because "there is nothing good", and that Lincoln was the worst president due to the civil war 

The man lives in a literal "own small gated community, afraid of a larger forum. They stay inside their little ponds, leaking whatever "truth" suits them into the growing cesspool of society at large."

Love that game

Your avatars of justice are feeding you "truth" and not mentioning that they flavored it with bullshit


----------



## FriedTofu

https://www.apnews.com/33e05d95e448...-the-fallen:-Trump-hasn't-called-all-families



> Then Trump stirred things further Tuesday on Fox News radio, saying, “You could ask General Kelly, did he get a call from Obama?”
> 
> John Kelly, a Marine general under Obama, is Trump’s chief of staff. His son, Marine 2nd Lt. Robert Kelly, was killed in Afghanistan in 2010. John Kelly was not seen at Trump’s public events Tuesday.
> 
> A White House official said Obama did not call Kelly after his son’s death but did not say whether the former president reached out in some other fashion. White House visitor records show Kelly attended a breakfast Obama hosted for Gold Star families six months after his son died. A person familiar with the breakfast — speaking on condition of anonymity because the event was private — said the Kelly family sat at Michelle Obama’s table.
> 
> Obama aides said it was difficult this many years later to determine if he had also called Kelly, or when.


Has this guy no shame or decency whenever he gets attacked?


----------



## samizayn

FriedTofu said:


> Has this guy no shame or decency whenever he gets attacked?


No. Are we still acting shocked this late into the game?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/920276449378095104
> :ha


Putin: "Russia didn't screw Hillary. Hillary screwed Hillary."












FriedTofu said:


> https://www.apnews.com/33e05d95e448...-the-fallen:-Trump-hasn't-called-all-families
> 
> 
> 
> Has this guy no shame or decency whenever he gets attacked?


No offense, but why are you asking a question that you already know the answer to? :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

FriedTofu said:


> https://www.apnews.com/33e05d95e448...-the-fallen:-Trump-hasn't-called-all-families
> 
> 
> 
> Has this guy no shame or decency whenever he gets attacked?


He has never had any shame or decency, are you just noticing this now?


----------



## FriedTofu

samizayn said:


> No. Are we still acting shocked this late into the game?





Lumpy McRighteous said:


> No offense, but why are you asking a question that you already know the answer to? :lol





birthday_massacre said:


> He has never had any shame or decency, are you just noticing this now?


I expected better from someone that good decent people voted for.

I was told Hilary would be worse. :shrug.


----------



## stevefox1200

I don't understand the giddiness for "proof" that Hillary has Russian connections

If she has illegal connections she should go to jail but dosn't that prove that Russia is involved in American politics?

and if they do doesn't that make Trump look like a MASSIVE tool for denying it and going on their record to praise their leader?

And Wikileaks tends to be very pro-Russia with what they post with Julian constantly supporting them on twitter but now that they have info on Hiliary's Russian connections Russia is bad again?

I don't understand people


----------



## virus21

FriedTofu said:


> I was told Hilary would be worse. :shrug.


Well we're not blowing up Iran and Syria and shooting down Russian planes, risking World War 3.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

FriedTofu said:


> I expected better from someone that good decent people voted for.
> 
> I was told Hilary would be worse. :shrug.


I think many people hated Hillary because she was trying to be a nice person which most thought she wasn't while Trump was campaigning as someone who would shit on anybody if he had to. 

Fair or not a lot of people in this country want someone who at this point is going to shown no decency to anyone in DC or the country for that matter.

That is scary part of it and why there is a real chance he might get reelected in 2020 since the GOP will not impeach him for anything and I don't think anyone in his cabinet have the balls to invoke the 25th Amendment on him.


----------



## stevefox1200

virus21 said:


> Well we're not blowing up Iran and Syria and shooting down Russian planes, risking World War 3.


We are constantly threatening North Korea and saying "diplomacy is waste of time" and trying to declare China as a criminal nation and Russia is still making the same passive aggressive threats 

Trump is also expanding middle eastern deployment

of course he has the built in excuse about "how he has to bow to "neo-con" pressure or how he can't stop the "military industrial complex""


----------



## virus21

stevefox1200 said:


> We are constantly threatening North Korea and saying "diplomacy is waste of time" and trying to declare China as a criminal nation and Russia is still making the same passive aggressive threats
> 
> Trump is also expanding middle eastern deployment
> 
> of course he has the built in excuse about "how he has to bow to "neo-con" pressure or how he can't stop the "military industrial complex""


Korea was something that should have been dealt with ages ago. Its a rogue state with nukes and seems to be will to use them. Diplomacy and sanctions haven't worked. 

Trump has always had a luke warm relations with China and China with the US as a whole. And its not like China's activities in Africa have been the greatest. I do agree that declaring it a criminal state is going far, but its not the same as going to war with them.

Russia always seems to do that shit. They won't go to far, not unless they want all of NATO coming for them. Then again NATO doesn't seem to want to provoke Russia either.

And sadly, we were never going to leave the Middle East. To late now. Leaving would be a mistake as it would make it to easy for some group like IS to regroup and take over. Obama's time was probably the last chance to leave and we increased our activities there. Trump did get a cease fire in Syria, which a good thing and I haven't heard of him wanting to attack any nation in the Middle East that we aren't already there.


----------



## stevefox1200

virus21 said:


> Korea was something that should have been dealt with ages ago. Its a rogue state with nukes and seems to be will to use them. Diplomacy and sanctions haven't worked.
> 
> Trump has always had a luke warm relations with China and China with the US as a whole. And its not like China's activities in Africa have been the greatest. I do agree that declaring it a criminal state is going far, but its not the same as going to war with them.
> 
> Russia always seems to do that shit. They won't go to far, not unless they want all of NATO coming for them. Then again NATO doesn't seem to want to provoke Russia either.
> 
> And sadly, we were never going to leave the Middle East. To late now. Leaving would be a mistake as it would make it to easy for some group like IS to regroup and take over. Obama's time was probably the last chance to leave and we increased our activities there. Trump did get a cease fire in Syria, which a good thing and I haven't heard of him wanting to attack any nation in the Middle East that we aren't already there.


I just thinks its dumb that some people call Trump the peace candidate compared to Hilary 

Hilary was very passive aggressive but Trump has openly said that diplomacy is useless, which even if it true in this case, is a SUPREMELY stupid thing for a world leader to say, notably for one who's supporters claimed was far more peaceful and a better deal maker


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

FriedTofu said:


> I expected better from someone that good decent people voted for.
> 
> I was told Hilary would be worse. :shrug.


Trump is the lesser of two evils. However, he also happens to be masterful at IRL trolling, which also makes him a guilty pleasure.

:trump

And when it comes to being a worse human being, I'd say that laughing about getting your client off from being convicted of raping a girl > Saying that floozies unsurprisingly allow filthy rich guys to grab them by the pussy.

:draper2


----------



## yeahbaby!

stevefox1200 said:


> I just thinks its dumb that some people call Trump the peace candidate compared to Hilary
> 
> Hilary was very passive aggressive but *Trump has openly said that diplomacy is useless, which even if it true in this case, is a SUPREMELY stupid thing for a world leader to say*, notably for one who's supporters claimed was far more peaceful and a better deal maker


Especially when you're saying it about a rogue country run by an apparently unhinged dictator who does missile tests to troll people instead of tweeting.

STUPID MISTAKE! BAD FOR COUNTRY!


----------



## samizayn

FriedTofu said:


> I expected better from someone that good decent people voted for.
> 
> I was told Hilary would be worse. :shrug.


Good decent people, yeah.


Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Trump is the lesser of two evils. However, he also happens to be masterful at IRL trolling, which also makes him a guilty pleasure.
> 
> :trump
> 
> And when it comes to being a worse human being, I'd say that laughing about getting your client off from being convicted of raping a girl > Saying that floozies unsurprisingly allow filthy rich guys to grab them by the pussy.
> 
> :draper2


Awesome of you to share exactly what you think about sexual assault victims. Thanks for the illustration LUMPY.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/920533879823437824
This is one of the most delusional things I have read in my entire life. It simply amazes me that anyone not in elite circles could believe garbage like this.



> *Why Democrats Need Wall Street*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the most prominent voices in the Democratic Party, led by Bernie Sanders, are advocating wealth redistribution through higher taxes and Medicare for all, and demonizing banks and Wall Street.
> 
> Memories in politics are short, but those policies are vastly different from the program of the party’s traditional center-left coalition. Under Bill Clinton, that coalition balanced the budget, acknowledged the limits of government and protected the essential programs that make up the social safety net.
> 
> President Clinton did this, in part, by moving the party away from a reflexive anti-Wall Street posture. It’s not popular to say so today, but there are still compelling reasons Democrats should strengthen ties to Wall Street.
> 
> As the party has left behind that version of liberalism, it has also found its way to its weakest electoral position — nationally and at the state level — since the 1920s. Hillary Clinton’s lurch to the left probably cost her key Midwestern states that Barack Obama had won twice and led to the election of Donald Trump.
> 
> After the 2016 election, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, warned that the party’s “broad anti-business rhetoric” distracts its leaders from making growth the goal and “manages to scare off entrepreneurs and small businesses, too.”
> Continue reading the main story
> 
> Democrats should keep ties with Wall Street for several reasons. The first is an ugly fact of politics: money. Maintaining ties to Wall Street makes economic sense for Democrats and keeps their coffers full.
> 
> In the 2016 election, the Center for Responsive Politics reports, employees and companies in the securities and investment industry donated more than $63 million to the Democratic Party.
> 
> For the 2020 election, some of the party’s strongest potential presidential candidates — Senators Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris as well as Deval Patrick, the former Massachusetts governor — should not be dismissed simply because of their current or past ties to Wall Street.
> 
> If voters really hated ties to Wall Street and financial elites, Republicans would not enjoy such a commanding electoral position — or have elected a New York plutocrat president. Most voters’ major problems with President Trump stem from his performance, not from his wealth or connections to Wall Street.
> 
> A second reason Democrats should keep ties with Wall Street: Despite what the Democratic left says, America is a center-right, pro-capitalist nation. A January Gallup poll found that moderates and conservatives make up almost 70 percent of the country, while only 25 percent of voters identify as liberal. Even in May 2016, when Senator Sanders made redistribution a central part of his platform, Gallup found that only about 35 percent of Americans had a positive image of socialism, compared with 60 percent with a positive view of capitalism.
> 
> Third, it is hypocritical for Democrats to maintain ties to Silicon Valley and then turn their backs on the very people who help finance its work. The financial industry brings to market the world’s most innovate products and platforms that expand the economy and create jobs.
> 
> Fourth, demonizing Wall Street does nothing to bridge the widening gaps in our country. Wall Street has its flaws and abuses, which were addressed in part by the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. And yes, the American people are certainly hostile to and suspicious of Wall Street. But using this suspicion and hostility as the organizing principle for a major political party will consign Democrats to permanent minority status.
> 
> Here’s what the Democrats need to do instead: develop a set of pro-growth, inclusive economic policies. Democratic leaders must prioritize entrepreneurship, small-business growth and the expansion of job-training and retraining programs.
> 
> American leadership in finance will make it possible for our country to invest as much as $1 trillion in infrastructure, extend health care access to every American at an affordable rate and lift the 76 million Americans who are barely surviving financially, as reported in May 2016 by the Federal Reserve, into the middle class.
> 
> The Democrats need to partner with the financial community on these issues. Most important, the Democrats have simply had an ineffective, negative and coercive economic message. Advocacy of a $15 minimum wage and further banking regulation does not constitute a positive, proactive agenda.
> 
> The Democrats cannot be the party that supports only new, stifling regulations. Reducing regulation allows banks to employ capital and finance investment in our country’s future, making electric cars, renewable energy and internet connectivity across the globe a reality.
> 
> This was evident to Democrats in the 1990s. From 1996 to 2000, for example, Democrats led the way on two key economic legislative victories. First, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 deregulated the communications and cable industries, increased growth and enhanced market competition. Second, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 removed regulations placed on financial institutions by bureaucrats and expanded opportunities for Wall Street to engage in mergers and acquisitions, adding wealth to the retirement accounts and other investment portfolios of millions of middle-class Americans.
> 
> If the party is going to have any chance of returning to its position of influence and appeal, Democrats need to work with Wall Street to push policies that create jobs, heal divisions and stimulate the American economy.
> 
> SOURCE





> the party’s traditional center-left coalition. Under Bill Clinton


Imagine believing something this retarded. It was the Clintons and the Koch backed DLC that led the charge of transforming the Democrats into a neoliberal center-right party. Even in their most FDR leftist of leftist days, the Democrats were only slightly left of center.



> As the party has left behind that version of liberalism, it has also found its way to its weakest electoral position — nationally and at the state level — since the 1920s. Hillary Clinton’s lurch to the left probably cost her key Midwestern states that Barack Obama had won twice and led to the election of Donald Trump.


Lurch to the left?! :ha

Jesus fucking Christ, this author is not living in the land of reality. Clinton and the DNC shat on anything remotely leftist and actively courted suburbanite moderate Republicans. She lost the Rust Belt mainly because it's a region that has been devastated by NAFTA and Trump campaigned against the TPP, which Clinton once called the gold standard of trade deals, so no one believed her lying ass when she claimed at the last minute to be against it. Oh and Obama was still trying to get the TPP passed until his last day in office. Yeah, Obama won those states twice and did jack shit nothing to fix their economic woes. 

Speaking of the 1920s, you know what happened next? The Great Depression, followed by FDR and the New Deal. Those left of center policies were so popular with the American people that they elected FDR until his death and Democrats dominated Congress for the next 50 years. Now that they have completely abandoned the New Deal to get in bed with Wall Street, they have lost control of Congress. Yet, dumbass here thinks they need to do even more of the thing that has wrecked their party so badly.



> Democrats should keep ties with Wall Street for several reasons. The first is an ugly fact of politics: money. Maintaining ties to Wall Street makes economic sense for Democrats and keeps their coffers full.


This has already been disproved in the strongest terms possible. Clinton outspent Trump 2 to 1 and still lost. Bernie proved you can raise tremendous amounts of cash through small donations. And, the DNC is currently seeing it's lowest fundraising totals in over a decade, even after they moved further right by scrapping the rule that says they won't take donations from lobbyists.



> For the 2020 election, some of the party’s strongest potential presidential candidates — Senators Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris as well as Deval Patrick, the former Massachusetts governor — should not be dismissed simply because of their current or past ties to Wall Street.


Yes, yes they should. If your answer to losing an election to cartoon villain is to continue along the same path, then you're a fucking retard. The status quo has failed the USA, so if you continue to push status quo candidates, do not be surprised if you continue to lose.



> If voters really hated ties to Wall Street and financial elites, Republicans would not enjoy such a commanding electoral position


Republicans don't win because a majority of voters want Republican policies. They win because neoliberal Democrats are epic failures. Americans were so sick of Republicans after the Dubya disaster that they gave complete control of the country to Democrats. Then the Democrats gave us a right wing healthcare reform and gave a trillions+ dollar blow job to the criminal bankers while over 5 million Americans lost their homes to fraud. When you are given control of the government and the first thing you do is fuck over your constituents, it should come as a surprise to exactly no one when you get voted out office, even if the alternative is even more repugnant. Americans are going to keep voting for change until they get it. Obama ran on hope and change and left us with no hope and no change. Trump ran as an anti-establishment candidate and has turned into the most establishment Republican ever. And when Americans get tired of the current shit show, they'll go back the other way. When that happens, if the Democrats continue on the same path they're on, we'll just keep circling the drain of stupid.



> A second reason Democrats should keep ties with Wall Street: Despite what the Democratic left says, America is a center-right, pro-capitalist nation. A January Gallup poll found that moderates and conservatives make up almost 70 percent of the country, while only 25 percent of voters identify as liberal. Even in May 2016, when Senator Sanders made redistribution a central part of his platform, Gallup found that only about 35 percent of Americans had a positive image of socialism, compared with 60 percent with a positive view of capitalism.


More deceitful bullshit. Americans are fucking morons when it comes to political labels. Social issues get conflated with actual left/right economic positions. When you go policy by policy, a majority of Americans are very much left of center. Things like a higher minimum wage, higher taxes on the rich, universal healthcare, all have majority support amongst the American people. During the primaries, Bernie won a lot of the "conservative" states because the socialist label the author here is trying to use as a weapon did not hurt him. People were more interested in his policies and his policies consistently poll well with the American people. Political labels have been so misused in the USA that they have basically lost all meaning, as proven by Captain Retard here calling 90s Democrats a center left party.



> Here’s what the Democrats need to do instead: develop a set of pro-growth, inclusive economic policies. Democratic leaders must prioritize entrepreneurship, small-business growth and the expansion of job-training and retraining programs.


More Republican talking points.



> The Democrats need to partner with the financial community on these issues. Most important, the Democrats have simply had an ineffective, negative and coercive economic message. Advocacy of a $15 minimum wage and further banking regulation does not constitute a positive, proactive agenda.


The aggressively stupid author here is suggesting that to help the working class, the Democrats must be in bed with the financial industry. The problem being, the goals of each are fundamentally opposed to each other. I know a lot of Americans like to keep their heads firmly planted up their asses but the banks are out of control and an even bigger crash than 9 years is quickly approaching. Glass-Steagall has not been reinstated. The banks are even bigger than the last time they crashed. The subprime mortgage bubble has been reinflated. There's also a car loan bubble that's getting ready to pop. Debt is skyrocketing while the ability of the common man to pay that debt is disappearing. Millions got fucked over and lost their homes to fraud during the last crash. Wells Fargo has been in the news lately for opening fraudulent accounts. And yet, this fucking moron here is trying to claim that running on a platform of getting the banks under control is not a positive message. Oh yeah, people don't want higher wages either. The only people that consider higher wages and reigned in banks to not be a "positive, proactive agenda" are the banks themselves.



> Reducing regulation allows banks to employ capital and finance investment in our country’s future, making electric cars, renewable energy and internet connectivity across the globe a reality.


This line reeks of race to the bottom globalism. Give us more! Give us more! Then we'll invest it, honest!



> This was evident to Democrats in the 1990s. From 1996 to 2000, for example, Democrats led the way on two key economic legislative victories. First, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 deregulated the communications and cable industries, increased growth and enhanced market competition


Enhanced market competition? Are you fucking kidding me? It did the exact opposite of that. It led to 6 major media companies owning 90% of the media. That's a consolidation of power and a lessening of market competition.



> Second, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 removed regulations placed on financial institutions by bureaucrats and expanded opportunities for Wall Street to engage in mergers and acquisitions, adding wealth to the retirement accounts and other investment portfolios of millions of middle-class Americans.


Now the author is just outright praising monopolies. There was a time when Americans understood that monopolies were a bad thing. That's why we have anti-trust laws. Those laws are still on the books but they haven't been enforced in decades. The claim being made here is that if we just let Wall Street do whatever the fuck it wants to, it'll somehow benefit the rest of us. If you believe that, I've got a bridge in New York to sell you.



> If the party is going to have any chance of returning to its position of influence and appeal, Democrats need to work with Wall Street to push policies that create jobs, heal divisions and stimulate the American economy.


Obama bragged about all of his job creation too. What they fail to admit is that they're all low paying crappy jobs with little to no benefits. Jobs are not a good thing in and of themselves of those jobs do not provide any reasonable standard of living. The more Wall Street takes, the less there is for everyone else. 

The sum of the argument being presented here is that Democrats need to become even more Republican than they already are if they want to win elections. Of course, they've been on this rightward lurching neoliberal corporatist path for the past 30+ years and now they are wiped out on a national level. Establishment Democrats believe they can be socially liberal and economically conservative and that will win them elections. Well, there's not enough gay wedding cakes and abortion rights in the world to keep yourself in power if you fuck people over economically in the process. What's so completely insane about all of this is that they'll probably regain power while changing nothing after Trump and the Republicans wreck the economy. The entire strategy of these Democrats is to tell the American people to be happy with your table scraps because the Republicans won't give you any table scraps at all. Contrary to what the author of this piece would have you believe, the existence of the Democratic establishment is not to defeat Republicans but to keep the left out of power. They fear anything even remotely leftist, which is why they attack centrist Bernie and his supporters even more viciously than they attack Republicans. They are desperate for so called unity because they know they'll have another chance at power when the GOP inevitably fails hard. If/when that happens and the very same people with the very same policies that led to a dotard like Trump in the first place, then the USA is well and truly fucked.


----------



## Vic Capri

> If she has illegal connections she should go to jail


She'd already be in prison right now if certain political strings at the Department of Justice weren't pulled. 

- Vic


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> She'd already be in prison right now if certain political strings at the Department of Justice weren't pulled.
> 
> - Vic


Just like Trump should be for his fake university.


----------



## birthday_massacre

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/us/politics/trump-widow-johnson-call.html

*Trump Told a Soldier’s Widow Her Husband ‘Knew What He Signed Up For,’ His Mother Says
*



WASHINGTON — The mother of a soldier killed in an ambush in Niger said Wednesday that President Trump disrespected her family during a call with the man’s widow by saying the soldier “knew what he signed up for.”

President Trump denied he said those words to Sgt. La David T. Johnson’s wife during a Tuesday phone call and escalated his dispute with Representative Frederica Wilson, Democrat of Florida, who first described the exchange on Tuesday.

Speaking before a meeting with members of the Senate Finance Committee, Mr. Trump said, “I had a very nice conversation with the woman, with the wife, who sounded like a wonderful woman.” He also asserted, “I didn’t say what that congresswoman said. Didn’t say it at all, she knows it.”

Yet when asked about Ms. Wilson’s account of the call on Wednesday, Mr. Johnson’s mother, Cowanda Jones-Johnson, backed the congresswoman’s version. “Yes, he did state that comment,” Ms. Jones-Johnson said of Mr. Trump, corresponding via Facebook.

Pressed twice by reporters about Ms. Wilson’s description, Mr. Trump dared her to make the allegations again. “Let her make her statement again and then you’ll find out,” the president said.

Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE

Fourth U.S. Soldier Is Found Dead After Ambush in Niger OCT. 6, 2017

Trump Falsely Claims Obama Didn’t Contact Families of Fallen Troops OCT. 16, 2017

Donald Trump Criticizes Muslim Family of Slain U.S. Soldier, Drawing Ire JULY 30, 2016
RECENT COMMENTS

Basic 31 minutes ago
Once again, DJT tells another bald faced lie to U.S. what could possibility be worth it to R's (taxes, Gorsuch, ?) to continue to support...
Karen 31 minutes ago
Mr. Trump said, “I had a very nice conversation with the woman, with the wife, who sounded like a wonderful woman.”He couldn't even be...
Irmalinda Belle 31 minutes ago
With all of this twitter action today you can bet he is trying to distract from something.... perhaps his lack of any meaningful action on...
SEE ALL COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENT
The back and forth has angered many, including Representative Alcee Hastings, Democrat of Florida, who said Mr. Trump needs to stop disrespecting Mr. Johnson’s family. “My position is that the vapid, vacuous vessel that is Donald Trump’s brain produces lie after lie after lie,” Mr. Hastings said. “All of us see this and somebody needs to say to him, not just as it pertains to this issue, ‘Stop the damn lies.’”

Photo

A video frame of Myeshia Johnson over the casket of her husband, Sgt. La David Johnson, who was killed in an ambush in Niger, upon his body’s arrival in Miami on Tuesday. Credit WPLG, via Associated Press
Ms. Wilson recounted details of Mr. Trump’s call with Sergeant Johnson’s widow, Myeshia Johnson. On Tuesday, Ms. Wilson was in the car with the widow, and said she overheard the phone call from the president, who was on speakerphone. Sergeant Johnson was killed in an ambush in Niger earlier this month that killed three other soldiers and injured two in the Army Special Forces Unit.

Ms. Wilson said that during the call, the president told Ms. Johnson “something to the fact that he knew what he was getting into when he signed up,” the congresswoman said in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Wednesday.

“But that’s not the worst part,” Ms. Wilson said. “She was crying the whole time and when she hung up the phone she looked at me and said ‘he didn’t even remember his name.’ That’s the hurting part.”

Mr. Trump’s comments were the latest in a series of remarks he made this week drawing attention to grieving families of fallen soldiers.

Mr. Trump took to Twitter early Wednesday and disputed the account.


Mr. Trump did not say what proof he had.

Ms. Wilson said she stood by her description of the call.

“I don’t know what kind of proof he could be talking about,” Ms. Wilson said on CNN’s “New Day.”

She added, “I have proof, too.”

Later on Wednesday morning, Ms. Wilson pushed back against the president in a Twitter post.


Sergeant Johnson, 25, was from Miami Gardens, Fla., the Defense Department said. He and Ms. Johnson had two children, and Ms. Johnson is pregnant. The Pentagon has launched an investigation into the ambush in Niger.

Photo

Rep. Frederica Wilson of Florida spoke to reporters about Sgt. La David Johnson’s widow on Wednesday in Miami Gardens. Credit Alan Diaz/Associated Press
Mr. Trump has said very little about the Niger episode. When he was asked by a reporter about this on Monday, he responded by saying he had written letters to the soldiers’ families. Mr. Trump compared his actions to past presidents and said past presidents have not always contacted families of those killed in action.

Mr. Trump singled out former President Barack Obama, saying he had not made such calls, an assertion that quickly drew angry rebukes from former Obama aides.

In a radio interview on Tuesday, Mr. Trump suggested that Mr. Obama never called John Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general and now the White House chief of staff, when his son died in Afghanistan in 2010.

Morning Briefing
Get what you need to know to start your day in the United States, Canada and the Americas, delivered to your inbox.

Sign Up
SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME
“You could ask General Kelly, ‘Did he get a call from Obama?’ ” Mr. Trump said in an interview on Fox News Radio. “I believe his policy was somewhat different than my policy. I can tell you my policy is I called every one of them.”

Mr. Trump’s tweet rebutting Ms. Wilson’s account of the phone call was his sixth Twitter post on Wednesday morning and came after Ms. Wilson’s description was discussed on morning news shows. Mr. Trump often takes to Twitter with reactions to what he sees on television.


6
COMMENTS
Mr. Trump’s first Twitter posts were about the former F.B.I. director, James Comey, as well as about his Democratic opponent in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton, and the ongoing debate about professional football players kneeling during the national anthem.

“Total disrespect for our great country,” Mr. Trump wrote on Wednesday, referring to the football players.


----------



## DOPA

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-plot-fbi-investigation-kremlin-a8005641.html



> *Obama administration approved nuclear deal with Kremlin after FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot*
> 
> *The Obama administration potentially knew of corruption at a Russian nuclear supplier years before it agreed to sign over 20 per cent of US's uranium supply to the company, a new report has claimed.*
> 
> The Hill claims federal agents found evidence of illegal payments made to an employee at a Russian nuclear company years before the Obama administration allowed the company to make a major business deal.
> 
> *Employees at Tenex, a subsidiary of Rosatom – the regulatory body of the Russian nuclear complex – received bribes and kickbacks from American companies as early as 2009, according to the Hill. An undercover agent made secret recordings, collected financial records, and intercepted emails documenting the payments – the earliest of which was recorded in September 2009.*
> 
> But in 2010, the Obama administration allowed Rosatom to move forward with the purchase of Canadian mining company Uranium One, *effectively giving Moscow control of more than 20 per cent of America’s uranium supply. The next year, they allowed Tenex to expand the amount of nuclear products they sold in the US.*
> 
> The decision sparked controversy years later, following a 2015 bombshell report: *The New York Times found Moscow had paid millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation at the same time the US was pondering the Rosatom deal. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at the time.*
> 
> A spokesman for Ms Clinton’s presidential campaign told the Times that no one had ever produced "a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation".
> 
> “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,” the spokesperson said.
> 
> That same year, federal agents *arrested Vadim Mikerin – a top executive at Tenex – for arranging more than $2m in payments in exchange for contracts from the company, according to the Department of Justice.
> *
> 
> During the DOJ investigation, *Mikerin admitted to conspiring with others to send more than $2m to offshore shell company bank accounts in Cyprus, Latvia and Switzerland*. He was forced to forfeit the money, and was sentenced to 48 months in jail.
> 
> The arrest made little news at the time, but legislators told the Hill that they were *concerned that the Obama administration had not disclosed reports of corruption earlier.
> *
> 
> “Not providing information on a corruption scheme before the Russian uranium deal was approved by US regulators and engage appropriate congressional committees has served to undermine U.S. national security interests by the very people charged with protecting them,” said former Representative Mike Rogers, who chaired the House Intelligence Committee while the investigation was being conducted.
> 
> He added: “The Russian efforts to manipulate our American political enterprise is breathtaking.”


We're looking at potentially the real Russian scandal. This news is potentially huge.

The question is, will this even be investigated?


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/920738007694696448
I wonder how many Americans even knew we were in Niger before this past week. Hell, I wonder how many still don't know it now.



L-DOPA said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-plot-fbi-investigation-kremlin-a8005641.html
> 
> 
> 
> We're looking at potentially the real Russian scandal. This news is potentially huge.
> 
> The question is, will this even be investigated?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/920738007694696448
> I wonder how many Americans even knew we were in Niger before this past week. Hell, I wonder how many still don't know it now.


Heard about it and the 4 soldiers that were lost there. :no:

It's fuckery like this that makes me wish Trump would work with Gabbard on handling foreign policy because of her experience as a soldier fighting in that bumfuck side of the world.



samizayn said:


> Awesome of you to share exactly what you think about sexual assault victims. Thanks for the illustration LUMPY.


You're welcome. :kappa

Let us know if you ever hear from the legion of women who accused Trump of sexual harassment, since they and Lisa Bloom have done a masterful job of disappearing into thin air near the home stretch of the 2016 election instead of sticking to their guns this entire time in spite of having what should be sufficient evidence to take him to task for his alleged crimes.

:trump3


----------



## Empress

The women accusing Donald Trump of sexual harassment and other offenses have not retracted their statements. The media may no longer keep their stories in heavy rotation but they are still very much have held fast to their allegations. They're not all "floozies" who want their pussies grabbed without permission.
*
Donald Trump Campaign Subpoenaed By Former ‘Apprentice’ Contestant In Defamation Suit

Watching Harvey Weinstein Fall, Trump's Accusers Feel Frustrated*


----------



## virus21

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/920738007694696448
> I wonder how many Americans even knew we were in Niger before this past week. Hell, I wonder how many still don't know it now.


I wonder how many Americans even know where Niger is.


----------



## stevefox1200

The troops in Niger were invited by a very supportive government and are there to act as advisors

its hardly a mass deployment

also how is Gabby a better choice than the tons of Generals and admirals that make up the current advisement board?

because she also supports your politics?


----------



## Draykorinee

Reading about Trump and his insensitive phone calls, the man attacks Obama, trying to make political points over dead soldiers and it backfires.


----------



## Vic Capri

Haters: Let's take a knee for the US flag!

Haters: President Trump is being disrespectful to vets!

- Vic


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> Haters: Let's take a knee for the US flag!
> 
> Haters: President Trump is being disrespectful to vets!
> 
> - Vic


I like people that weren't captured :Vietnam draft dodger Donald Trump on war hero John McCain


----------



## samizayn

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> You're welcome. :kappa
> 
> Let us know if you ever hear from the legion of women who accused Trump of sexual harassment, since they and Lisa Bloom have done a masterful job of disappearing into thin air near the home stretch of the 2016 election instead of sticking to their guns this entire time in spite of having what should be sufficient evidence to take him to task for his alleged crimes.


Why should I need to? You've just told me they exist with your misogynistic little characterisation of them. What you said was extremely hateful and you don't even seem to feel bad about it.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Empress said:


> The women accusing Donald Trump of sexual harassment and other offenses have not retracted their statements. The media may no longer keep their stories in heavy rotation but they are still very much have held fast to their allegations. They're not all "floozies" who want their pussies grabbed without permission.
> *
> Donald Trump Campaign Subpoenaed By Former ‘Apprentice’ Contestant In Defamation Suit
> 
> Watching Harvey Weinstein Fall, Trump's Accusers Feel Frustrated*


Clinton fell from grace because of his sexual harassment in spite of most of the country actually liking him. The same *could* easily happen to Trump, but that all depends on his accusers:

1) Sticking to their guns and keeping the pressure up

2) Ditching Bloom, Allred and any other fuckstick lawyers like them in favor of lawyers who will actually take their claims seriously

*If* what happened to them is true, then that's very unfortunate and Trump should absolutely be held accountable. However, the fact that they started coming out en masse when Trump's momentum was red-hot against Hillary came off as too convenient of an assist for the self-proclaimed feminist candidate Hillary. Had they come out en masse soon after his presidential announcement, their collective claims wouldn't have come off like a clearly fabricated attempt to save the election for Hillary.

Also, one of his accusers actually did drop her claim not once, but *twice* (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit-dropped-230770).



samizayn said:


> Why should I need to? You've just told me they exist with your misogynistic little characterisation of them. What you said was extremely hateful and you don't even seem to feel bad about it.


You're right, you don't have to do shit. The burden of proof lies on them. And no, I don't feel bad about what I said because if their accusations had an ounce of legitimacy, they would've come out en masse during the infancy of his campaign, not when his momentum was red-hot against Hillary.


----------



## Empress

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Clinton fell from grace because of his sexual harassment in spite of most of the country actually liking him. The same *could* easily happen to Trump, but that all depends on his accusers:
> 
> 1) Sticking to their guns and keeping the pressure up
> 
> 2) Ditching Bloom, Allred and any other fuckstick lawyers like them in favor of lawyers who will actually take their claims seriously
> 
> *If* what happened to them is true, then that's very unfortunate and Trump should absolutely be held accountable. However, the fact that they started coming out en masse when Trump's momentum was red-hot against Hillary came off as too convenient of an assist for the self-proclaimed feminist candidate Hillary. Had they come out en masse soon after his presidential announcement, their collective claims wouldn't have come off like a clearly fabricated attempt to save the election for Hillary.
> 
> Also, one of his accusers actually did drop her claim not once, but *twice* (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit-dropped-230770).


I do agree that the Trump accusers should drop Lisa Bloom, Gloria Allred, etc. Those two have shown themselves to be nothing more than frauds. It was just revealed this past week that Lisa Bloom colluded with Harvey Weinstein to pay off accusers and silence others but yet she went after Bill O' Reilly. 

I'm not going to judge a woman for when she decides to come forward with allegations of sexual assault, in particular against powerful men. If I was a woman sitting at home and Trump was within striking distance of becoming POTUS and he'd done something to hurt me, I'd speak out too. I'd shout so everyone could hear me. 

As with the Weinstein case, one voice gives rise to others. There is strength in numbers and even then, Trump is given the benefit of doubt that he is a maligned victim of a conspiracy. 

As for the woman who dropped suit, I believe it was due to threats and not wanting to deal with the ordeal. I've been keeping watch on that and other accusations which brings me back to my original point. Many things have been left to waste in the news cycle but Trump's accusers, for the most part, didn't disappear by choice. It's just not the "sexy" story at the moment.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

stevefox1200 said:


> The troops in Niger were invited by a very supportive government and are there to act as advisors
> 
> its hardly a mass deployment
> 
> also how is Gabby a better choice than the tons of Generals and admirals that make up the current advisement board?
> 
> because she also supports your politics?


It's still a shame that 4 were lost regardless, since you'd figure that a supportive government would be looking to ensure that their security was as optimal as possible for any outside advisors.

And no one is saying that Gabby supercedes Trump's military advisors, but the fact that she's from the other side of the aisle and has combat experience would nevertheless bring a worthwhile point of view to his foreign policy *and* bring about some semblance of bipartisanship.


----------



## yeahbaby!

It's all a very sad state of affairs


----------



## stevefox1200

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> It's still a shame that 4 were lost regardless, since you'd figure that a supportive government would be looking to ensure that their security was as optimal as possible for any outside advisors.
> 
> And no one is saying that Gabby supercedes Trump's military advisors, but the fact that she's from the other side of the aisle and has combat experience would nevertheless bring a worthwhile point of view to his foreign policy *and* bring about some semblance of bipartisanship.


Advisors go on missions with the troops they are training and act as unofficial NCOs or low level officers 

They aren't cushy desk jobs or CIA guys teaching rebels to make car bombs in a cave, its a fairly prestigious and dangerous role.


----------



## samizayn

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> You're right, you don't have to do shit. The burden of proof lies on them. And no, I don't feel bad about what I said because if their accusations had an ounce of legitimacy, they would've come out en masse during the infancy of his campaign, not when his momentum was red-hot against Hillary.


We're actually talking about two separate things now. I'm trying to unpack your statement about the women Trump was taped speaking about, about when he was in the locker room of Victoria's Secret models.



> floozies unsurprisingly allow filthy rich guys to grab them by the pussy.


This is an entirely unacceptable characterisation of sexual assault victims and women in general. There is no 'allowing' when one person is trying to go to work and the other person can ruin their career and life with a no. None of what (by Trump's own admission) happened to them is their fault. None of them are 'floozies' for being the victim of sexual assault. None of them choose to be sexually assaulted by a man old enough to be their grandfather, and his having money doesn't make the sexual assault any more acceptable or appealing. Hope this helps.


----------



## yeahbaby!

samizayn said:


> This is an entirely unacceptable characterisation of sexual assault victims and women in general. There is no 'allowing' when one person is trying to go to work and the other person can ruin their career and life with a no. None of what (by Trump's own admission) happened to them is their fault. None of them are 'floozies' for being the victim of sexual assault. None of them choose to be sexually assaulted by a man old enough to be their grandfather, and his having money doesn't make the sexual assault any more acceptable or appealing. Hope this helps.


Come on mate they wanted it, you could tell by the way they were looking at him and what they were wearing.


----------



## Tater

Just in case anyone was still wondering why Democrats have been wiped out nationally, shit like this is why.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/920345210114265088


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Empress said:


> I do agree that the Trump accusers should drop Lisa Bloom, Gloria Allred, etc. Those two have shown themselves to be nothing more than frauds. It was just revealed this past week that Lisa Bloom colluded with Harvey Weinstein to pay off accusers and silence others but yet she went after Bill O' Reilly.
> 
> I'm not going to judge a woman for when she decides to come forward with allegations of sexual assault, in particular against powerful men. If I was a woman sitting at home and Trump was within striking distance of becoming POTUS and he'd done something to hurt me, I'd speak out too. I'd shout so everyone could hear me.
> 
> As with the Weinstein case, one voice gives rise to others. There is strength in numbers and even then, Trump is given the benefit of doubt that he is a maligned victim of a conspiracy.
> 
> As for the woman who dropped suit, I believe it was due to threats and not wanting to deal with the ordeal. I've been keeping watch on that and other accusations which brings me back to my original point. Many things have been left to waste in the news cycle but Trump's accusers, for the most part, didn't disappear by choice. It's just not the "sexy" story at the moment.


I heard about the Bloom / Weinstein bit and wasn't surprised, since she's Allred's daughter and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. However, I was still disgusted that she did it considering she parades around as a feminist and whatnot.

It's good that women nowadays are coming out about any sexual harassment that they have endured. However, I personally viewed the flood of sexual harassment claims against Trump as nothing more than a Hail Mary for the sake of trying to keep Hillary's head above water because the timing of the floodgates was just way too convenient.

I would honestly like to see these cases tended to so we can once and for all see whether or not these women are truly victims and thus get the justice they deserve, or are simply victims in name only for the sake of a narrative and should therefore fuck off.


----------



## virus21

I don't even


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

stevefox1200 said:


> Advisors go on missions with the troops they are training and act as unofficial NCOs or low level officers
> 
> They aren't cushy desk jobs or CIA guys teaching rebels to make car bombs in a cave, its a fairly prestigious and dangerous role.


I hear ya. Despite implementing methods of fixing their economy back in 2000 and getting its foot into the oil business in 2011, it's plausible that Niger just aren't up to snuff in regard to providing assistance for its military, hence the advisors. Whatever the case may be, I just find it odd that a country with a history of military regimes dropped the ball in that aspect.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

samizayn said:


> We're actually talking about two separate things now. I'm trying to unpack your statement about the women Trump was taped speaking about, about when he was in the locker room of Victoria's Secret models.
> 
> 
> 
> This is an entirely unacceptable characterisation of sexual assault victims and women in general. There is no 'allowing' when one person is trying to go to work and the other person can ruin their career and life with a no. None of what (by Trump's own admission) happened to them is their fault. None of them are 'floozies' for being the victim of sexual assault. None of them choose to be sexually assaulted by a man old enough to be their grandfather, and his having money doesn't make the sexual assault any more acceptable or appealing. Hope this helps.


A braggadocious billionaire saying sleazy shit on a shock jock's radio show to stroke his own ego? Perish the thought. For all know, he could be dead serious about being a Peeping Tom. That in of itself would give them ammo to file a lawsuit on the grounds of it being hostile work environment-type sexual harassment.

However, when you also have a number of instances that go against such claims (http://nypost.com/2016/10/12/former-teen-beauty-queens-say-trump-barged-into-their-dressing-room/ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...legation-british-witness-anthony-gilberthorpe http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news...m-beach-flooded-media/o142tytDggosJit6EKeVDP/ http://people.com/politics/trump-ca...er-who-doubts-her-story-of-sexual-misconduct/), then you shouldn't be surprised at any skepticism.

And while they couldn't choose to be victims of sexual assault, *if* they were indeed victimized in that manner, then nothing should've stopped them from coming forward from the get-go and taking Trump to task. Like I told @Empress , I'd actually like to see these cases taken to court and finally finished so we can put the issue to bed.


----------



## deepelemblues

HEALTH CARE IS A HUMAN RIGHT

...Unless you do things your betters disapprove of (like smoking or eating too much) or don't do things your betters think you should do (like exercising):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ury-indefinite-surgery-ban-smokers-obese/amp/

Remember this silly little video?






As time goes by a variant of that kind silliness is looking less and less silly. Do what we say or you can forget about getting certain kinds of health care. At least this proposal is being met with near-universal rejection and scorn. But will it in 20 years? Will proposals that go even farther, with more and more proscribed behaviors, more and more mandatory behaviors, more and more medicines and procedures going on the list of things that can be witheld, will they be met with objection and scorn in 40 years, or 60? Or will such proposals fall on more receptive ears... I know which way I would bet.


----------



## stevefox1200

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> I hear ya. Despite implementing methods of fixing their economy back in 2000 and getting its foot into the oil business in 2011, it's plausible that Niger just aren't up to snuff in regard to providing assistance for its military, hence the advisors. Whatever the case may be, I just find it odd that a country with a history of military regimes dropped the ball in that aspect.


That's the catch 22 of places like Niger

The US's greatest power militarily (an one that is ignored by many people) is infrastructure, the US can get anything anywhere in like a day and reinforcements are always like 20 minutes away

They dreaded military industrial complex means that anything a solider or allied soilder could ever need is already on the shelf and ready to be shipped and is always being produced 

Niger may have a ton of troops but if they can't get them to where they need to be in the very short window that the combat is happening

People talk about local corruption, protecting oil, and ignoring the people in the these regions as the reason that insurgents thrive in the countryside but in reality its all they can do 

They have a ton of troops but no real way to transport them 

so its either 
1.lock down the cities and the oil fields and factories so they can have a functioning economy and encourage people to give up their traditional land and move closer to the cities for protection with the warning that if you don't and get caught in the wrong military zone at the wrong time you will get fucked up 
or 
2.try to have their troops chase after a very fast moving enemy that does not respect borders

Its why Iraq looks like such a train wreck (although the current Iraq army has been kicking ass latley just in time to for another war on the kurds)

US advisors tend to train these local forces on how to be a faster moving combatant and how to better use support to pin down and destroy enemies quickly 

Sometimes it can actually really change things as the modern use of APC's as rapid combat support weapon rather than just a transport was created by ARVN in South Vietnam


----------



## samizayn

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> And while they couldn't choose to be victims of sexual assault, *if* they were indeed victimized in that manner, then nothing should've stopped them from coming forward from the get-go and taking Trump to task. Like I told @Empress , I'd actually like to see these cases taken to court and finally finished so we can put the issue to bed.


It's very important you understand we aren't talking about scepticism or weighing evidence here. If it makes you feel better I'll even take Trump out of the equation and talk about the hypothetical other man he saw in that locker-room. Not mere braggadocio; as the Harvey Weinstein developments in recent days has shown, this behaviour is unfortunately very widespread throughout the glamour professions, and they involve the exact kind of power dynamic I told you about before. If you take anything away from this, please let it be that this idea that "there is nothing stopping" these victims of sexual assault from coming forward is absolutely, completely, wholeheartedly untrue.


----------



## deepelemblues

samizayn said:


> It's very important you understand we aren't talking about scepticism or weighing evidence here. If it makes you feel better I'll even take Trump out of the equation and talk about the hypothetical other man he saw in that locker-room. Not mere braggadocio; as the Harvey Weinstein developments in recent days has shown, this behaviour is unfortunately very widespread throughout the glamour professions, and they involve the exact kind of power dynamic I told you about before. If you take anything away from this, please let it be that this idea that "there is nothing stopping" these victims of sexual assault from coming forward is absolutely, completely, wholeheartedly untrue.


If you aren't talking about weighing evidence then you're talking about fantasy.

The context is irrelevant.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Thanks for expanding my perspective on that, @stevefox1200 .



samizayn said:


> It's very important you understand we aren't talking about scepticism or weighing evidence here. If it makes you feel better I'll even take Trump out of the equation and talk about the hypothetical other man he saw in that locker-room. Not mere braggadocio; as the Harvey Weinstein developments in recent days has shown, this behaviour is unfortunately very widespread throughout the glamour professions, and they involve the exact kind of power dynamic I told you about before. If you take anything away from this, please let it be that this idea that "there is nothing stopping" these victims of sexual assault from coming forward is absolutely, completely, wholeheartedly untrue.


I've understood that sex being used as a form of power is a part of the nasty underbelly of not just entertainment, but even institutions of power.

However, another reason why I personally can't find 100% legitimacy with Trump's recent round of accusers is that two women who actually did take him court over sexual harassment have flip-flopped. His first wife Ivana said in 1993 that he raped her not "in a literal or criminal sense" and reinforced that in 2015 by saying that "the story is totally without merit". The second, a woman named Jill Harth, worked at one of his rallies as a makeup artist despite alleging sexual harassment and stalking years prior.

So yeah, if these accusers' claims have legitimacy, there really should be nothing stopping them from going gung-ho on him, especially when he's so polarizing.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> So yeah, if these accusers' claims have legitimacy, there really should be nothing stopping them from going gung-ho on him, especially when he's so polarizing.


Surely you can understand the gravity of bringing out such allegations into the public light? Opening yourself to intense media scrutiny, online harassment nowadays of course including death threats, overall being victim-blamed etc. 

Not so hard to believe they were basically scared and perhaps didn't want to face the whole thing for some time is it?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

yeahbaby! said:


> Surely you can understand the gravity of bringing out such allegations into the public light? Opening yourself to intense media scrutiny, online harassment nowadays of course including death threats, overall being victim-blamed etc.
> 
> Not so hard to believe they were basically scared and perhaps didn't want to face the whole thing for some time is it?


People's results may vary. If they know in their heart of hearts that what they're saying is true, they'd do the right thing and push on through in order to see that justice is served.

In fact, a few of the recent accusers came out *because* they felt that now that they are mothers, it was the right thing to do.

So this means one of two things:

1) If they're telling the truth, then they admirably felt as though it was important for them to show their children that such behavior is unacceptable and to teach them to learn from their experiences

2) If they're lying, then they're being scummier than the average con artist by using their own children as an excuse to come forward with such allegations


----------



## yeahbaby!

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> People's results may vary. If they know in their heart of hearts that what they're saying is true, they'd do the right thing and *push on through in order to see that justice is served.*


I'm not sure if you're actually trolling with this, but you understand people are not Superman fighting for truth and justice, they're not always brave in the face of potential danger or stress - they actually tend to avoid it.

In short, people just aren't like you're saying they should be, they're very flawed and may not have the constitutions to come out and go through a stressful court battle or trial by media. That doesn't mean they're lying however.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

yeahbaby! said:


> I'm not sure if you're actually trolling with this, but you understand people are not Superman fighting for truth and justice, they're not always brave in the face of potential danger or stress - they actually tend to avoid it.
> 
> In short, people just aren't like you're saying they should be, they're very flawed and may not have the constitutions to come out and go through a stressful court battle or trial by media. That doesn't mean they're lying however.


And yet Jill Harth, one of Trump's accusers that took him to court, has said that she'd counter-sue Trump if he sued her regarding the allegations. So like I said, people's results will vary, but if these accusers are actually telling the truth, I honestly wish that they'd follow Harth's example so that way they at least have some semblance of actually wanting justice to be served instead of living with their statuses as victims.


----------



## Vic Capri

George W. Bush trying to be relevant again! :lol Good to see him show his globalist colors.

- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

Vic Capri said:


> George W. Bush trying to be relevant again! :lol Good to see him show his globalist colors.
> 
> - Vic


What's ol GWB up to? "Can't get fooled again!"


----------



## stevefox1200

yeahbaby! said:


> What's ol GWB up to? "Can't get fooled again!"


He did a speech that dumped water on Trump

It was actually a pretty good speech were he said the current swell of patriotism is fulled by racism, that the current attempts at negotiation and compromise are always backhanded by cruelty and that current political establishment encourages bigotry

Also the reason you don't hear about Bush like you do other former presidents is the man is very quite in his personal life and had zero interest in fame 

Say what you want about his presidential run but Bush took his position as president very seriously


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow*
> 
> Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.
> 
> Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.
> 
> They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
> 
> The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.
> 
> Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.
> The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.
> 
> When this sale was used by Trump on the campaign trail last year, Hillary Clinton’s spokesman said she was not involved in the committee review and noted the State Department official who handled it said she “never intervened ... on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter.”
> 
> In 2011, the administration gave approval for Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants in a partnership with the United States Enrichment Corp. Before then, Tenex had been limited to selling U.S. nuclear power plants reprocessed uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons under the 1990s Megatons to Megawatts peace program.
> 
> “The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials.
> 
> The Obama administration’s decision to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One has been a source of political controversy since 2015.
> 
> That’s when conservative author Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
> 
> The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal.
> 
> But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.
> 
> Then-Attorney General Eric Holder was among the Obama administration officials joining Hillary Clinton on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States at the time the Uranium One deal was approved. Multiple current and former government officials told The Hill they did not know whether the FBI or DOJ ever alerted committee members to the criminal activity they uncovered.
> 
> Spokesmen for Holder and Clinton did not return calls seeking comment. The Justice Department also didn’t comment.
> 
> Mikerin was a director of Rosatom’s Tenex in Moscow since the early 2000s, where he oversaw Rosatom’s nuclear collaboration with the United States under the Megatons to Megwatts program and its commercial uranium sales to other countries. In 2010, Mikerin was dispatched to the U.S. on a work visa approved by the Obama administration to open Rosatom’s new American arm called Tenam.
> 
> Between 2009 and January 2012, Mikerin “did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire confederate and agree with other persons … to obstruct, delay and affect commerce and the movement of an article and commodity (enriched uranium) in commerce by extortion,” a November 2014 indictment stated.
> 
> His illegal conduct was captured with the help of a confidential witness, an American businessman, who began making kickback payments at Mikerin’s direction and with the permission of the FBI. The first kickback payment recorded by the FBI through its informant was dated Nov. 27, 2009, the records show.
> 
> In evidentiary affidavits signed in 2014 and 2015, an Energy Department agent assigned to assist the FBI in the case testified that Mikerin supervised a “racketeering scheme” that involved extortion, bribery, money laundering and kickbacks that were both directed by and provided benefit to more senior officials back in Russia.
> 
> “As part of the scheme, Mikerin, with the consent of higher level officials at TENEX and Rosatom (both Russian state-owned entities) would offer no-bid contracts to US businesses in exchange for kickbacks in the form of money payments made to some offshore banks accounts,” Agent David Gadren testified.
> 
> “Mikerin apparently then shared the proceeds with other co-conspirators associated with TENEX in Russia and elsewhere,” the agent added.
> 
> The investigation was ultimately supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, an Obama appointee who now serves as President Trump’s deputy attorney general, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, now the deputy FBI director under Trump, Justice Department documents show.
> 
> Both men now play a key role in the current investigation into possible, but still unproven, collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election cycle. McCabe is under congressional and Justice Department inspector general investigation in connection with money his wife’s Virginia state Senate campaign accepted in 2015 from now-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe at a time when McAuliffe was reportedly under investigation by the FBI. The probe is not focused on McAuliffe's conduct but rather on whether McCabe's attendance violated the Hatch Act or other FBI conflict rules.
> 
> The connections to the current Russia case are many. The Mikerin probe began in 2009 when Robert Mueller, now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, was still FBI director. And it ended in late 2015 under the direction of then-FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired earlier this year.
> Its many twist and turns aside, the FBI nuclear industry case proved a gold mine, in part because it uncovered a new Russian money laundering apparatus that routed bribe and kickback payments through financial instruments in Cyprus, Latvia and Seychelles. A Russian financier in New Jersey was among those arrested for the money laundering, court records show.
> 
> The case also exposed a serious national security breach: Mikerin had given a contract to an American trucking firm called Transport Logistics International that held the sensitive job of transporting Russia’s uranium around the United States in return for more than $2 million in kickbacks from some of its executives, court records show.
> 
> One of Mikerin’s former employees told the FBI that Tenex officials in Russia specifically directed the scheme to “allow for padded pricing to include kickbacks,” agents testified in one court filing.
> 
> Bringing down a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme that had both compromised a sensitive uranium transportation asset inside the U.S. and facilitated international money laundering would seem a major feather in any law enforcement agency’s cap.
> 
> But the Justice Department and FBI took little credit in 2014 when Mikerin, the Russian financier and the trucking firm executives were arrested and charged.
> 
> The only public statement occurred a year later when the Justice Department put out a little-noticed press release in August 2015, just days before Labor Day. The release noted that the various defendants had reached plea deals.
> 
> By that time, the criminal cases against Mikerin had been narrowed to a single charge of money laundering for a scheme that officials admitted stretched from 2004 to 2014. And though agents had evidence of criminal wrongdoing they collected since at least 2009, federal prosecutors only cited in the plea agreement a handful of transactions that occurred in 2011 and 2012, well after the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States’s approval.
> 
> The final court case also made no mention of any connection to the influence peddling conversations the FBI undercover informant witnessed about the Russian nuclear officials trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons even though agents had gathered documents showing the transmission of millions of dollars from Russia’s nuclear industry to an American entity that had provided assistance to Bill Clinton’s foundation, sources confirmed to The Hill.
> 
> The lack of fanfare left many key players in Washington with no inkling that a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme with serious national security implications had been uncovered.
> 
> On Dec. 15, 2015, the Justice Department put out a release stating that Mikerin, “a former Russian official residing in Maryland was sentenced today to 48 months in prison” and ordered to forfeit more than $2.1 million.
> 
> Ronald Hosko, who served as the assistant FBI director in charge of criminal cases when the investigation was underway, told The Hill he did not recall ever being briefed about Mikerin’s case by the counterintelligence side of the bureau despite the criminal charges that were being lodged.
> 
> “I had no idea this case was being conducted,” a surprised Hosko said in an interview.
> 
> Likewise, major congressional figures were also kept in the dark.
> 
> Former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who chaired the House Intelligence Committee during the time the FBI probe was being conducted, told The Hill that he had never been told anything about the Russian nuclear corruption case even though many fellow lawmakers had serious concerns about the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One deal.
> 
> “Not providing information on a corruption scheme before the Russian uranium deal was approved by U.S. regulators and engage appropriate congressional committees has served to undermine U.S. national security interests by the very people charged with protecting them,” he said. “The Russian efforts to manipulate our American political enterprise is breathtaking.”


http://thehill.com/policy/national-...sian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration


All this talk about Russian collusion with Trump, the MSM is surprisingly quiet with Hillary Clinton's alleged ties :lol That was the narrative for months and now not a peep :lol


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> George W. Bush trying to be relevant again! :lol Good to see him show his globalist colors.
> 
> - Vic


Sadly he's smarter than Trump and that's saying something. Trump giving himself a 10 out of 10 for handling of the situation in Puerto Rico is hilarious.


----------



## stevefox1200

Stinger Fan said:


> http://thehill.com/policy/national-...sian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration
> 
> 
> All this talk about Russian collusion with Trump, the MSM is surprisingly quiet with Hillary Clinton's alleged ties :lol That was the narrative for months and now not a peep :lol


That's because its a shitty smoking gun

All it proves is that were a company that bribed its company doing illegal bribes to other companies for contracts got approved to do a buy out by a government business council while Clinton and Obama were in power

Clinton was not the only one who signed off on the deal and when the FBI finally pushed criminal charges it had zero political focus and they didn't even say if the council was aware of that the company was under investigation when they made the deal 

The donation came from a person who was party of the company years ago and Hillary is smart enough to have openly state how much she is getting and pay the proper taxes which makes finding out if it was a bribe or not extremely difficult and the FBI is not even trying


----------



## Stinger Fan

stevefox1200 said:


> That's because its a shitty smoking gun
> 
> All it proves is that were a company that bribed its company doing illegal bribes to other companies for contracts got approved to do a buy out by a government business council while Clinton and Obama were in power
> 
> Clinton was not the only one who signed off on the deal and when the FBI finally pushed criminal charges it had zero political focus and they didn't even say if the council was aware of that the company was under investigation when they made the deal
> 
> The donation came from a person who was party of the company years ago and Hillary is smart enough to have openly state how much she is getting and pay the proper taxes which makes finding out if it was a bribe or not extremely difficult and the FBI is not even trying


I'm not saying its a smoking gun. All I'm saying is that there's clear blatant hypocrisy. The MSM would report on anything in regards to Trump and Russia and how it was "obvious" there was collusion yet now there's an alleged tie and they've gone very silent.


----------



## stevefox1200

Stinger Fan said:


> I'm not saying its a smoking gun. All I'm saying is that there's clear blatant hypocrisy. The MSM would report on anything in regards to Trump and Russia and how it was "obvious" there was collusion yet now there's an alleged tie and they've gone very silent.


I remember this being pretty hot right before the election started and this first came out

It also dosn't help that Obama and Hillary are currently private citizens, if he had won this would be a bigger deal and no one would give a fuck about what Trump did with Russia

Presidents are always held to a higher standard


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump has tweeted his bullshit again and pissed off the UK his fearmongering.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41695667

Such a massive bellend


----------



## themuel1

Is he ever off of fucking Twitter? Seems to find more time to Tweet bullshit about other countries then he does bothering to concentrate on the problems in the US. I suppose when he does that though he criticises athletes for exercising their rights to free speech and protest rather than talk about the issues they protest. Oh and he also criticises previous presidents and lies about how they dealt with families that had lost loved ones in the military. 


Remember Bush's reception when he visited the UK? That's going to be 1000 times worse if Trump comes here.


----------



## birthday_massacre

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ied-making-kelly-claims-he-said-it/782726001/

That comment to a widow Trump denied making? Kelly claims he said it

President Trump claimed adamantly this week that he didn't tell the widow of a fallen soldier that her husband knew "what he signed up for," calling an account confirmed by the soldier's mother "totally fabricated."

Then, on Thursday, his chief of staff said that wasn't entirely true.

John Kelly defended Trump's call to the widow, Myeshia Johnson, during a White House press briefing. Kelly told reporters that Trump's words echoed those Kelly heard when his son died in Afghanistan, including words the president denied using earlier this week.
*
"He knew what he was getting into when he joined” the military. “And when he died he was surrounded by the best men on this Earth, his friends,” Kelly said. “That’s what the president tried to say to the four families yesterday.” *


----------



## themuel1

Lying and fabrication is bad enough. These people continue to put their feet in their mouth though and expose their own lies. They just can't help themselves. So many lies that his lawyers had to meet him in pairs FFS. 

The one good thing that might come out of these 4 years, is that both sides might see how ridiculous politics has got and finally work in the best interests of the people they are supposed to fucking serve. Not the corporations or lobby groups; the American public.


----------



## birthday_massacre

themuel1 said:


> Lying and fabrication is bad enough. These people continue to put their feet in their mouth though and expose their own lies. They just can't help themselves. So many lies that his lawyers had to meet him in pairs FFS.
> 
> The one good thing that might come out of these 4 years,* is that both sides might see how ridiculous politics has got and finally work in the best interests of the people they are supposed to fucking serve. *Not the corporations or lobby groups; the American public.


that will never happen when voters keep voting for politicians who put their donations first over the public.

The US needs to get money out of politics. The system is broken.


----------



## virus21

And the Democrats still haven't figured it out.






Think the Greens or the Libertarians will get some numbers come election time or do you think a Progressive Party will spring up?


----------



## deepelemblues

Some of Richard Spencer's Nazi buddies apparently shot at protesters after his Florida rally. Three arrested.

Hope they get about 40 years in the hoosegow but they probably won't get even a tenth of that.


----------



## virus21

deepelemblues said:


> Some of Richard Spencer's Nazi buddies apparently shot at protesters after his Florida rally. Three arrested.
> 
> Hope they get about 40 years in the hoosegow but they probably won't get even a tenth of that.


Oh for fuck sakes. Did no one check for weapons? They've done it at every other college rally, for both sides.






Again, not a clue at all these people


----------



## birthday_massacre

virus21 said:


> And the Democrats still haven't figured it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think the Greens or the Libertarians will get some numbers come election time or do you think a Progressive Party will spring up?


There is already a progressive party, justice democrats.


----------



## DOPA

birthday_massacre said:


> There is already a progressive party, justice democrats.


Is it really a party though or is it just a progressive wing of the Democrats?

Not challenging you, I'm genuinely curious. I know a little bit about them through Secular Talk mostly and from what I understood it is a movement within the Democratic Party to basically take it over from the Corporate Centrists.


----------



## birthday_massacre

L-DOPA said:


> Is it really a party though or is it just a progressive wing of the Democrats?
> 
> Not challenging you, I'm genuinely curious. I know a little bit about them through Secular Talk mostly and from what I understood it is a movement within the Democratic Party to basically take it over from the Corporate Centrists.


It's more of a wing of the democratic party, who are primarying all of the establishment Democrats. It's smarter to keep them in the democratic party and just be a wing since they would get screwed by not being invited to debates when it comes to the president like the other parties do.

baby steps right.

what justice democrats are hoping is the whole party will flip to their ideals.


----------



## DOPA

birthday_massacre said:


> It's more of a wing of the democratic party, who are primarying all of the establishment Democrats. It's smarter to keep them in the democratic party and just be a wing since they would get screwed by not being invited to debates when it comes to the president like the other parties do.
> 
> baby steps right.
> 
> what justice democrats are hoping is the whole party will flip to their ideals.


Yeah that's what I figured it was. Thanks for clarifying (Y).


----------



## Tater

virus21 said:


> And the Democrats still haven't figured it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think the Greens or the Libertarians will get some numbers come election time or do you think a Progressive Party will spring up?





virus21 said:


> Again, not a clue at all these people


It's not that they don't have a clue or can't figure it out. It's that they are actively working against their base to protect their donors. Establishment Democrats know perfectly well how much the duopoly has rigged the game and are doing everything within their power to position themselves as literally the only alternative for when the Trump GOP shit show inevitably crashes and burns. That's the game plan; change none of the policies that led to the rise of Trump in the first place and regain power when the other side fails. What they don't have is any interest whatsoever in reform.



birthday_massacre said:


> There is already a progressive party, justice democrats.





L-DOPA said:


> Is it really a party though or is it just a progressive wing of the Democrats?
> 
> Not challenging you, I'm genuinely curious. I know a little bit about them through Secular Talk mostly and from what I understood it is a movement within the Democratic Party to basically take it over from the Corporate Centrists.





birthday_massacre said:


> It's more of a wing of the democratic party, who are primarying all of the establishment Democrats. It's smarter to keep them in the democratic party and just be a wing since they would get screwed by not being invited to debates when it comes to the president like the other parties do.
> 
> baby steps right.
> 
> what justice democrats are hoping is the whole party will flip to their ideals.


The logic Kyle uses for JD is that because the duopoly has rigged the game and made it so difficult for 3rd parties to compete, their best shot at reforming the USA is to take over the existing framework of the Democrats. The problem being, as has been shown time and time again, the powers that be behind the DNC have made it impossible to reform their party. As the legendary Arthur Conan Doyle states: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Therefore, if it is impossible to reform the establishment from the inside, no matter how improbable it might be to successfully challenge the duopoly from the outside, it remains the only option available for change.

Really, I admire their efforts but it does seem a bit of a fool's errand. I'd love for them to prove me wrong though. It'd be great if JD took over and kicked out every single one of the neoliberal Clintonites. I just don't see it happening. These are people who would rather sink the ship than ever allow us commoners to take control of the wheel.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> It's not that they don't have a clue or can't figure it out. It's that they are actively working against their base to protect their donors. Establishment Democrats know perfectly well how much the duopoly has rigged the game and are doing everything within their power to position themselves as literally the only alternative for when the Trump GOP shit show inevitably crashes and burns. That's the game plan; change none of the policies that led to the rise of Trump in the first place and regain power when the other side fails. What they don't have is any interest whatsoever in reform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The logic Kyle uses for JD is that because the duopoly has rigged the game and made it so difficult for 3rd parties to compete, their best shot at reforming the USA is to take over the existing framework of the Democrats. The problem being, as has been shown time and time again, the powers that be behind the DNC have made it impossible to reform their party. As the legendary Arthur Conan Doyle states: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Therefore, if it is impossible to reform the establishment from the inside, no matter how improbable it might be to successfully challenge the duopoly from the outside, it remains the only option available for change.
> 
> Really, I admire their efforts but it does seem a bit of a fool's errand. I'd love for them to prove me wrong though. It'd be great if JD took over and kicked out every single one of the neoliberal Clintonites. I just don't see it happening. These are people who would rather sink the ship than ever allow us commoners to take control of the wheel.


At least they are trying, its better than not doing anything at all. And they have a better shot at doing it from the inside than making a whole new party. If they keep chipping away the powers at be won't be the corrupt DNC anymore it will be real progressives. 

The biggest thing they need to do is get money out of politics. That is the one thing that could really even the playing field.


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> At least they are trying, its better than not doing anything at all. And they have a better shot at doing it from the inside than making a whole new party. If they keep chipping away the powers at be won't be the corrupt DNC anymore it will be real progressives.


That's the trap that has been laid out for you and every other person who wants to reform the establishment. They say that you have to operate within the existing framework of the duopoly. Then they rig the duopoly so that it cannot be changed. And as soon as you sign up to be a Democrat to reform the DNC, that's when you have been eliminated as a threat to them.

Look at what happened in California, for example. Berniecrats flooded the state convention and took control of 2/3 of the state delegates. The party elders then used super delegates to install a pharma lobbyist as the head of the party anyways. Democrats have a super majority in both houses of Congress in California and the bill for single payer was squashed before it ever even got to a vote. 



birthday_massacre said:


> The biggest thing they need to do is get money out of politics. That is the one thing that could really even the playing field.


That's something that will never, ever happen as long as the establishment maintains control of our government. Let's just say, best case scenario, JDs win every one of their races. That's 29 seats in Congress. It's hardly enough to break the establishment. Even if they are massively successful in their efforts to take over the DNC, it's still going to take a decade or two of trying, and that's assuming that there won't be drastic changes to the political situation during that time. Our capitalist economic system is barely limping along as it is. When it collapses, all hell is going to break loose and then who knows what will happen.

Bottom line is, shit is going to get real bad before it starts getting better and humanity as a whole is going to have to make drastic changes to how we structure our society. I think the JDs are coming from a good place but I don't think they'll amount to much in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> That's the trap that has been laid out for you and every other person who wants to reform the establishment. They say that you have to operate within the existing framework of the duopoly. Then they rig the duopoly so that it cannot be changed. And as soon as you sign up to be a Democrat to reform the DNC, that's when you have been eliminated as a threat to them.
> 
> Look at what happened in California, for example. Berniecrats flooded the state convention and took control of 2/3 of the state delegates. The party elders then used super delegates to install a pharma lobbyist as the head of the party anyways. Democrats have a super majority in both houses of Congress in California and the bill for single payer was squashed before it ever even got to a vote.
> 
> 
> 
> That's something that will never, ever happen as long as the establishment maintains control of our government. Let's just say, best case scenario, JDs win every one of their races. That's 29 seats in Congress. It's hardly enough to break the establishment. Even if they are massively successful in their efforts to take over the DNC, it's still going to take a decade or two of trying, and that's assuming that there won't be drastic changes to the political situation during that time. Our capitalist economic system is barely limping along as it is. When it collapses, all hell is going to break loose and then who knows what will happen.
> 
> Bottom line is, shit is going to get real bad before it starts getting better and humanity as a whole is going to have to make drastic changes to how we structure our society. I think the JDs are coming from a good place but I don't think they'll amount to much in the grand scheme of things.


You make great points, the voters need to just wake up and stop electing the establishment Democrats, and even republicans, stop voting someone just because of their last name. 

real change will come when the voters start voting their best interest and the politicians that actually have their best interest in mind. Its like you vote someone in, and they dont do the things they said they would do, vote them out, dont keep falling for their lies every election cycle.


----------



## Empress

I'd prefer if the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic party branched off and created their own affiliation. The Democrats are not a perfect party and much work needs to be done. But if Sanders, etc refuse to join and hold out for purity, they may as well just do their own thing. I lean progressive but there is nothing inherently wrong with some degree of centrism and pragmatism.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Empress said:


> I'd prefer if the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic party branched off and created their own affiliation. The Democrats are not a perfect party and much work needs to be done. But if Sanders, etc refuse to join and hold out for purity, they may as well just do their own thing. I lean progressive but there is nothing inherently wrong with some degree of centrism and pragmatism.


If Sanders did that back in the primaries, he never would have even been allowed in the debates.

The only reason he went with the DNC was to get his name out there and to be able to join in the debates


Its a catch 22 with the shitty US system where it's heavily weighted to the two main parties


----------



## Tater

Empress said:


> I'd prefer if the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic party branched off and created their own affiliation. The Democrats are not a perfect party and much work needs to be done. But if Sanders, etc refuse to join and *hold out for purity*, they may as well just do their own thing. I lean progressive but there is nothing inherently wrong with some degree of centrism and pragmatism.


Nice job parroting an establishment talking point. You are a prime example of the result of decades of corporate MSM propaganda designed to brainwash a population into never, ever questioning capitalism, so that a weak, milquetoast centrist like Bernie Sanders gets called a far leftist and center right war mongering corporatist neoliberals get labeled as _centrism_ and _pragmatism_. Maybe it would help if more people started thinking for themselves instead of keeping their thoughts restrained by the establishment defined Overton window.

If by "purity", you mean not giving support to people who will sell you out at home to their Wall Street puppet masters while gleefully bombing poor people around the world for global hegemony and profit for the military industrial complex, then you're goddamned right I have a purity test and the world would be a much better place if everyone else did too.


----------



## Empress

Tater said:


> Nice job parroting an establishment talking point. You are a prime example of the result of decades of corporate MSM propaganda designed to brainwash a population into never, ever questioning capitalism, so that a weak, milquetoast centrist like Bernie Sanders gets called a far leftist and center right war mongering corporatist neoliberals get labeled as _centrism_ and _pragmatism_. Maybe it would help if more people started thinking for themselves instead of keeping their thoughts restrained by the establishment defined Overton window.
> 
> If by "purity", you mean not giving support to people who will sell you out at home to their Wall Street puppet masters while gleefully bombing poor people around the world for global hegemony and profit for the military industrial complex, then you're goddamned right I have a purity test and the world would be a much better place if everyone else did too.


If that's how you see my stance, so be it. I find nothing vulgar in compromise and finding common ground when it's possible. Perfect is not the enemy of the good and I won't be whipped into getting into submission thinking otherwise. 

Also, Wall Street is a far more redundant talking point of the last few years if there ever was one. Excess greed is an issue but defaulting to "Wall Street" as a response to criticism does nothing to sway me.


----------



## Tater

Empress said:


> I find nothing vulgar in compromise and finding common ground when it's possible.


I agree. There's nothing wrong at all with compromise and finding common ground when it's possible, possible being the key word here. To compromise and find common ground with someone though, you have to have reasonably similar desired outcomes. If someone who doesn't want to be raped is confronted by someone who wants to rape them a lot, you wouldn't tell them that a little bit of raping is an acceptable compromise.

Make no mistake about it, establishment Democrats are every bit as much an enemy of the American people as Trump or any other goon from the GOP. They are two cheeks of the same corporate ass and it's we the people who get shat on. And as long as our government is owned by big money, the shit will continue to rain down.


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *Trump Says He Will Release Final Set of Documents on Kennedy Assassination*
> 
> WASHINGTON — President Trump has decided to release a final batch of thousands of classified government documents related to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Mr. Trump announced in a tweet on Saturday morning.
> 
> “*Subject to the receipt of further information, I will be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened*,” Mr. Trump said on Twitter.
> 
> The release of the information being held in secret at the National Archives — including several thousand never-before-seen documents — was mandated to occur by Oct. 26 under a 1992 law that sought to quell conspiracy theories about the assassination.
> 
> Mr. Trump has the power to block the release of the documents, and intelligence agencies have pressured him to do so for at least some of them. The agencies are concerned that information contained in some of the documents could damage national security interests.
> 
> In a statement to reporters, the White House left open the possibility that Mr. Trump might halt the release of some documents.
> Continue reading the main story
> 
> “The president believes that these documents should be made available in the interests of full transparency unless agencies provide a compelling and clear national security or law enforcement justification otherwise,” the statement said.
> 
> It is not known what revelations might be contained in the unreleased documents, though researchers and authors of books about Kennedy say they do not expect any bombshells that significantly alter the official narrative of the assassination — that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in Dallas — delivered in 1964 by the Warren Commission.
> 
> But the documents are likely to “help fuel a new generation of conspiracy theories,” according to Philip Shenon, a former New York Times reporter and the author of a book about the commission, and Larry J. Sabato, a University of Virginia professor and author of a book about Kennedy, who wrote a recent article about the documents in Politico.
> 
> They wrote that the documents relate to what they call a “mysterious chapter in the history of the assassination — a six-day trip that J.F.K. assassin Lee Harvey Oswald paid to Mexico City several weeks before the president’s murder, in which Oswald met with Cuban and Soviet spies and came under intensive surveillance by the C.I.A.’s Mexico City station. Previously released F.B.I. documents suggest that Oswald spoke openly in Mexico about his intention to kill Kennedy.”
> 
> With the Oct. 26 deadline to release the remaining documents fast approaching, Mr. Trump had been under increasing pressure from advocates of transparency not to hold back any of the documents from the public on the grounds of national security.
> 
> Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, introduced a resolution in the Senate this month that urged Mr. Trump to make a “full public release of all remaining records,” saying that he should “reject any claims for the continued postponement of the full public release of those records.”
> 
> Conspiracy theorists have long clamored for what they hope will be evidence to prove that the government covered up the truth about the assassination. This week, Roger J. Stone, a friend of Mr. Trump’s, told Alex Jones, the radio host and conspiracy theorist, that Mr. Stone had directly urged the president to release all the documents.
> 
> “I had the opportunity to make the case directly to the president of the United States by phone as to why I believe it is essential that he release the balance of the currently redacted and classified J.F.K. assassination documents,” Mr. Stone said on Mr. Jones’s radio program.
> 
> Mr. Trump is no stranger to conspiracy theories, including those involving the Kennedy assassination. During the presidential campaign, he at one point alleged that the father of Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican primary rival from Texas, had been with Oswald shortly before Kennedy was killed.
> 
> “You know, his father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald’s being — you know, shot,” Mr. Trump told Fox News in an interview in May 2016, as he battled the Texas senator for the nomination. “I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous. What is this, right, prior to his being shot, and nobody brings it up. They don’t even talk about that. That was reported and nobody talks about it. But I think it’s horrible.”
> 
> He went on, “What was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death, before the shooting? It’s horrible.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/us/politics/trump-jfk-assassination-classified.html

:YES

Fucking yes! This must happen


----------



## RavishingRickRules

So true lol


----------



## stevefox1200

Stinger Fan said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/us/politics/trump-jfk-assassination-classified.html
> 
> :YES
> 
> Fucking yes! This must happen


You do that government documents are 99.9% bureaucracy forums for things like gas prices?

The national records archive even warned people that if they get it out it will be completely illegible without a guide to bureaucratic terms from the area and most of it will be things like expense reports 

and Oswald acted alone


----------



## Stinger Fan

stevefox1200 said:


> You do that government documents are 99.9% bureaucracy forums for things like gas prices?
> 
> The national records archive even warned people that if they get it out it will be completely illegible without a guide to bureaucratic terms from the area and most of it will be things like expense reports
> 
> and Oswald acted alone


Not to turn this into a JFK debate here but

The bullet that killed JFK came from the opposite direction of the book depository . This cannot be disputed, you can see it in the zapruder film. There was only one media outlet that was allowed to know the details of the assassination and they got the details incorrect, including way he died thats where the now famous "back and to the left" came from. That is all you need to know that he didn't act alone, then there's the whole Clay Bertrand alias and the group that allegedly conspired with Oswald to kill JFK.

So no , he didn't act alone


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/us/politics/trump-jfk-assassination-classified.html
> 
> :YES
> 
> Fucking yes! This must happen


While he is at it, release anything on Aliens like Roswell.


----------



## StraightShooter

Trump is gonna legalize Weed and when he does it will be fucking amazing to see the reaction of angry Democrats and their fake Pharmaceutical Companies.


----------



## Tater

If there is anything incriminating against the US government in those JFK documents, Trump would not be allowed to release them. There's either nothing in that would make the government look bad or they'll be fake documents.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

StraightShooter said:


> Trump is gonna legalize Weed and when he does it will be fucking amazing to see the reaction of angry Democrats and their fake Pharmaceutical Companies.


Umm he literally appointed an Attorney General who wants to reignite and ratchet up the Drug War.


----------



## Miss Sally

I've not been in here much so missed a few things!

Someone mentioned Justice Democrats, while I think on paper it's good, in reality it won't work.

They're still working with people who are part of the "Left", still bowing to the whims of extremist Third Wave Feminism and trying to straddle the fence on a lot of dumb issues that shouldn't be the limelight of any Political Party.

They also have a few wimps in their upper ranks, this isn't the time for meek Politicians because establishment Democrats and their NeoCon brothers born from the same incestuous brother/sister relationship will tear them apart, if not with facts then with virtue signaling nonsense. We all know the regressives masquerading as progressives love a good ol fashion witch hunt for an "offender".

For any such take over to work you'd need to purge the "Leftists", NeoCons, Fanatic SJWs/Third wavers and the corporate corruption from the party itself. I don't see that happening because there is no self-awareness, either by choice or because the task would be impossible to accomplish so the problem gets ignored. 

It would be nice if the Democrats and Republicans could purge themselves of the toxic people within their ranks so what we'd get is the best ideas and Politicians from both parties but that won't happen.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

StraightShooter said:


> Trump is gonna legalize Weed and when he does it will be fucking amazing to see the reaction of angry Democrats and their fake Pharmaceutical Companies.


Yeah, no. He hired as Attorney General a guy who hates the idea of legalisation and wants to make the drug war even harsher.

Trump is not going to legalise weed. Because the Republican base fucking hates the idea of that, as do the Congressional Republicans who take kickbacks from the Pharmaceutical industry.

I love how you seem to believe it's somehow only Democrats that are in Big Pharma's pocket though, that's fucking adorable.


----------



## Tater

Reservoir Angel said:


> the Republican base fucking hates the idea


Eh, I'm not so sure about that. There's a lot of pot smoking right wingers and/or ones who think it should be legal because they are small government libertarian minded. Republican leadership strongly opposes the legalization of pot, sure, but it's a mixed bag with the base. Pun intended.

All I can say is that the Democrats better hope like hell that Trump doesn't do something so super popular as legalizing pot because that's the sort of thing that would guarantee his reelection.


----------



## Draykorinee

StraightShooter said:


> Trump is gonna legalize Weed and when he does it will be fucking amazing to see the reaction of angry Democrats and their fake Pharmaceutical Companies.


This deserves all the negs, not only is Trump unlikely to legalize weed the last part about dems and big Pharma is tragic.

Been a quiet day for Trump news.


----------



## BruiserKC

Tater said:


> Eh, I'm not so sure about that. There's a lot of pot smoking right wingers and/or ones who think it should be legal because they are small government libertarian minded. *Republican leadership strongly opposes the legalization of pot*, sure, but it's a mixed bag with the base. Pun intended.
> 
> All I can say is that the Democrats better hope like hell that Trump doesn't do something so super popular as legalizing pot because that's the sort of thing that would guarantee his reelection.





draykorinee said:


> This deserves all the negs, not only is Trump unlikely to legalize weed the last part about dems and big Pharma is tragic.
> 
> Been a quiet day for Trump news.


It's not just the leadership, but there is a decent amount of his base supporters that are opposed to it as well. This is a part of the culture war that doesn't get a lot of attention. In their eyes, part of what they see as the deterioration of society is the legalization of some drugs. In their eyes, marijuana is a gateway drug to a life of crime and harsher drugs (they point to the opioid crisis as started by those who smoked pot at first). 

There is absolutely ZERO chance Trump is going to legalize marijuana all across the board...he'd end up dealing with yet another possible revolt within his base.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Tater

BruiserKC said:


> It's not just the leadership, but there is a decent amount of his base supporters that are opposed to it as well. This is a part of the culture war that doesn't get a lot of attention. In their eyes, part of what they see as the deterioration of society is the legalization of some drugs. In their eyes, marijuana is a gateway drug to a life of crime and harsher drugs (they point to the opioid crisis as started by those who smoked pot at first).
> 
> There is absolutely ZERO chance Trump is going to legalize marijuana all across the board...he'd end up dealing with yet another possible revolt within his base.


I don't think the Republican base is as opposed to pot legalization as you might think. According to the most recent poll I can find, over 40% supports it. https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/trends/Civil Liberties?measure=grass

A lot of it would depend on spin. If Trump went out there and started touting all the good paying jobs that a legalized pot industry would produce, you can bet your sweet ass those approval numbers would go up.


----------



## BruiserKC

Tater said:


> I don't think the Republican base is as opposed to pot legalization as you might think. According to the most recent poll I can find, over 40% supports it. https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/trends/Civil Liberties?measure=grass
> 
> A lot of it would depend on spin. If Trump went out there and started touting all the good paying jobs that a legalized pot industry would produce, you can bet your sweet ass those approval numbers would go up.


Considering Trump is drinking Diet Coke when everyone else around him would drink wine I don’t see it happening. He is fairly straight edge. Personally while I am against recreational marijuana there is money to be made if the government regulates it. I could see it as a replacement for income tax and we could shut down the IRS.


----------



## Tater

BruiserKC said:


> Considering Trump is drinking Diet Coke when everyone else around him would drink wine I don’t see it happening. He is fairly straight edge. Personally while I am against recreational marijuana there is money to be made if the government regulates it. I could see it as a replacement for income tax and we could shut down the IRS.


Oh, I'm not saying I think Trump will do it. I'm just saying there is a decent amount of support for it amongst the Republican base. You don't have to personally support recreational marijuana use to be in favor of it being legalized. As a small government conservative yourself, you should be opposed to the government telling people what they can and cannot put in their own bodies. There's also the billions in wasted taxpayer dollars flushed down the toilet on a failed war on drugs, plus all the billions locking people up for non-violent drug crimes. Prohibition didn't work with alcohol and it hasn't worked with pot either. Alcohol prohibition gave rise to the mob and marijuana prohibition has given rise to cartels. The only reason it's still illegal is because our government is corrupt. Booze companies, the prison industrial complex and big pharma are the biggest opponents to legalizing pot. Their lobbyists shell out millions a year to keep it illegal. IIRC, the textile industry is pretty opposed to it as well because of the vast uses of hemp and the cheap costs of producing it. Then there's all the added tax dollars from a legal pot industry as well. Basically, there's a whole shit ton of reasons why legalizing pot would be good for the American citizen. And, as we all know, if something is tremendously beneficial to the American citizen, we ain't gonna be getting it as long as our government remains corrupted. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> If there is anything incriminating against the US government in those JFK documents, Trump would not be allowed to release them. There's either nothing in that would make the government look bad or they'll be fake documents.


They have to be released because of the 1992 mandate. Trump is not choosing to release them, they were supposed to be anyways


What is he really choosing is to not try and block them from coming out like the 1992 mandate states they are to be released


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> They have to be released because of the 1992 mandate. Trump is not choosing to release them, they were supposed to be anyways
> 
> 
> What is he really choosing is to not try and block them from coming out like the 1992 mandate states they are to be released


:shrug

It doesn't change my point. They aren't going to release any documents that make them look bad or expose any conspiracies, so whatever is released either won't be real or won't be incriminating.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885153811354062849
:LOL

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! This has gotta be the most unintentionally fucking hilarious book cover ever. It's amazing that it occurred to no one at any point how this could be interpreted differently than how they intended it. Absolutely fucking classic. That's gold, Jerry! Gold!











__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885659690302046209
:ha


----------



## virus21

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885153811354062849
> :LOL
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! This has gotta be the most intentionally fucking hilarious book cover ever. It's amazing that it occurred to no one at any point how this could be interpreted differently than how they intended it. Absolutely fucking classic. That's gold, Jerry! Gold!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885659690302046209
> :ha


What fucking planet does this woman live in? Also, you helped Hilary cheat you ass! Bet you won't mention that.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> :shrug
> 
> It doesn't change my point. They aren't going to release any documents that make them look bad or expose any conspiracies, so whatever is released either won't be real or won't be incriminating.


I was not really speaking to that, I was more speaking to LOL at Trump trying to take credit for this when it was set to come out this year regardless of who was president

its just Trump trying to take credit for something he had no real effect on.


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> I was not really speaking to that, I was more speaking to LOL at Trump trying to take credit for this when it was set to come out this year regardless of who was president
> 
> its just Trump trying to take credit for something he had no real effect on.


Methinks it's more about jingling keys in front of a child to distract from other shit that is going on.


----------



## virus21

What the actual fuck?????


----------



## Tater

virus21 said:


> What the actual fuck?????


I mean, are you even surprised at this point?


----------



## StraightShooter

I wish twitter would shut the fuck up with this anti-trump train bullshit, a site of cucks and shame.


----------



## stevefox1200

“One aspect of the (Vietnam) conflict by the way that I will never ever countenance is that we drafted the lowest income level of America and the highest income level found a doctor that would say that they had a bone spur. That is wrong. That is wrong. If we are going to ask every American to serve, every American should serve.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...donald-trumps-deferment-bone-spurs/789083001/

THE MCCAINACS ARE RUNNING WILD BROTHER


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885153811354062849
> :LOL
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! This has gotta be the most intentionally fucking hilarious book cover ever. It's amazing that it occurred to no one at any point how this could be interpreted differently than how they intended it. Absolutely fucking classic. That's gold, Jerry! Gold!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885659690302046209
> :ha


Why would anyone buy a book from a woman who helped Hillary cheat?

Are these people not self-aware enough to realize the DNC got exposed and that it's racist and corrupt emails and people were exposed to not actually giving a damn about anyone?

I mean even without all that Bernie got fucked over by the DNC.

Basically they failed by their own hand and want to blame everyone else. Yet they still maintain they're the "Good" guys when nothing could be further from the truth.

American Politics confuses me because neither side looks in the mirror nor thinks there is anything wrong. It's like they're Religious people who think nobody else can sin but them because they've justified it to themselves what they do isn't sinning, for everyone else it is though.

:hmmm

Also wanted to point out that the ads and stuff that were "Foreign Purchased" also purchased ads for BLM and other groups, the entire intent was to cause division. America just got a taste of it's own medicine since it meddles in other elections all the time.


----------



## Tater

Miss Sally said:


> Are these people not self-aware enough to realize the DNC got exposed and that it's racist and corrupt emails and people were exposed to not actually giving a damn about anyone?


A lot of people talk about the DNC like they're not self-aware enough to learn from their mistakes. I contend that it's all by design. They know. They absolutely know. They just don't care. The whole point of the DNC is to protect the establishment and keep the left out of power. If they lose to the Republicans, it's no big deal, because they all still get paid and their donors retain control.

It's cyclical. The Democrats will regain power when the GOP fails but it won't be because they have changed anything. They'll continue pushing the same neoliberal policies when they regain power. Basically, we're at a point that the GOP and the DNC are just taking turns fucking over the American people. One side will have power for awhile until they get voted out, then the other side will have power for awhile until they get voted out. And we keep going back and forth between one way of fucking to the other.


----------



## Tater

I saw this is as a retweet first and thought no way this is fucking real. But it is. This is actually from CNN.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/922402297581375488
Of all the shit stained malarkey... CNN of all people trying to portray others as lying to you is just :nowords


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> I saw this is as a retweet first and thought no way this is fucking real. But it is. This is actually from CNN.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/922402297581375488
> Of all the shit stained malarkey... CNN of all people trying to portray others as lying to you is just :nowords


Obviously that's silly, but on the flip side of the coin, they're still INFINITELY more credible than Breitbart will ever be. Their target audience with this video is evidently Trump supporters, those are the people who will believe any old shite as long as it's from "alternative media" and actually buy into the utter sensationalist garbage that is Breitbart. So yeah, a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black, but still kinda makes sense why they tried to do it. And before anybody tries to fire back at me about Breitbart, I'm not interested, I've witnessed first hand their bullshit on more than one of their stories (and I use that word in the fictional sense, because that's what they are) when I've actually seen with my own eyes the complete opposite of what they're reporting in the situations.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-s-widow-says-trump-couldn-t-remember-n813176

*What a surprise, the "not racist" president disrespects the family of a dead Black soldier and lies about it on Twitter. More news at 9.*



> The pregnant widow of Sgt. La David Johnson said Monday that the phone call she received from President Donald Trump before meeting her husband’s body at Dover Air Force Base made her more upset as the president struggled to remember her spouse’s name.
> 
> “I heard him stumbling on trying to remember my husband’s name, and that’s what hurt me the most because if my husband is out there fighting for our country and he risked his life for our country, why can’t you remember his name?” Myeshia Johnson told ABC's "Good Morning America." “And that made me cry even more.”
> Image: Myeshia Johnson wipes away tears during the burial service for her husband
> Myeshia Johnson wipes away tears during the burial service for her husband U.S. Army Sgt. La David Johnson at the Memorial Gardens East cemetery on Oct. 21, 2017 in Hollywood, Florida. Joe Raedle / Getty Images
> 
> Shortly after Johnson's interview, Trump defended his conversation with the Gold Star widow.
> 
> Related: Niger Ambush Came After 'Massive Intelligence Failure,' Source Says
> 
> "I had a very respectful conversation with the widow of Sgt. La David Johnson, and spoke his name from beginning, without hesitation!" Trump wrote on Twitter.
> 
> Johnson said when the president’s call came in to the master sergeant in the car with her, she asked that it be placed on speakerphone so others could hear it.
> 
> She said that’s when Trump told her, “he knew what he signed up for but it hurts anyways.”
> 
> “It made me cry because I was very angry about the tone of his voice and how he said it,” Johnson said. “He couldn’t remember my husband’s name. The only way he remembered my husband’s name was because he told me he had my husband’s report in front of him, and that’s when he actually said La David.”
> 
> Johnson, of Miami Gardens, Florida, corroborated the story of Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

I'm seeing this bizarre theory on social media that President Trump has been in public using an evil doppleganger of his wife, and that something awful must have happened to the real Melania. Has anyone else heard this? I mean, I understand not liking the man, but that's reaching a bit, isn't it?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

> *EXCLUSIVE: US Preparing to Put Nuclear Bombers Back on 24-Hour Alert*
> 
> BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. — *The U.S. Air Force is preparing to put nuclear-armed bombers back on 24-hour ready alert, a status not seen since the Cold War ended in 1991.*
> 
> That means the long-dormant concrete pads at the ends of this base’s 11,000-foot runway — dubbed the “Christmas tree” for their angular markings — could once again find several B-52s parked on them, laden with nuclear weapons and set to take off at a moment’s notice.
> 
> “This is yet one more step in ensuring that we’re prepared,” Gen. David Goldfein, Air Force chief of staff, said in an interview during his six-day tour of Barksdale and other U.S. Air Force bases that support the nuclear mission. “I look at it more as not planning for any specific event, but more for the reality of the global situation we find ourselves in and how we ensure we’re prepared going forward.”
> 
> Goldfein and other senior defense officials stressed that the alert order had not been given, but that preparations were under way in anticipation that it might come. That decision would be made by Gen. John Hyten, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command, or Gen. Lori Robinson, the head of U.S. Northern Command. STRATCOM is in charge of the military’s nuclear forces and NORTHCOM is in charge of defending North America.
> 
> Putting the B-52s back on alert is just one of many decisions facing the Air Force as the U.S. military responds to a changing geopolitical environment that includes North Korea’s rapidly advancing nuclear arsenal, President Trump’s confrontational approach to Pyongyang, and Russia’s increasingly potent and active armed forces.
> 
> Goldfein, who is the Air Force’s top officer and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is asking his force to think about new ways that nuclear weapons could be used for deterrence, or even combat.
> 
> “The world is a dangerous place and we’ve got folks that are talking openly about use of nuclear weapons,” he said. “It’s no longer a bipolar world where it’s just us and the Soviet Union. We’ve got other players out there who have nuclear capability. It’s never been more important to make sure that we get this mission right.”
> 
> During his trip across the country last week, Goldfein encouraged airmen to think beyond Cold War uses for ICBMs, bombers and nuclear cruise missiles.
> 
> “I’ve challenged…Air Force Global Strike Command to help lead the dialog, help with this discussion about ‘What does conventional conflict look like with a nuclear element?’ and ‘Do we respond as a global force if that were to occur?’ and ‘What are the options?’” he said. “How do we think about it — how do we think about deterrence in that environment?”
> 
> Asked if placing B-52s back on alert — as they were for decades — would help with deterrence, Goldfein said it’s hard to say.
> 
> “Really it depends on who, what kind of behavior are we talking about, and whether they’re paying attention to our readiness status,” he said.
> 
> Already, various improvements have been made to prepare Barksdale — home to the 2d Bomb Wing and Air Force Global Strike Command, which oversees the service’s nuclear forces — to return B-52s to an alert posture. Near the alert pads, an old concrete building — where B-52 crews during the Cold War would sleep, ready to run to their aircraft and take off at a moment’s notice — is being renovated.
> 
> Inside, beds are being installed for more than 100 crew members, more than enough room for the crews that would man bombers positioned on the nine alert pads outside. There’s a recreation room, with a pool table, TVs and a shuffleboard table. Large paintings of the patches for each squadron at Barksdale adorn the walls of a large stairway.
> 
> One painting — a symbol of the Cold War — depicts a silhouette of a B-52 with the words “Peace The Old Fashioned Way,” written underneath. At the bottom of the stairwell, there is a Strategic Air Command logo, yet another reminder of the Cold War days when American B-52s sat at the ready on the runway outside.
> 
> Those long-empty B-52 parking spaces will soon get visits by two nuclear command planes, the E-4B Nightwatch and E-6B Mercury, both which will occasionally sit alert there. During a nuclear war, the planes would become the flying command posts of the defense secretary and STRATCOM commander, respectively. If a strike order is given by the president, the planes would be used to transmit launch codes to bombers, ICBMs and submarines. At least one of the four nuclear-hardened E-4Bs — formally called the National Airborne Operations Center, but commonly known as the Doomsday Plane — is always on 24-hour alert.
> 
> Barksdale and other bases with nuclear bombers are preparing to build storage facilities for a new nuclear cruise missile that is under development. During his trip, Goldfein received updates on the preliminary work for a proposed replacement for the 400-plus Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles, and the new long-range cruise missile.
> 
> “Our job is options,” Goldfein said. “We provide best military advice and options for the commander in chief and the secretary of defense. Should the STRATCOM commander require or the NORTHCOM commander require us to [be on] a higher state of readiness to defend the homeland, then we have to have a place to put those forces.”




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/921554906510712837


----------



## Stinger Fan

Apparently not being a good speaker and stumbling to remember someones name makes them a racist now :lol I've heard it all , it's no wonder there's a massive influx of racists in America, further lowering the bar for being a racist that you cannot help but trip over it . At this point....who isn't a racist? :lol


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ForYourOwnGood said:


> I'm seeing this bizarre theory on social media that President Trump has been in public using an evil doppleganger of his wife, and that something awful must have happened to the real Melania. Has anyone else heard this? I mean, I understand not liking the man, but that's reaching a bit, isn't it?


*It's a conspiracy theory started by this guy:

 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/920507354403233793

 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/921778226770382848
The lips look completely different. I will give him that.*


----------



## samizayn

^Just in time for halloween, that.


----------



## MOX

2 Ton 21 said:


>


Legit looks like Alex Jones :lol


----------



## virus21

Anark said:


> Legit looks like Alex Jones :lol


Thats probably how he'll end up in the end.


----------



## stevefox1200

Not really a point or anything, I just that this was funny

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...trump-yells-at-me-at-times-but-he-respects-me

Christie: Trump 'yells at me at times, but he respects me'

battered wife syndrome


----------



## sesel

Is Trump's popularity really low?


----------



## stevefox1200

2 Ton 21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/921554906510712837


https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/23/us-nuclear-bombers-on-high-alert-as-north-korean-threat-grows.html

looks like someone took hypothetical talk from a general too seriously and ran with it

Of course the reddit thread on this news story has over 4000 posts of people talking about how they had to tearfully explain to their children how everyone is going to die and to fear all flying objects

I think next Cuban missile crisis will involve zero actual missiles and millions of people saying that anyone who says there is no threat are lairs


----------



## virus21

stevefox1200 said:


> Of course the reddit thread on this news story has over 4000 posts of people talking about how they had to tearfully explain to their children how everyone is going to die and to fear all flying objects


And that is what being unhinged sounds like.


----------



## birthday_massacre

sesel said:


> Is Trump's popularity really low?


Yes its in the mid to low 30s


----------



## Vic Capri

> Is Trump's popularity really low?


No.

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

Legit BOSS said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-s-widow-says-trump-couldn-t-remember-n813176
> 
> *What a surprise, the "not racist" president disrespects the family of a dead Black soldier and lies about it on Twitter. More news at 9.*


Don't fall into the race trap. This could just all be a misunderstanding from the start. Trump is an asshole who probably don't know how to offer condolences in a tactful manner. The family of the dead soldier would be justified to feel offended if that rubbed them the wrong way. All this could have been resolved with a Trump apology to the family that he didn't mean to offend and left it at that.

But Trump's tweets after the fiasco blew up, mentioning the NFL again, and saying he was respectful in the call is clearly trying to make the conversation about race to divert attention from the investigations into the attack.


----------



## Cabanarama

sesel said:


> Is Trump's popularity really low?


Considering that Trump has an approval rating in the mid 30's (no prior president has had an approval rating lower than the high 40's at the 9 month point of the presidency), and a disapproval rating hovering just below 60% (while no president has come close to 50% during the first nine months), his unpopularity is pretty unprecedented.


----------



## MickDX

sesel said:


> Is Trump's popularity really low?


Yes, https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

Even on this thread his popularity is far worse than it used to be. He is continuing to do dumb things and there is no sign this would stop in the future. He still has a base of supporters and they are still significant.


----------



## Stephen90

sesel said:


> Is Trump's popularity really low?


Yes it's in the mid to low 30's. Even Bush's first few months as president was higher.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Vic Capri said:


> No.
> 
> - Vic


Seriously though? I guess it's normal for Trump supporters to spread "fake news" at this point :lmao


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *David Schwimmer Did Something Awesome To Make A Female Critic Feel Comfortable. The Media Cheer Him. So Why Did They Target Mike Pence?*
> 
> On Tuesday, critic Nell Minow revealed a little-known story about former Friends star David Schwimmer — a story that shows how classy Schwimmer is, and how hypocritical the Leftists in the media are. Her story goes something like this: Schwimmer was doing a press junket for his film Poynter. She was supposed to interview Schwimmer in the bar of the hotel, but it was too loud, so Schwimmer offered to do the interview in his room. According to Indy 100:
> 
> _Perhaps realising that this might be an uncomfortable and potentially dangerous situation for a woman, Schwimmer added that he could guarantee that a third person would be present in the room … Nell didn't feel threatened and declined Schwimmer's offer but appreciated the star's sensitivity and consideration._
> 
> Yes, Schwimmer did the right thing. It was both smart and decent for him to offer to have a third person present in order to minimize both the risk of sexual harassment or suspicion of sexual harassment. And the press are praising him for this perspicacity now that Harvey Weinstein’s predilections have been made public.
> 
> *Flash back to April.*
> 
> Vice President Mike Pence found himself raked over the coals for the sin of stating that he would not dine alone with a woman not his wife, or attend functions at which drinking took place without his wife present. And so Robin Abcarian of The Los Angeles Times wrote this:
> 
> If professional women and men cannot be alone together, women are the ones who will pay a price. They will not have the kind of mentoring that promotes workplace advancement. They will not develop the same kinds of relationships with bosses that their male colleagues do. They will lose out. “I believe this is gender discrimination,” said Kim Elsesser, 52, a UCLA lecturer on gender and psychology who founded a proprietary quantitative hedge fund at Morgan Stanley after graduating from Vassar and MIT.
> 
> *Here’s Olga Khazan at The Atlantic:*
> 
> _When men avoid professional relationships with women, even if for noble reasons, it actually hurts women in the end._
> 
> Khazan quoted Elsesser, too, who pointed out that 75% of men in her study worried about allegations of sexual harassment and “30% of participants had co-workers question them about the true motives behind a cross-gender friendship.” But Elsesser blithely stated, “the way to overcome that problem, Elsesser said, is not to monastically order room service every night of your business trip. Instead, it’s to normalize men and women interacting professionally, in a non-sexual way.”
> 
> So, will we see the press turn on Schwimmer? After all, he would have invited a man up to his room without a third party present. Why did he single out Minow? Was he a Mike Pence-type sexist?
> 
> Or is it possible that men ought to be more careful around and protective of women? Is it possible that being a gentlemen means going out of your way to ensure that women don’t feel threatened or cajoled? Is it possible that Pence’s rule wasn’t just for his own protection, but for the comfort of female employees generally?
> 
> The difference between the media’s treatment of Schwimmer and Pence tells you everything you need to know about the double standard applied to religious conservatives and secular Leftists. If they participate in precisely the same behavior, religious conservatives do it because they’re supposedly sexist, and secular Leftists do it because they’re supposedly glorious and caring.


www.dailywire.com/news/22663/david-schwimmer-did-something-awesome-make-female-ben-shapiro#

Leftists and hypocrisy? That cannot be :lol


----------



## Art Vandaley

Do you not see the difference between offering women the option of having a third person present and refusing to ever meet with a woman alone?


----------



## Warlock

Pence is wanting the option of having a third person present.


----------



## Stephen90

Apparently Kid Rock isn't running for Senate.
Robert “Kid Rock” Ritchie’s months-long flirtation with a Republican Senate bid in Michigan appeared to come to an end Tuesday in an interview with Howard Stern — moments before the rapper-singer suggested that he could still run if he felt disrespected by the press.

“F‑‑‑ no, I’m not running for Senate. Are you kidding me?” Kid Rock said on Stern’s SiriusXM show. “Who couldn’t figure that out? I’m releasing a new album. I’m going on tour, too.”

Related: [Kid Rock debuts ‘Kid Rock for Senate’ website. Is he really running?]

The interview appeared to confirm that Kid Rock’s three-month-old “Senate bid,” which began when his website started selling campaign merchandise in July, was a remarkably successful publicity stunt. A handful of tweets and blog posts, followed by rhyming “political speeches” in the middle of his concerts — delivered behind an official-looking lectern — led to numerous think pieces, to reporters descending on his “major announcements,” and to support from Stephen K. Bannon and the super PAC allied with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

“We’d be actually very interested in his candidacy,” said Steven Law, the president of the Senate Conservatives Fund, when asked by C-Span if the author of songs like “Black Chick, White Guy” and “Cadillac P‑‑‑y” would be welcomed by Republicans. “I certainly wouldn’t count him out.”


Related: [Kid Rock’s R-rated speech made his politics clear. But he left out the most important part.]

But in the Stern interview, Kid Rock was clear: His “campaign” was a stunt that people had taken too seriously.

“I told Eminem’s manager the other night — I saw him at the Pistons game when he got cheered and I got booed, according to the New York Times — I said, let’s not let this divide us,” said the 46-year-old musician. “I said, ‘Dude, I started this s‑‑‑. I’ve got motherf‑‑‑ers thinking I’m running for Senate.’ People who are in on it are like, ‘Are you really doing it?’ I’m like: ‘Dude, you’re f‑‑‑ing in on the joke! Why you asking me if I’m doing it?’ ”

Seconds later, tongue firmly in cheek, Kid Rock laid out the conditions for a possible run: If newspapers keep making fun of him, he will jump in and defeat “Debbie whatever-the-f‑‑‑ her name is” to get revenge.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) is up for reelection in 2018, though the Democrats’ surprise defeat in Michigan last year has not helped Republicans find a first-tier challenger. The only candidates running for the party’s nomination so far are former state Supreme Court justice Bob Young, former congressional aide Bob Carr, and Iraq War veteran John James. Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) has put out feelers to donors about a bid of his own.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-campaign-was-a-stunt/?utm_term=.ec6b7010c1d1


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> www.dailywire.com/news/22663/david-schwimmer-did-something-awesome-make-female-ben-shapiro#
> 
> 
> David Schwimmer Did Something Awesome To Make A Female Critic Feel Comfortable. The Media Cheer Him. So Why Did They Target Mike Pence?
> 
> On Tuesday, critic Nell Minow revealed a little-known story about former Friends star David Schwimmer — a story that shows how classy Schwimmer is, and how hypocritical the Leftists in the media are. Her story goes something like this: Schwimmer was doing a press junket for his film Poynter. *She was supposed to interview Schwimmer in the bar of the hotel, but it was too loud, so Schwimmer offered to do the interview in his room. According to Indy 100:*
> 
> Perhaps realising that this might be an uncomfortable and potentially dangerous situation for a woman, *Schwimmer added that he could guarantee that a third person would be present in the room* … Nell didn't feel threatened and declined Schwimmer's offer but appreciated the star's sensitivity and consideration.
> 
> Yes, Schwimmer did the right thing. It was both smart and decent for him to offer to have a third person present in order to minimize both the risk of sexual harassment or suspicion of sexual harassment. And the press are praising him for this perspicacity now that Harvey Weinstein’s predilections have been made public.
> 
> Flash back to April.
> 
> V*ice President Mike Pence found himself raked over the coals for the sin of stating that he would not dine alone with a woman not his wife, or attend functions at which drinking took place without his wife present. *And so Robin Abcarian of The Los Angeles Times wrote this:
> 
> If professional women and men cannot be alone together, women are the ones who will pay a price. They will not have the kind of mentoring that promotes workplace advancement. They will not develop the same kinds of relationships with bosses that their male colleagues do. They will lose out. “I believe this is gender discrimination,” said Kim Elsesser, 52, a UCLA lecturer on gender and psychology who founded a proprietary quantitative hedge fund at Morgan Stanley after graduating from Vassar and MIT.
> 
> Here’s Olga Khazan at The Atlantic:
> 
> When men avoid professional relationships with women, even if for noble reasons, it actually hurts women in the end.
> 
> Khazan quoted Elsesser, too, who pointed out that 75% of men in her study worried about allegations of sexual harassment and “30% of participants had co-workers question them about the true motives behind a cross-gender friendship.” But Elsesser blithely stated, “the way to overcome that problem, Elsesser said, is not to monastically order room service every night of your business trip. Instead, it’s to normalize men and women interacting professionally, in a non-sexual way.”
> 
> So, will we see the press turn on Schwimmer? After all, he would have invited a man up to his room without a third party present. Why did he single out Minow? Was he a Mike Pence-type sexist?
> 
> Or is it possible that men ought to be more careful around and protective of women? Is it possible that being a gentlemen means going out of your way to ensure that women don’t feel threatened or cajoled? Is it possible that Pence’s rule wasn’t just for his own protection, but for the comfort of female employees generally?
> 
> The difference between the media’s treatment of Schwimmer and Pence tells you everything you need to know about the double standard applied to religious conservatives and secular Leftists. If they participate in precisely the same behavior, religious conservatives do it because they’re supposedly sexist, and secular Leftists do it because they’re supposedly glorious and caring.
> 
> 
> Leftists and hypocrisy? That cannot be :lol



How can you not see the difference between the two?

Schwimmer was going to be interviewed at a hotel bar with this woman but it was too loud so he said they could do it in his hotel room. He thought that may make her uncomfortable so he offered to have a 3rd party there because they would be alone in a hotel room.

Pence, on the other hand, refuses to meet or dine with any woman alone IN PUBLIC.

These two things are not even remotely the same, any one claiming other wise is just being dishonest

The only way these two things would have been the same is if Schwimmer refused to meet with the interviewer alone at the bar or if Pence did not want to be alone with any woman not his wife in a hotel room.


----------



## virus21




----------



## birthday_massacre

virus21 said:


>



If Trump funds Obamacare will his supporters turn on him?


----------



## virus21

> To commemorate the anniversary of President Trump winning bigly over his bragadocious rival Hillary Clinton last November, leftists have the best plan ever to ensure the MAGA man gets to live another four years behind those big, beautiful White House walls: scream like banshees up to the sky in hopes the political gods will hear their cries of pain and strike lightning upon their orange ogre.
> 
> According to a Facebook invite from Julia Helene and Johanna Schulman, residents of Boston are invited to drag their Trump-weary selves over to Boston Common for a good old-fashioned session of exhaling exorbitant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere at unfriendly decibel-levels to accomplish absolutely nothing. Basically, what leftists do all day long.
> 
> Titled "Scream helplessly at the sky on the anniversary of the election," the event reportedly has 4.400 pledged attendees with another 33,000 interested. "Come express your anger at the current state of democracy, and scream helplessly at the sky!" the description reads.
> 
> As seen in the comments to the invite, leftists outside the Boston area are hoping to plan something similar.
> 
> "I'll be screaming in L.A.," reads one comment. "Wokest Event of the Year," reads another. "Anyone planing on screaming in Vancouver?" another man asked.
> 
> Others found the event so profound, they could only share quotes from their favorite philosophers to express the stir within them: "The absurd is born of this confrontation between the human [scream] and the unreasonable silence of the world." -- Albert Camus
> 
> Have a great night, lefties. By all means, scream until your voice goes hoarse. Scream until Fay Wray has to come back from the dead to reclaim her title. The rest of us will be sleeping comfortably in our beds.


http://www.dailywire.com/news/22621/leftists-plan-scream-helplessly-sky-anniversary-paul-bois#

If this is a troll attempt, I will be disappointed


----------



## Draykorinee

Stinger Fan said:


> *David Schwimmer Did Something Awesome To Make A Female Critic Feel Comfortable. The Media Cheer Him. So Why Did They Target Mike Pence?*
> 
> On Tuesday, critic Nell Minow revealed a little-known story about former Friends star David Schwimmer ? a story that shows how classy Schwimmer is, and how hypocritical the Leftists in the media are. Her story goes something like this: Schwimmer was doing a press junket for his film Poynter. She was supposed to interview Schwimmer in the bar of the hotel, but it was too loud, so Schwimmer offered to do the interview in his room. According to Indy 100:
> 
> _Perhaps realising that this might be an uncomfortable and potentially dangerous situation for a woman, Schwimmer added that he could guarantee that a third person would be present in the room ? Nell didn't feel threatened and declined Schwimmer's offer but appreciated the star's sensitivity and consideration._
> 
> Yes, Schwimmer did the right thing. It was both smart and decent for him to offer to have a third person present in order to minimize both the risk of sexual harassment or suspicion of sexual harassment. And the press are praising him for this perspicacity now that Harvey Weinstein?s predilections have been made public.
> 
> *Flash back to April.*
> 
> Vice President Mike Pence found himself raked over the coals for the sin of stating that he would not dine alone with a woman not his wife, or attend functions at which drinking took place without his wife present. And so Robin Abcarian of The Los Angeles Times wrote this:
> 
> If professional women and men cannot be alone together, women are the ones who will pay a price. They will not have the kind of mentoring that promotes workplace advancement. They will not develop the same kinds of relationships with bosses that their male colleagues do. They will lose out. ?I believe this is gender discrimination,? said Kim Elsesser, 52, a UCLA lecturer on gender and psychology who founded a proprietary quantitative hedge fund at Morgan Stanley after graduating from Vassar and MIT.
> 
> *Here?s Olga Khazan at The Atlantic:*
> 
> _When men avoid professional relationships with women, even if for noble reasons, it actually hurts women in the end._
> 
> Khazan quoted Elsesser, too, who pointed out that 75% of men in her study worried about allegations of sexual harassment and ?30% of participants had co-workers question them about the true motives behind a cross-gender friendship.? But Elsesser blithely stated, ?the way to overcome that problem, Elsesser said, is not to monastically order room service every night of your business trip. Instead, it?s to normalize men and women interacting professionally, in a non-sexual way.?
> 
> So, will we see the press turn on Schwimmer? After all, he would have invited a man up to his room without a third party present. Why did he single out Minow? Was he a Mike Pence-type sexist?
> 
> Or is it possible that men ought to be more careful around and protective of women? Is it possible that being a gentlemen means going out of your way to ensure that women don?t feel threatened or cajoled? Is it possible that Pence?s rule wasn?t just for his own protection, but for the comfort of female employees generally?
> 
> The difference between the media?s treatment of Schwimmer and Pence tells you everything you need to know about the double standard applied to religious conservatives and secular Leftists. If they participate in precisely the same behavior, religious conservatives do it because they?re supposedly sexist, and secular Leftists do it because they?re supposedly glorious and caring.
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailywire.com/news/22663/david-schwimmer-did-something-awesome-make-female-ben-shapiro#
> 
> Leftists and hypocrisy? That cannot be
Click to expand...

Whoever wrote that is a fucking moron. 

Anyone who reads that and doesn't go ' they're not the same thing in any way shape or form' should also consider themselves challenged...

There aren't enough gifs to adequately show the stupidity of that persons post.



birthday_massacre said:


> How can you not see the difference between the two?


I know right, by the end of the post I was like :confused

Edit: Just saw its Ben Shapiro, that guy is so desperate. Of all the hypocrisy we see that non-hypocrisy is what he chooses?


----------



## FriedTofu

MickDX said:


> Yes, https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
> 
> Even on this thread his popularity is far worse than it used to be. He is continuing to do dumb things and there is no sign this would stop in the future. He still has a base of supporters and they are still significant.


I think the perceived drop in Trump's popularity in this thread is due to the mass bannings last month. The usual suspects probably thought it would be better to avoid this thread to reduce the toxicity of the forums from boiling over.

[hide]What am I kidding? They probably boycotted the thread as a sign of protest because their feelings got hurt. :troll[/hide]


----------



## FriedTofu

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/356920-flake-drops-out-of-senate-race

So one cannot criticise Trump until they decide to not stand for reelections because the deplorables will not re-elect them. :lol


----------



## Cabanarama

Stephen90 said:


> Yes it's in the mid to low 30's. Even Bush's first few months as president was higher.


Bush's approval ratings didn't get bad until his second term. They plummeted during Katrina in 2005, and continue to go downhill over the following years as the healthcare crisis got worse and worse (yes, things were worse before the ACA), the war in Iraq turned to shit, and the economy collapsed.



draykorinee said:


> Whoever wrote that is a fucking moron.
> 
> Anyone who reads that and doesn't go ' they're not the same thing in any way shape or form' should also consider themselves challenged...
> 
> There aren't enough gifs to adequately show the stupidity of that persons post.
> 
> 
> 
> I know right, by the end of the post I was like :confused
> 
> Edit: Just saw its Ben Shapiro, that guy is so desperate. Of all the hypocrisy we see that non-hypocrisy is what he chooses?


False equivalences is the go-to method of the right to defend the scumbags of the Republican party. It's a straw grasp as they no they have no legitimate defense.




MickDX said:


> Yes, https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
> 
> Even on this thread his popularity is far worse than it used to be. He is continuing to do dumb things and there is no sign this would stop in the future. He still has a base of supporters and they are still significant.


Huffington Post and FiveThirtyEight's aggregates are far more accurate than RCP. RCP is selective in which polls they include, and being a right wing site they tend to do so in a way that makes Trump's approval look better than it actually is.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Stinger Fan

draykorinee said:


> Whoever wrote that is a fucking moron.
> 
> Anyone who reads that and doesn't go ' they're not the same thing in any way shape or form' should also consider themselves challenged...
> 
> There aren't enough gifs to adequately show the stupidity of that persons post.
> 
> 
> 
> I know right, by the end of the post I was like :confused
> 
> Edit: Just saw its Ben Shapiro, that guy is so desperate. Of all the hypocrisy we see that non-hypocrisy is what he chooses?





birthday_massacre said:


> How can you not see the difference between the two?
> 
> Schwimmer was going to be interviewed at a hotel bar with this woman but it was too loud so he said they could do it in his hotel room. He thought that may make her uncomfortable so he offered to have a 3rd party there because they would be alone in a hotel room.
> 
> Pence, on the other hand, refuses to meet or dine with any woman alone IN PUBLIC.
> 
> These two things are not even remotely the same, any one claiming other wise is just being dishonest
> 
> The only way these two things would have been the same is if Schwimmer refused to meet with the interviewer alone at the bar or if Pence did not want to be alone with any woman not his wife in a hotel room.


It's completely hypocritical to criticize Pence for doing virtually the exact same thing. Pence wants a third party if he's with a member of the opposite sex for dinner because of the respect he has for his wife , his marriage and to avoid rumors of infidelity. Lets face it, if there was any sort of rumor you'd be the first one to accuse him and call him a hypocrite and attack him for his religion. He has his clear boundaries and people bashed him for it. 

The same people who criticize Pence, are the same ones who would end a relationship over the same thing. Like I said, its clear blatant hypocrisy and I don't even give a shit about Pence but its clear I touched a nerve :lol


----------



## Cabanarama

FriedTofu said:


> http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/356920-flake-drops-out-of-senate-race
> 
> So one cannot criticise Trump until they decide to not stand for reelections because the deplorables will not re-elect them. :lol


Assuming Kelli Ward is pretty much a shoo-in for the nomination now, the Republicans can kiss that seat goodbye. 
Trump's presidency was probably the best thing that could happen for congressional Democrats and the worst for congressional Republicans...

Had Hillary won, with 25 Democrat senate seats up for Re-election, a number of them in heavily conservative states, it would have been a bloodbath. Republicans probably would have gained about 10 seats and have a super-majority, and expand their lead in the house. Instead, the Republicans probably only take a couple seats which will be offset by losing Nevada and Arizona, and if the Democrats don't take the house it will be very, very close


----------



## birthday_massacre

FriedTofu said:


> http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/356920-flake-drops-out-of-senate-race
> 
> So one cannot criticise Trump until they decide to not stand for reelections because the deplorables will not re-elect them. :lol


that is politics 101. Its also why all the Republicans not running again are all speaking out against Trump publically and not just behind the scenes. Because they don't have to worry about losing or answering to their donors.







Stinger Fan said:


> It's completely hypocritical to criticize Pence for doing virtually the exact same thing. Pence wants a third party if he's with a member of the opposite sex for dinner because of the respect he has for his wife , his marriage and to avoid rumors of infidelity. Lets face it, if there was any sort of rumor you'd be the first one to accuse him and call him a hypocrite and attack him for his religion. He has his clear boundaries and people bashed him for it.
> 
> The same people who criticize Pence, are the same ones who would end a relationship over the same thing. Like I said, its clear blatant hypocrisy and I don't even give a shit about Pence but its clear I touched a nerve :lol


It's not even close to the same thing. 

The same thing would be Schwimmer saying he refuses to let any woman interview him in public without his wife present or if Pence would have said he can't go to a hotel room alone with another woman without his wife being present.

It's laughable you call this hypocrisy.


----------



## Pratchett

virus21 said:


> http://www.dailywire.com/news/22621/leftists-plan-scream-helplessly-sky-anniversary-paul-bois#
> 
> If this is a troll attempt, I will be disappointed


I find myself hoping that it was someone on the Right who started this and convinced them it would be a good idea to do this. :mj4


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *Trump-Russia dossier research was originally funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC*
> 
> Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped pay for research leading to the infamous Trump-Russia dossier, a source confirmed to NBC
> The dossier contains allegations of President Donald Trump's ties to Russia and possible interference by the Kremlin in the campaign
> 
> Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped pay for research leading to the infamous Russia dossier, which contains allegations of President Donald Trump's ties to the country and possible interference by the Kremlin in the campaign, a source confirmed to NBC News.
> 
> Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, engaged Washington intelligence company Fusion GPS to conduct the research in April 2016, as was originally reported by the Washington Post.
> 
> The firm then hired Christopher Steele, a former British MI6 officer with connections to the FBI, who authored the dossier, the Post said.
> 
> Through Elias' law firm, funding by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to Fusion GPS reportedly continued through October 2016, ending only days before the election was held.
> 
> NBC News confirmed the Washington Post report.
> 
> "To aid in its representation of the Clinton presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, [Elias' law firm] Perkins Coie retained Fusion GPS, entering into an engagement for research services that began in April 2016 and concluded before the election in early November," a source familiar with the situation told NBC News.
> 
> White House press secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted Tuesday that the "real Russia scandal" was that the Clinton campaign funded the "fake Russia dossier" and then "lied about it and covered it up."


https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/24/tru...nded-by-the-clinton-campaign-and-the-dnc.html


----------



## samizayn

Stinger Fan said:


> It's completely hypocritical to criticize Pence for doing virtually the exact same thing. Pence wants a third party if he's with a member of the opposite sex for dinner because of the respect he has for his wife , his marriage and to avoid rumors of infidelity. Lets face it, if there was any sort of rumor you'd be the first one to accuse him and call him a hypocrite and attack him for his religion. He has his clear boundaries and people bashed him for it.
> 
> The same people who criticize Pence, are the same ones who would end a relationship over the same thing. Like I said, its clear blatant hypocrisy and I don't even give a shit about Pence but* its clear I touched a nerve *:lol


For anyone else that's still uncertain as to why these aren't at all comparable situations I've tried to break it down a little bit.

In Pence's case, he is excluding professionals of the opposite sex to make himself feel more comfortable. In Schwimmer's case, he is providing an option to professionals of the opposite sex to make them more comfortable.

Analogy: you have to take an exam at a different time. Professor Pence insists you can only take it when the exam proctor is available - even though these times might be more inconvenient for you, and even if it means you won't get to take the exam at all, AND despite other students getting to take the exam without a proctor because they are different to you in some way.

Professor Schwimmer on the other hand, lets it be known that proctors are available for your exam, and you might want to request the services of one because they're often helpful when you take an exam - with keeping track of time, allowing pauses for bathroom breaks, etc.

Again, Professor Pence is more concerned with how the situation reflects on him - what it looks like if he allows this student to cheat and how inappropriate he would look - even though he has none of these considerations for the other students taking the exam. As a result it's this specific student that's put in a more difficult position because of his complexes. Translated to IRL: refusing the kind of one-on-one meeting that's common in politics it's just a harmless byproduct of his personal values, it directly and negatively affects women trying to get ahead. He doesn't care because he doesn't care about them, do you see?

David Schwimmer was providing an option so that the woman he was dealing with professionally felt comfortable. Instead of obstructing their progress as Pence does, he's enabling it, by making sure they don't face obstacles that might arise in the workplace because of their gender. I hope this helped clear this up!


----------



## Laughable Chimp

birthday_massacre said:


> that is politics 101. Its also why all the Republicans not running again are all speaking out against Trump publically and not just behind the scenes. Because they don't have to worry about losing or answering to their donors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not even close to the same thing.
> 
> The same thing would be Schwimmer saying he refuses to let any woman interview him in public without his wife present or if Pence would have said he can't go to a hotel room alone with another woman without his wife being present.
> 
> It's laughable you call this hypocrisy.


I personally find no problems with both. Don't think they are comparable but I still don't see a problem with both.

I don't understand why Pence not wanting to meet with women without his wife is so bad. He's trying to stop any rumours of him being not honourable to his wife coming out. Maybe he doesn't even want to get tempted, such is his respect for his wife. Whatever the reason, its certainly not something to be criticized on.


Perhaps it is a bit of gender discrmination, but its for to effectively protect the honour of his wife and his own reputation. Its not to degrade or put down females. And that's the bottom line. Some people are uncomfortable with things like that. You can't suddenly make them comfortable with it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Laughable Chimp said:


> I personally find no problems with both. Don't think they are comparable but I still don't see a problem with both.
> 
> I don't understand why Pence not wanting to meet with women without his wife is so bad. He's trying to stop any rumours of him being not honourable to his wife coming out. Maybe he doesn't even want to get tempted, such is his respect for his wife. Whatever the reason, its certainly not something to be criticized on.
> 
> 
> Perhaps it is a bit of gender discrmination, but its for to effectively protect the honour of his wife and his own reputation. Its not to degrade or put down females. And that's the bottom line. Some people are uncomfortable with things like that. You can't suddenly make them comfortable with it.


At least you admit they are not comparable.

Its ridiculous Pence refuses to meet with women who is not his wife unless his wife is there, even for business dinners or events. No one is going to think he is cheating on his wife if he is meeting with another woman in public. You can't be serious with that logic. He is the VP , this stuff is part of his job. No one would blame him if he wouldn't meet with a woman in his hotel room alone, we are talking about a business dinner.

The excuse for why he won't do it is just so laughably bad, I don't even know why people can make it with a straight face.


----------



## Laughable Chimp

birthday_massacre said:


> At least you admit they are not comparable.
> 
> Its ridiculous Pence refuses to meet with women who is not his wife unless his wife is there, even for business dinners or events. No one is going to think he is cheating on his wife if he is meeting with another woman in public. You can't be serious with that logic. He is the VP , this stuff is part of his job. No one would blame him if he wouldn't meet with a woman in his hotel room alone, we are talking about a business dinner.
> 
> The excuse for why he won't do it is just so laughably bad, I don't even know why people can make it with a straight face.


I agree. Its a weird problem for the VP to have. But at same time, I guess I can understand his motive. It feels very traditonalist but certainly not outside of the realms of possibility.

But I don't think its a proper stick to beat him over with. As long as he does his job, I'm happy. And I don't know how needing his wife with him to meet with a woman alone would really effect his ability to do his job but I wouldn't assume its much and in serious times of crisis, he'd probably be willing to forgoe that rule he set for himself. Like, its just a weird habit but its not a big issue to me.


----------



## Draykorinee

I'll admit I don't have a problem with Pence making his own choices, if he has such an insecure marriage or such a closeted upbringing then I really can't blame him, we can't all exist in a place where we're so mentally insecure around women that we can't even sit down for a business meal.


----------



## BruiserKC

Laughable Chimp said:


> I personally find no problems with both. Don't think they are comparable but I still don't see a problem with both.
> 
> I don't understand why Pence not wanting to meet with women without his wife is so bad. He's trying to stop any rumours of him being not honourable to his wife coming out. Maybe he doesn't even want to get tempted, such is his respect for his wife. Whatever the reason, its certainly not something to be criticized on.
> 
> 
> Perhaps it is a bit of gender discrmination, but its for to effectively protect the honour of his wife and his own reputation. Its not to degrade or put down females. And that's the bottom line. Some people are uncomfortable with things like that. You can't suddenly make them comfortable with it.





birthday_massacre said:


> At least you admit they are not comparable.
> 
> Its ridiculous Pence refuses to meet with women who is not his wife unless his wife is there, even for business dinners or events. No one is going to think he is cheating on his wife if he is meeting with another woman in public. You can't be serious with that logic. He is the VP , this stuff is part of his job. No one would blame him if he wouldn't meet with a woman in his hotel room alone, we are talking about a business dinner.
> 
> The excuse for why he won't do it is just so laughably bad, I don't even know why people can make it with a straight face.





Laughable Chimp said:


> I agree. Its a weird problem for the VP to have. But at same time, I guess I can understand his motive. It feels very traditonalist but certainly not outside of the realms of possibility.
> 
> But I don't think its a proper stick to beat him over with. As long as he does his job, I'm happy. And I don't know how needing his wife with him to meet with a woman alone would really effect his ability to do his job but I wouldn't assume its much and in serious times of crisis, he'd probably be willing to forgoe that rule he set for himself. Like, its just a weird habit but its not a big issue to me.





draykorinee said:


> I'll admit I don't have a problem with Pence making his own choices, if he has such an insecure marriage or such a closeted upbringing then I really can't blame him, we can't all exist in a place where we're so mentally insecure around women that we can't even sit down for a business meal.


I would like to think that we can be mature in situations like this, that we can be OK with sitting down with someone of the opposite sex in a business setting and enjoy a meal. However, there is always going to be someone who will think the worst. If Pence were to find himself in that situation where it was just him and another woman having lunch and discussing business on their own, many people here (and elsewhere) would hammer him and accuse him of being unfaithful and a pig. Yes, it would happen in a heartbeat so let's not pretend otherwise. 

I have had it happen to me in both business and personal settings. Among my closest friends, two of them are women that I've known many years. I was one time buying my best female friend a birthday dinner and it was just the two of us (spouses couldn't make it). One of my wife's acquaintances from work came up to our table and said to me, "Who is she?" It was in that "How dare you be out and about on your wife" tone. My friend said I'm the sister he never had. We're used to those comments so we tend to laugh it off and we know what to say. Our spouses know what is going on and they have no problem with it either. 

In the business setting...happened recently as I got a promotion. My new boss is a woman and she flew in on one of her regular stops by our area. We went out on a business lunch where it was just the two of us. I came home after work and my wife said she got a phone call from a friend of hers who happened to see us at the restaurant. She had to explain to her friend Nosey McNosealot that she was my new boss and it was just business. :lol

In both cases, my wife knew about it and she was OK with it. However, I know that I can't just do that with anyone I work with. I can't just drop everything and go to lunch at Subway with a young lady half my age that happens to work for me. That might not fly with my spouse, plus people at work will start talking. It's not being discriminatory, it's out of respect that I know what I can and can't do. If Pence was to be in that type of situation, especially considering how everyone is going to jump and go "GOTCHA" at every little thing, many of the same people who accuse him of being discriminatory to women now would happily point the finger at him saying he is a dirty old man and he is probably secretly banging her.

You all might want to say, "That wouldn't happen!" Yes, it would.


----------



## Reaper

I question the motives of "male feminists" and "pro-feminist allied chivalrous male heroes" more than someone who says he'd rather not put himself in a position to be tempted given the recent exposes that have surrounded these pro-feminist, male hero types. If a man is prone to temptation, then he's a better man for admitting that he'd rather abstain than a man who pretends that he doesn't and then tries to rape every woman he meets. 

The sheer number of outed liberal male feminist rapists now is a very damaging number to their "cause". And these are the famous ones.

A mono-a-mono business meeting with the member of the opposite sex is rarely a necessity. I worked for 12 years and only twice was I put into a situation where I just had to take a meeting with a woman by herself where I couldn't or she couldn't include any other members of our teams and I worked in corporate sales. 

I believe that most men generally have an ulterior motive when it comes to inviting women by themselves - even professionally.


----------



## deepelemblues

Are we back to how awful it is for Pence to not have dinner alone with a woman who is not his wife, despite a majority of Americans agreeing with him?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/upshot/members-of-the-opposite-sex-at-work-gender-study.html?_r=0

Perhaps if men were not routinely portrayed as sex-crazed animals always on the lookout to sexually exploit women, men would not feel misgivings about being alone with a woman who is not a relative or their wife or girlfriend... :hmmm

Also, it has happened YET AGAIN.

A good rule of thumb is that if a Democrat accuses a Republican of doing something shady, it is actually the Democrat that has engaged in precisely that shady behavior.

:trump colluding with the Kremlin?

Nope, turns out that was the Hillary State Department, the Hillary FBI, the Clinton Foundation and the Hillary presidential campaign that were colluding with Russia. 

Oops.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> Are we back to how awful it is for Pence to not have dinner alone with a woman who is not his wife, despite a majority of Americans agreeing with him?
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/upshot/members-of-the-opposite-sex-at-work-gender-study.html?_r=0












Quite fascinating that the biggest sexual abuse scandal that is currently rocking America involves Educated Democrat men. 

Which would make sense. Educated liberals are pro-sex ... but the counter to that is liberal women who are generally anti-self-defense, pro-sex, pro-abortion ... Meaning that they're easier prey. You know that if you invite a liberal feminist type woman, you're inviting a woman who is unlikely to have a gun or even mace in her purse. It would be perfectly logical to camouflage yourself as a liberal male ally or whatever they call themselves these days.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

deepelemblues said:


> Are we back to how awful it is for Pence to not have dinner alone with a woman who is not his wife, despite a majority of Americans agreeing with him?
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/upshot/members-of-the-opposite-sex-at-work-gender-study.html?_r=0
> 
> Perhaps if men were not routinely portrayed as sex-crazed animals always on the lookout to sexually exploit women, men would not feel misgivings about being alone with a woman who is not a relative or their wife or girlfriend... :hmmm


Umm so I guess the only option for men is not be in a room 1 on 1 with a set of Americans who make up half the population or else risk being a sexual predator. Regardless of what public polling is,in a lot of industries mentoring and networking is done on 1 on 1 setting. If Mike Pence were a janitor or a mailman it would not matter 1 iota if he never played a round of golf or had a bite to eat with a coworker. In politics and other industriesthat kind of approach is basically discrimination unless he agrees not to ever be alone with anyone of any gender 1 on 1.


----------



## deepelemblues

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Umm so I guess the only option for men is not be in a room 1 on 1 with a set of Americans who make up half the population or else risk being a sexual predator. Regardless of what public polling is,in a lot of industries mentoring and networking is done on 1 on 1 setting. If Mike Pence were a janitor or a mailman it would not matter 1 iota if he never played a round of golf or had a bite to eat with a coworker. In politics and other industriesthat kind of approach is basically discrimination unless he agrees not to ever be alone with anyone of any gender 1 on 1.


Your definition of discrimination has zero connection to reality

Unless Mike Pence refuses to hold 1-on-1 phone calls or exchange e-mails 1-on-1 or any other method of communication with women not his wife... which he doesn't

Try again

Back to the real topic of the day, the Journolist has sent out its marching orders and the attempts of Fake News journalists to claim that someone in the GOP was behind the fake pee dossier are quite hilarious

Fusion GPS did not hire Christopher Steele until _after_ the mysterious "GOP candidate" had ended his involvement with Fusion GPS re: opposition research on :trump 

Only after lawyer Marc Elias, representing the DNC, hired Fusion GPS did Fusion GPS hire Christopher Steele

Equally hilarious are the continuing assertions that the "real issue" is :trump collusion with Russia despite 16 months of intense investigation by the FBI, Robert Mueller, and the entire Fake News media failing to uncover even a single shred of evidence that :trump colluded with Russia

Meanwhile direct Clinton collusion with the government of the Ukraine and indirect collusion with shady Russians via Christopher Steele, *and* blatant corruption between the Clintons, their Foundation, and the Kremlin re: Uranium One has been 100% CONFIRMED

Not to mention the corruption of Robert Mueller and James Comey re: investigating the Uranium One corruption has also been 100% CONFIRMED

The Fake News is fast and furious as always. Gotta protect corrupt Side o Beef and her corrupt hubby (IS A RAPIST) and their corrupt minions


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Quite fascinating that the biggest sexual abuse scandal that is currently rocking America involves Educated Democrat men.
> 
> Which would make sense. Educated liberals are pro-sex ... but the counter to that is liberal women who are generally anti-self-defense, pro-sex, pro-abortion ... Meaning that they're easier prey. You know that if you invite a liberal feminist type woman, you're inviting a woman who is unlikely to have a gun or even mace in her purse. It would be perfectly logical to camouflage yourself as a liberal male ally or whatever they call themselves these days.


yet more sexual scandals, especially in politics, come from conservatives.




deepelemblues said:


> Your definition of discrimination has zero connection to reality
> 
> Unless Mike Pence refuses to hold 1-on-1 phone calls or exchange e-mails 1-on-1 or any other method of communication with women not his wife... which he doesn't
> 
> Try again
> 
> Back to the real topic of the day, the Journolist has sent out its marching orders and the attempts of Fake News journalists to claim that someone in the GOP was behind the fake pee dossier are quite hilarious
> 
> Fusion GPS did not hire Christopher Steele until _after_ the mysterious "GOP candidate" had ended his involvement with Fusion GPS re: opposition research on :trump
> 
> Only after lawyer Marc Elias, representing the DNC, hired Fusion GPS did Fusion GPS hire Christopher Steele
> 
> Equally hilarious are the continuing assertions that the "real issue" is :trump collusion with Russia despite 16 months of intense investigation by the FBI, Robert Mueller, and the entire Fake News media failing to uncover even a single shred of evidence that :trump colluded with Russia
> 
> Meanwhile direct Clinton collusion with the government of the Ukraine and indirect collusion with shady Russians via Christopher Steele, *and* blatant corruption between the Clintons, their Foundation, and the Kremlin re: Uranium One has been 100% CONFIRMED
> 
> Not to mention the corruption of Robert Mueller and James Comey re: investigating the Uranium One corruption has also been 100% CONFIRMED
> 
> The Fake News is fast and furious as always. Gotta protect corrupt Side o Beef and her corrupt hubby (IS A RAPIST) and their corrupt minions



Keep ignoring all of the evidence of Trump and his cabinet ties to Russia. 

You prove time and time again you don't know what fake news or evidence is.


----------



## deepelemblues

The :fact is that with Hollywood and TV, sex scandal overall numbers are dominated by the left wing. It isn't even close. Whether BM likes it or not. He can't even point to "especially in politics" since all these Hollywood and LA/NY TV people are heavily involved in left-wing politics.



> Keep ignoring all of the evidence of Trump and his cabinet ties to Russia.
> 
> You prove time and time again you don't know what fake news or evidence is.


There is zero evidence of :trump collusion with Russia.

You gotta try to shift the goalposts less obviously.

But even if we change the subject from "collusion" to "ties" then the :fact is that Clinton "ties" to Russia far outnumber :trump "ties" to Russia. As Clinton collusion with Russia actually happened and :trump collusion with Russia never did, I understand trying to shift those goalposts to "ties," but even then the Clintons are worse than :trump. 

Not that "ties" are in and of themselves bad... but we're seeing more Red Scare-style sleight of hand here, where "ties" to Russia (a very geopolitically important and rich country that is naturally going to have many "ties" with prominent American politicians and office-holders and businesspeople) are portrayed as _inherently_ sinister, okay Senator McCarthy whatever you say... not.

Just another typical BM outburst, all Bernie Sanders-style ragescreaming at clouds assertions, zero :fact...


----------



## Reaper




----------



## StraightShooter

Man this is gonna be a good 8 years of good government and angry cucks, I just hope Trumps successor in 2024 is as good as he is.


----------



## stevefox1200

For the last fucking them the uranium thing is not a smoking gun nor 100% proofz

A business council of BOTH democrats and republicans signed off on a deal with a corrupt company which and Hillary did the final ok 

The FBI was already investigating the company but they didn't brief anyone to prevent leaks 

Its extremely easy to argue that they didn't know that the company was hot


----------



## deepelemblues

stevefox1200 said:


> For the last fucking them the uranium thing is not a smoking gun nor 100% proofz
> 
> A business council of BOTH democrats and republicans signed off on a deal with a corrupt company which and Hillary did the final ok
> 
> The FBI was already investigating the company but they didn't brief anyone to prevent leaks
> 
> Its extremely easy to argue that they didn't know that the company was hot


Yeah, the FBI didn't brief anyone to prevent leaks. Because leaks would have made the Clintons look bad. Yeah, the FBI's interest in preventing leaks was 100% aboveboard. No shady motives whatsoever :heston

Hillary did the final OK after her hubby (IS A RAPIST) jetted off to Moscow to get a cool 500 thou for another 'speech.' While the Kremlin was routing millions of dollars through various fronts with the ultimate destination being the Clinton Foundation.

Yeah the business council signed off because the FBI withheld pertinent information from them. To prevent leaks. That would have been damaging to the Clintons. 

If this had been Secretary of State Rex Tillerson or Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice instead of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the benefit of the doubt being extended and the pretzel twisting to obfuscate and deny deny deny by the media and flunkies of the Secretary of State would never happen. Heads would roll. It would be front-page NYT blockbusters for months. 

But because it was a Democrat and especially because it was a Clinton, nah let's go easy on em and give em a preemptive pass. :Out here with that bullshit. The Clinton Foundation was a pay to get US government influence operation that shut down as soon as she lost the election because it didn't have any US government influence to peddle anymore. Bill heading to Moscow to get paid was just a simple speaking engagement and fee, nothing more. Millions of dollars being sent to the Clinton Foundation was just a coincidence and a sign of the Kremlin recognizing the great work the Clinton Foundation did around the world. 

She and Bill (IS A RAPIST) are both corrupt whores who would do anything for money and power. Greasy fucks. Yeah they didn't know the company was hot. Yeah they didn't know shady shit was going down. Sure they didn't. unk2


----------



## birthday_massacre

Trump is more and more unhinged as each day passes


----------



## virus21




----------



## stevefox1200

deepelemblues said:


> Yeah, the FBI didn't brief anyone to prevent leaks. Because leaks would have made the Clintons look bad. Yeah, the FBI's interest in preventing leaks was 100% aboveboard. No shady motives whatsoever :heston
> 
> Hillary did the final OK after her hubby (IS A RAPIST) jetted off to Moscow to get a cool 500 thou for another 'speech.' While the Kremlin was routing millions of dollars through various fronts with the ultimate destination being the Clinton Foundation.
> 
> Yeah the business council signed off because the FBI withheld pertinent information from them. To prevent leaks. That would have been damaging to the Clintons.
> 
> If this had been Secretary of State Rex Tillerson or Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice instead of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the benefit of the doubt being extended and the pretzel twisting to obfuscate and deny deny deny by the media and flunkies of the Secretary of State would never happen. Heads would roll. It would be front-page NYT blockbusters for months.
> 
> But because it was a Democrat and especially because it was a Clinton, nah let's go easy on em and give em a preemptive pass. :Out here with that bullshit. The Clinton Foundation was a pay to get US government influence operation that shut down as soon as she lost the election because it didn't have any US government influence to peddle anymore. Bill heading to Moscow to get paid was just a simple speaking engagement and fee, nothing more. Millions of dollars being sent to the Clinton Foundation was just a coincidence and a sign of the Kremlin recognizing the great work the Clinton Foundation did around the world.
> 
> She and Bill (IS A RAPIST) are both corrupt whores who would do anything for money and power. Greasy fucks. Yeah they didn't know the company was hot. Yeah they didn't know shady shit was going down. Sure they didn't. unk2


The same FBI that later dumped on Hillary for email leaks and has bumped heads with Obama constantly 

I love of organizations can switch from corrupt to honest depending on who they are investing 

The money for the foundation came from someone who was not employed by the company and the Clinton are smart enough to file them properly like any other donation rather than trying to hide them which makes their corruption hard to find 

I don't give a fuck about the rapist shit or the double standard of the media, if you want to nail Hillary on corruption (and its do-able) you have to dig harder, most of the stuff from "Clinton Cash" and right-wing news sphere are completle garbage taken out of worst at best or circumstantial at best


----------



## yeahbaby!

Are we honestly saying the recent Hollywood sexual assaults are some indictment on a certain political leaning? How laughably simple.

You don't need to be left or right to want to abuse your power to get your rocks off. You just need to have a pulse basically.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

yeahbaby! said:


> Are we honestly saying the recent Hollywood sexual assaults are some indictment on a certain political leaning? How laughably simple.
> 
> You don't need to be left or right to want to abuse your power to get your rocks off. You just need to have a pulse basically.


Especially as just about every liberal person out there would be happy if Harvey ended up behind bars. Meanwhile when O'Reilly's/Ailes scandal came out, a good subset of Trump supporters thought it was a conspiracy and fake news by the left despite years of settlements and multiple unrelated women making accusations.


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> Are we honestly saying the recent Hollywood sexual assaults are some indictment on a certain political leaning? How laughably simple.
> 
> You don't need to be left or right to want to abuse your power to get your rocks off. You just need to have a pulse basically.


The point most are making is that you have Hollywood preaching to everyone about virtue while it's a cesspool. 

Also the fact people still think that being a Democrat or part of the "Left" somehow makes you a good person, so when these people get caught doing shit it's hilarious. Kind of like when Religious people get caught doing bad stuff after being holier than thou.

There's also the "Male Feminists" who white knight on twitter and write articles but then do shady stuff and abuse women. I said before there's a reason why many Feminists dislike "Male Feminists".

So you're right, being a bad person has no Political leaning but when people who side with the Left preach and get exposed there is a good irony about it, especially when "Right Wingers is evil!" narrative constantly gets floated around.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> The point most are making is that you have Hollywood preaching to everyone about virtue while it's a cesspool.
> 
> Also the fact people still think that being a Democrat or part of the "Left" somehow makes you a good person, so when these people get caught doing shit it's hilarious. Kind of like when Religious people get caught doing bad stuff after being holier than thou.
> 
> There's also the "Male Feminists" who white knight on twitter and write articles but then do shady stuff and abuse women. I said before there's a reason why many Feminists dislike "Male Feminists".
> 
> So you're right, being a bad person has no Political leaning but when people who side with the Left preach and get exposed there is a good irony about it, especially when "Right Wingers is evil!" narrative constantly gets floated around.


OH, you mean how conservatives all preach how virtuous they are because of god yet are the total opposite?
or when conservatives preach about being gay is a sin or how abortion is wrong yet they turn out to be gay or we find out their mistresses have had abortions


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> OH, you mean how conservatives all preach how virtuous they are because of god yet are the total opposite?
> or when conservatives preach about being gay is a sin or how abortion is wrong yet they turn out to be gay or we find out their mistresses have had abortions


Yes, just like that.

The exact point I was making.

It's fun to point and mock people who preach and then get exposed for what they are.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> Yes, just like that.
> 
> The exact point I was making.
> 
> It's fun to point and mock people who preach and then get exposed for what they are.


As long as you are only mocking the person who is the hypocrite and not all of "Hollywood Liberals" because not all liberals do the shit HW did.

But it seems like people are trying to blame of all Hollywood or all liberals for what HW did and calling them hypocrites and that is wrong.


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> As long as you are only mocking the person who is the hypocrite and not all of "Hollywood Liberals" because not all liberals do the shit HW did.
> 
> But it seems like people are trying to blame of all Hollywood or all liberals for what HW did and calling them hypocrites and that is wrong.


Why would this matter?

People of Political Groups get lumped together all the time. Mocking "Hollywood Liberals" wouldn't be an exact bad thing as most of them are hypocrites. They're the same people who were giving praise to Roman Polanski and he's a kid diddler and yet they're so shocked women are being sexually abused in Hollywood. Not even just women either but kids and males as well.

If people are going to continue to use generalizations about Trump Supporters, Conservatives etc then they have no right to be upset when it's done to them.

I don't agree with this notion but turnabout is fair play. After all not many people avoided giving people on the Right certain stigmas did they?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> Why would this matter?
> 
> People of Political Groups get lumped together all the time. Mocking "Hollywood Liberals" wouldn't be an exact bad thing as most of them are hypocrites. They're the same people who were giving praise to Roman Polanski and he's a kid diddler and yet they're so shocked women are being sexually abused in Hollywood. Not even just women either but kids and males as well.
> 
> If people are going to continue to use generalizations about Trump Supporters, Conservatives etc than they have no right to be upset when it's done to them.
> 
> I don't agree with this notion but turnabout is fair play. After all not many people avoided giving people on the Right certain stigmas did they?



How can you not see how this would matter? its simple logic and reason. But that always ignored the Trump thread, so I am not surprised. 

As for making generalizations. the people on the right earn their stigmas because of its what they platform stands for, like being pro-gun, anti-gay, anti-abortion, care more about helping the rich than the middle class or poor trying to push religion onto the rest of the country, etc.


----------



## Laughable Chimp

birthday_massacre said:


> How can you not see how this would matter? its simple logic and reason. But that always ignored the Trump thread, so I am not surprised.
> 
> As for making generalizations. the people on the right earn their stigmas because of its what they platform stands for, like being pro-gun, anti-gay, anti-abortion, care more about helping the rich than the middle class or poor trying to push religion onto the rest of the country, etc.


In my so far short stay into the political discussions, its that generalization which is kind of the problem. You've effectively admitted with this post that there is an evil stigma on the right wing. However true that may be, if the left are going to continue to play up and mock the right wing through this stigma, then they fully deserved to be mocked back for being exposed for being nothing less than hypocrites and being just as bad.

Not that being on the left wing or right wing should ever decide whether you're a good person or not, far from it. But if you want to play to that stigma, then you fully deserve to get mocked back if you get exposed.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Laughable Chimp said:


> In my so far short stay into the political discussions, its that generalization which is kind of the problem. You've effectively admitted with this post that there is an evil stigma on the right wing. However true that may be, if the left are going to continue to play up and mock the right wing through this stigma, then they fully deserved to be mocked back for being exposed for being nothing less than hypocrites and being just as bad.
> 
> Not that being on the left wing or right wing should ever decide whether you're a good person or not, far from it. But if you want to play to that stigma, then you fully deserve to get mocked back if you get exposed.


Its not a generalization when its true. The things I listed are things the conservative platform stands for. 

The liberal view is none of those things and when a liberal is exposed being something liberals are against they call out that person, which is exactly what liberals are doing against Harvey Weinstein. You don't see anyone defending him, do you? But on the right you see all these conservatives defending O Reily and Allies. that is the difference between liberals and conservatives.

Liberals will call out the hypocrisy and conservatives will defend it.

So what you are saying when it comes to liberals especially with this sexual harassment thing with people like HW, simply is not true when it comes to liberals since I don't see any liberals defending the sexual harassment like the right did with Allies and O Reily

Liberals stand for something and when one of their own goes against what they call out that person conservatives not so much.

You would only have a point with liberals being hypocrites if they were all defending HW which they are not.


----------



## Beatles123

Don't do it guys. Just don't.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

In more important news, I'm teaching 1st graders this year, and one of my female students pulled down her pants and showed her yoohoo to the whole class.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> I question the motives of "male feminists" and "pro-feminist allied chivalrous male heroes" more than someone who says he'd rather not put himself in a position to be tempted given the recent exposes that have surrounded these pro-feminist, male hero types. If a man is prone to temptation, then he's a better man for admitting that he'd rather abstain than a man who pretends that he doesn't and then tries to rape every woman he meets.
> 
> The sheer number of outed liberal male feminist rapists now is a very damaging number to their "cause". And these are the famous ones.
> 
> A mono-a-mono business meeting with the member of the opposite sex is rarely a necessity. I worked for 12 years and only twice was I put into a situation where I just had to take a meeting with a woman by herself where I couldn't or she couldn't include any other members of our teams and I worked in corporate sales.
> 
> I believe that most men generally have an ulterior motive when it comes to inviting women by themselves - even professionally.


I appreciate you're probably only speaking in terms of your business speciality but the idea that one on one meetings with the opposite sex are rare is laughably off the mark in the NHS and in the education sector. I would say a quarter of my working day is private meetings with my students or going out to visit students often taking car trips with women. Quite often these are 17-20 year old girls, I daily have to put myself in a position where I'm one on one with women. 

I also have to routinely give intimate care to the most vulnerable people when I work in icu.

Yes, I do fear one day getting accused of something, although I know I've never done anything, and I'll have no evidence to support me.

No ulterior motives here, just doing my job.

I'll join you in the male liberal feminists, can't stand them. The whole neogaf thing had me in stitches.


----------



## birthday_massacre




----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> How can you not see how this would matter? its simple logic and reason. But that always ignored the Trump thread, so I am not surprised.
> 
> As for making generalizations. the people on the right earn their stigmas because of its what they platform stands for, like being pro-gun, anti-gay, anti-abortion, care more about helping the rich than the middle class or poor trying to push religion onto the rest of the country, etc.


It really doesn't matter because generalizations happen regardless, it's just the way it works. I don't like it but it happens, especially when it comes to Politics.

And the people on the Left don't earn theirs? Come on, if you're going to dish it then you best take it.

People need to stop asking others to take the high road when they won't themselves. Neither the American Right or Left are innocent. Yet the American "Left" constantly generalizes and tosses out isms and ists but when they're guilty it's, "oh boy, let's be mature here guys!"

This is why it's understandable people are assigning a Political leaning to this, didn't people do so with O'Riley? So what makes this special? Nothing, except that "Liberal Hollywood" looks bad, well they've always looked bad when you got hypocrites like Cloney, Penn and Affleck running their mouths. It's not like any of this makes them look any worse.

Story short, if you're going to generalize people, don't be upset if they generalize back.


----------



## DOPA

There's been plenty of stories where so called "male feminists" have essentially used their position of being an "ally" to the female sex in order to essentially take advantage to try and get laid. Male feminists...at least the ones I'm talking about, are some of the slimiest people on earth, who preach about men being toxic and misogynist towards women all the while taking advantage of the position they have carved out for themselves.

As far as the whole business meeting 1 on 1 with women type thing, I'm sort of in two minds. On the one hand, it's kind of silly to be hesitant to hold those type of meetings if we're talking about two people in high positions who need to work out some sort of dealing or business arrangement because there is an understanding of the reasons behind them having lunch or dinner in that context so I understand people who are a little bemused by Pence's attitude towards this issue. On the other hand, I do understand especially with politicians or people with positions of power why he would want to make sure that there are no ideas of him committing adultery or what have you. It's about context though which @BruiserKC alluded to, it's one thing to have lunch with your boss or colleague of a similar managerial or executive role but it's another if you are doing the same thing with someone who is essentially your employee or underling.

I really don't see what the big deal is with criticizing Pence for how he handles his business in that manner. Sure it's a little weird but that's his decision. There are plenty of other bigger issues to be mad at and no Pence is not being sexist with his requests. Trust some people on the left to make it about such matters.


----------



## Reaper

The Democrat defense for EVERYTHING now. 

"I didn't know." How many democrats have now come out and just feigned ignorance? And how many of their supporters continue to turn a blind eye to their corruption? American liberalism deserves better than the democrats. You guys need to burn this party to the ground and build liberalism back from the ground up. It's now full of the most cancerous criminal masterminds that have ever existed. 

https://www.waynedupree.com/clinton-now-claims-no-idea-lawyer-firm-funded-oppo-research-trump/



> *Clinton Now Claims She Had No Idea Lawyer Firm Funded Oppo Research Against Trump*
> 
> Officials from the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. have said they were unaware that Perkins Coie facilitated the research on their behalf
> 
> I continue to be amazed at how those on the left blatantly violate the law and get away with it.
> Hillary Clinton is claiming she didn’t know a law firm she used funded opposition research into President Trump. That’s her so-called way out.
> Hillary is doing what the Clintons do best — sanctimonious lying. I guarantee she knew about this research and at least at a high level what was alleged. A campaign doesn’t spend millions of dollars and just ignore what they paid for. Now whether the Russians were just playing the campaign and the DNC for suckers and told them a bunch of whoppers for cash remains to be seen. What is known is that this dossier was used as a political weapon against an elected President by the outgoing administration, and the swamp critters in Congress and the Administrative branch. That is the collusion we know happened between the campaign and the Obama Admin, aided by John McCain and his hatred for Trump.
> The Republicans are gutless and won’t pull the trigger on things that are well known. They won’t do anything once the magic words “I didn’t know ” are stated by a Democrat.
> If world MSM and news were honest, they would rip her apart. The fact that she has the gall to pretend she didn’t know (it’s not even viable anymore) anything about this is simply incredible. And the fact that her sycophants will accept this lie and spread it is equally unbelievable. She should so be in jail (for life) right now!


:lmao










Meanwhile, liberal media: 










And then they wonder why we don't take them seriously anymore. Real leftists should be trying to distance themselves from the dumpster fire that is modern liberalism and not trying to defend it. 

Burn it like the cancer it is and re-assert your moderate principles.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> It really doesn't matter because generalizations happen regardless, it's just the way it works. I don't like it but it happens, especially when it comes to Politics.
> 
> And the people on the Left don't earn theirs? Come on, if you're going to dish it then you best take it.
> 
> People need to stop asking others to take the high road when they won't themselves. Neither the American Right or Left are innocent. Yet the American "Left" constantly generalizes and tosses out isms and ists but when they're guilty it's, "oh boy, let's be mature here guys!"
> 
> This is why it's understandable people are assigning a Political leaning to this, didn't people do so with O'Riley? So what makes this special? Nothing, except that "Liberal Hollywood" looks bad, well they've always looked bad when you got hypocrites like Cloney, Penn and Affleck running their mouths. It's not like any of this makes them look any worse.
> 
> *Story short, if you're going to generalize people, don't be upset if they generalize back.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> You are not even making any sense. You keep saying this yet its not generalizing when you say conservatives are anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-gay etc that is their platform, how is that generalizing? I know you will dodge this question again because you know I am right.
> 
> You keep acting like liberals are backing Weinstein when they are not. So you can't act like oh liberals are hypocrites when a liberal is a sexual assaulter like HW because liberals are against what he did, you can call him a hypocrite which he is.
> 
> If most liberals were defending HW then you could all them hypocrites.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> The Democrat defense for EVERYTHING now.
> 
> "I didn't know." How many democrats have now come out and just feigned ignorance? And how many of their supporters continue to turn a blind eye to their corruption? American liberalism deserves better than the democrats. You guys need to burn this party to the ground and build liberalism back from the ground up. It's now full of the most cancerous criminal masterminds that have ever existed.
> 
> https://www.waynedupree.com/clinton-now-claims-no-idea-lawyer-firm-funded-oppo-research-trump/
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, liberal media:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then they wonder why we don't take them seriously anymore. *Real leftists should be trying to distance themselves from the dumpster fire that is modern liberalism and not trying to defend it.
> 
> Burn it like the cancer it is and re-assert your moderate principles.*


that is what the justice democrats are trying to do. 

And let's be real, people like Hilary Clinton are not liberals, she is barely a democratic, she is a republican lite.

You can already see more fuckery by the DNC with more BS rumors like this to try to discredit real progressives.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer...-rumor-about?utm_term=.tlbk5onzLj#.chxvMwRa0n


----------



## Draykorinee

I don't understand why Trump does hate dogs though, can you link the article and not just the headline.


----------



## birthday_massacre

draykorinee said:


> I don't understand why Trump does hate dogs though, can you link the article and not just the headline.


http://www.newsweek.com/does-donald-trump-hate-dogs-why-would-he-do-692092


----------



## Irish Jet

Anyone who hates dogs should be put down.


----------



## deepelemblues

Irish Jet said:


> Anyone who hates dogs should be put down.


don't be islamophobic


----------



## yeahbaby!

L-DOPA said:


> There's been plenty of stories where so called "male feminists" have essentially used their position of being an "ally" to the female sex in order to essentially take advantage to try and get laid. Male feminists...at least the ones I'm talking about, are some of the slimiest people on earth, who preach about men being toxic and misogynist towards women all the while taking advantage of the position they have carved out for themselves.


How does this work, they're running seminars on male privilege then secretly abusing the females after class? Can you link some of the plenty of stories where this has been happening?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Reaper said:


> The Democrat defense for EVERYTHING now.
> 
> "I didn't know." How many democrats have now come out and just feigned ignorance? And how many of their supporters continue to turn a blind eye to their corruption? American liberalism deserves better than the democrats. You guys need to burn this party to the ground and build liberalism back from the ground up. It's now full of the most cancerous criminal masterminds that have ever existed.


And then Hillary's fuccboi Brian Fallon dun goof'd by saying she may have known :lmao:






I'm glad I got over my motion sickness years ago, because I don't wanna get off this ride. :trump2


----------



## virus21




----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> How does this work, they're running seminars on male privilege then secretly abusing the females after class? Can you link some of the plenty of stories where this has been happening?


http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...e-after-woman-accuses-him-sexual-assault.html

There's been at least a half-dozen other stories in the last week or so like with the guys running the NeoGAF forums (which was super anti-GamerGate SJW I guess? I dunno I never heard of it before like 3 days ago) and several other semi-prominent "male feminists" like Sam Kriss being accused of sexual harassment or assault or admitting to it.


----------



## Reaper

Irish Jet said:


> Anyone who hates dogs should be put down.


So you want all Muslims dead?

Sent from my BTV-W09 using Tapatalk


----------



## birthday_massacre

https://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-ri.../unsealed-documents-show-kris-kobach-dead-set

Jump to navigationSkip navigation
Expand Header
Search Form
GET UPDATESDONATE
ISSUES
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS
DEFENDING OUR RIGHTS
BLOGS
ABOUT
SHOP

SPEAK FREELY
Unsealed Documents Show That Kris Kobach Is Dead Set on Suppressing the Right to Vote


By Orion Danjuma, Staff Attorney, ACLU Racial Justice Program
OCTOBER 26, 2017 | 6:00 PM
TAGSFighting Voter Suppression Voting Rights
FacebookTwitterRedditEmailPrint
web17-Trump+Kobach-1160x768.jpg
Trump and Kobach
For almost a year, Kris Kobach, the secretary of state of Kansas, has struggled to hide the truth about his efforts to lobby the Trump administration to make it much harder for Americans to vote. Part of that struggle ended today when a federal court ordered excerpts of Kris Kobach’s testimony disclosed along with other documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union in our challenge to his restrictive voter registration regime.

The unsealed materials confirm what many have suspected: Kobach has a ready-made plan to gut core voting rights protections enshrined in federal law. And he has been covertly lobbying Trump’s team and other officials from day one to sell them the falsehood that noncitizens are swinging elections.

As the de facto head of President Trump’s election commission, Kobach has positioned himself to lead an all-out assault on the right to vote.

Here are three big plays from Kobach’s voter suppression playbook.

Play 1: Disenfranchise new voters with severe registration restrictions

Before Kris Kobach took office as secretary of state, Kansans could register to vote the same way that people do in virtually every other state in the country: by submitting a sworn oath of citizenship under penalty of perjury. In 2013, Kobach implemented a law he had pushed through the Kansas Legislature two years earlier, requiring people to track down a citizenship document — such as a passport or birth certificate — or be barred from the ballot box. The new system proved disastrous for ordinary voters.

Large numbers of citizens — disproportionately minorities — don’t have a passport or birth certificate on hand and don’t have the money to obtain replacement documents. By December 2015, more than 35,000 Kansans had been disenfranchised — approximately 14 percent of all registration applications since the requirement went into effect. The National Voter Registration Act — popularly known as the Motor-Voter law — prohibits unduly harsh registration rules and requires that states make voter registration easy and straightforward.

Kobach’s severe documentation requirements violated the NVRA so we sued. In October 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit blocked the requirement for people registering at DMVs. The opinion by a George W. Bush-appointed judge found that Kobach’s law had caused a “mass denial of a fundamental constitutional right.” The court noted that before a state could impose such sweeping restrictions, there would need to be proof that significant numbers of noncitizens were actually registering to vote. But Kobach had no evidence of any real problem. He could only offer “pure speculation” that hordes of invisible immigrants were hiding out in voting booths.

Play 2: If the law doesn’t let you suppress the vote, pull some strings to get rid of the law

Without evidence or legal arguments in his favor, Kobach’s next move was to try to eviscerate the NVRA itself. As Kobach knew, and the ACLU had made clear in court, the NVRA would need to be completely rewritten for a state official like Kobach to have the authority to impose such severe restrictions on the right to vote:

Kobach Document Screenshot

So what did Kobach do after losing in court? As the unsealed documents show, he secretly prepared a draft amendment that would rewrite the NVRA in exactly this manner.

Kobach Document Screenshot 2

No evidence of noncitizen voter fraud? No problem.

Kobach’s proposed amendment would grant him and officials across the country the power to impose any voter registration restriction they wanted regardless of the evidence — or lack thereof. Then, the very day after Donald Trump won the presidential election, Kobach started peddling his amendment, sending an email to Gene Hamilton, a member of the Trump transition team:

Kobach Document Screenshot 3

VOTER SUPPRESSION BEHIND CLOSED DOORS

TAKE ACTIONLess than two weeks later, on November 20, 2016, Kobach was photographed walking into a meeting with Trump, carrying his agenda for the “First 365 days” of the incoming administration. A bullet point in the plan? Amend the NVRA.

Kobach Document Screenshot 4

We now know that the meeting was Kobach’s job interview with Donald Trump and his senior advisors: Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Jared Kushner, and Reince Priebus. Kobach gave each of them a copy of his playbook, pitching them the idea that noncitizens were potentially swinging the results of elections.

Shortly after the meeting with Kobach, Trump tweeted that he would have won the popular vote if not for millions of people who supposedly voted illegally.

Trump Electoral College Tweet

Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway later confirmed that Kobach was the source of Trump’s tweet.

On May 20, 2017, Trump selected Kobach as the vice-chair and de facto leader of the Presidential Commission on Election Integrity. Kobach had the commission packed with many of his own longtime confederates and is now poised to execute the scheme outlined in his unsealed documents.

Play 3: Cover your tracks

When the ACLU demanded that he produce his draft NVRA amendments in the Kansas litigation, Kobach did the natural thing a vote suppressor caught red-handed would do: He lied.

Kobach told the ACLU and a federal magistrate that “no such documents exist” in an attempt to keep his lobbying efforts under wraps:

Kobach Document Screenshot 6

After Kobach was ordered to produce his papers for review, the magistrate fined him for making “patently misleading representations to the court about the documents.” When Kobach appealed that decision, the presiding judge agreed that Kobach should be sanctioned because of a “pattern” of misrepresentation “that call his credibility into question.”

Kobach’s lobbying to gut the NVRA was always meant to occur behind closed doors. So he has been struggling for months to keep these documents out of public view, while secretly asking his ally, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), to introduce his proposed NVRA amendment to Congress in the future.

Why is Kobach trying so hard to hide what he’s been up to? Because the unsealed documents reveal that his true aim and that of the election commission is suppressing the right to vote.
When the 10th Circuit blocked Kobach’s law a year ago, the court found that a state has to prove that noncitizen registration fraud is actually a significant problem before it can demand a passport or birth certificate from voters. Since then, Kobach has been maneuvering behind the scenes to make sure he can impose whatever restrictions he wants without any proof. Why? Because he knows his claims about noncitizens voting are a scam.

Kobach realizes that his law has been disenfranchising tens of thousands of eligible citizens — that is the whole point. And now, he’s poised to do the same nationwide.

Vice President Pence stated that the president’s election commission would begin with “no preconceived notions or preordained results.” That was wrong. As Kobach’s own testimony and documents show, the fix has been in from the start.
ADD A COMMENT (6)
Read the Terms of Use
Dr. Joseph Goebbels
The name Kobach sounds German. He's probably one of those Neo-Nazis you hear about.
REPLYOCTOBER 26, 20175:52 PM
John Lindy
So scummy, makes sense he found a home with this administration.
REPLYOCTOBER 26, 20176:47 PM
Anonymous
After Kobach was ordered to produce his papers for review, the magistrate fined him for making “patently misleading representations to the court about the documents.” When Kobach appealed that decision, the presiding judge agreed that Kobach should be sanctioned because of a “pattern” of misrepresentation “that call his credibility into question.”

Wait, wait, wait... someone actually held a Republican accountable for lying? I feel like I'm in some bizarro world where the truth matters and American institutions aren't completely corrupt.
REPLYOCTOBER 26, 20176:48 PM
Anonymous
I thought voter suppression is a crime? Why does he only get a fine? should he be prosecuted?
REPLYOCTOBER 26, 20177:32 PM
Galaxy8News.com
Why isn't there a charge against Kobach for perjury?

He is providing information to and before the court that should recognize statements, testimony, and declarations which should be of sworn evidentiary value. Committing perjury in any judges present is a significant disregard for the Justice and Respect of Honor of the Robe of any Presiding Judge.

As an officer of the court in presenting sworn documents Kobach should be held accountable in a more severe manner than dismissing cases for speculation or presenting “patently misleading representations to the court about the documents.” An official record depicting the injustices should forever be available so that Kobach's reputation and professional standing is present for future endeavors he may desire.

As it stands he will be recognized by those making up his ilk as a reputable soldier for whatever cause discrimination takes hold. Perhaps our expectation is too high concerning whether there should be a higher expectation for not honoring the Judiciary.
REPLYOCTOBER 26, 20177:40 PM
Anonymous
In view of claims that legitimate votes were never counted in swing states (in substantial numbers), is there any way to pursue those responsible for voter suppression? These votes were prevented from counting in areas where Clinton would have clearly prevailed. Not only did Trump lose the popular vote, now there is concern that he really did not win the Electoral College vote.
REPLYOCTOBER 26, 20177:54 PM
Fight for everyone's rights - support the ACLU.
DONATE NOW
SIGN UP FOR BREAKING NEWS ALERTS
Close
Email Address *ZIP Code * 
RELATED STORIES

Trump and Kobach’s Voter Fraud Lies Are Making More Voters Lose Confidence in...
AUGUST 11, 2017

People Power Is Taking the Voting Rights Fight to Kris Kobach
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017

Kris Kobach, the Man Charged With Enhancing Americans’ Confidence in...
JULY 26, 2017

Kris Kobach Pushes Voter Fraud Lies While Meeting With Fellow Suppression...
SEPTEMBER 11, 2017

We’re Suing California Because It Threw Out More Than 45,000 Ballots in the...
AUGUST 24, 2017
STAY INFORMED
Email Address *
ZIP Code *
PUBLICATIONS MULTIMEDIA MEDIA CONTACT DONATE
ACLU On Facebook

ACLU On Twitter

ACLU On YouTube

The ACLU RSS Feed
Charity Navigator BBB Accredited Charity
USER AGREEMENT PRIVACY STATEMENT ACCESSIBILITY
This is the website of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about these two components of the ACLU.
© 2017 ACLU

WE THE PEOPLE


----------



## Goku

:lmao

so the russia story got turned on its head?

not winning was never an option :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

Goku said:


> :lmao
> 
> so the russia story got turned on its head?
> 
> not winning was never an option :trump


LOL at anyone thinking Trump is winning when he becomes a bigger joke each week and his approval rating keeps hitting rock bottom.

Only Trump supporters would think 38% approval rating is winning.

Oh and the funniest thing today that shows how stupid Trump is, he thought the president of China was a king LMAO And he acted like he had some huge bomb shell when he said did you know he is really a president. 

Trump is by far the dumbest president we have ever had.


----------



## Goku

lol didn't read :trump


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...e-after-woman-accuses-him-sexual-assault.html
> 
> There's been at least a half-dozen other stories in the last week or so like with the guys running the NeoGAF forums (which was super anti-GamerGate SJW I guess? I dunno I never heard of it before like 3 days ago) and several other semi-prominent "male feminists" like Sam Kriss being accused of sexual harassment or assault or admitting to it.


Well that guy sounds like a complete knob.

But it's not exactly an example of 'MALE FEMINISTS LURE WOMEN IN WITH THEIR FAKE IDEOLOGY THEN ABUSE THEM' since this guy was actually a political correspondent who had also written pieces making fun of men's right's activists etc. 

They didn't say he was front and centre of the women's marches with his hands up skirts.


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> Well that guy sounds like a complete knob.
> 
> But it's not exactly an example of 'MALE FEMINISTS LURE WOMEN IN WITH THEIR FAKE IDEOLOGY THEN ABUSE THEM' since this guy was actually a political correspondent who had also written pieces making fun of men's right's activists etc.
> 
> They didn't say he was front and centre of the women's marches with his hands up skirts.


I don't know if they specifically and deliberately lure women in with their fake ideology so they can abuse them :draper2

I think that's probably part of their method (for some of them anyway) but if it wasn't they'd still be getting close to women in other ways then abusing them


----------



## Reaper

Just because not all pro feminist male allies are rapists does not mean that some cannot be and does not mean it isn't a camoflage predators can put on doesn't mean that it's the feminist belief system doesn't create the predator fpalm. 

The argument is simple, feminism is a disarming tactic. Modern Feminists are anti-gun, pro-abortion and in the extreme "we don't even need mace" kind of women. They are easy targets. They are open books. There is no mystery. They scream off the top of roof tops and are easy prey. Feminism is a garb sexual abusers can wear to disarm feminists. And we're seeing that. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/923554616498884609

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/923206517276512257


> Ms Evans said of the alleged altercation “he just seemed to flip”, calling his comments “misogynistic, it was transphobic, angry and aggressive”.
> 
> She added: “I just wanted people to know what he’s like. I want people to know this is the man that’s representing you.”
> 
> The bar worker said she found it “hard to believe” he has changed both since this incident and his online posts.
> 
> Ms Evans continued: “Now it’s too late for him to apologise for that [incident]. I want him to apologise for calling us liars and I want him to admit what he’s done.”


Sounds about right. Chase after women. When they turn them down, turn into creeps ... then go to the "feminism is cool" schtick. It's all just a game for some of these luberal men. 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...p-brought-low-things-they-said-growing-online

The list of assholes who don't actually believe or practice what they preach grows every day. I didn't even know about this guy till this morning. 

BTW, it's not just men that use Feminism as a garb for their personal gains. Here is Ms. Lisa Bloom, fabled FEMINIST ready to smear Rose McGowen as part of her defense for Harvey Weinstein. 










Also, 










Yeah sweetie, that ship sailed a LONG time ago. 










:banderas


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

In regards to Trump, I was surprised that he withheld some of the files from the recent JFK papers. What confuses me is how it could negatively impact national security when it concerns a murder most of us weren't alive to see or remember. Surely the sheer age of the Kennedy assassination means it wouldn't have any consequences on present day America?
Still, fair play to Trump for deferring to the judgement of the CIA.


----------



## Banez

Trump has spent 1.75 million dollars to redecorate white house :lol

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...-presidential-furniture-redecorations-n814551


----------



## Warlock

Most presidents redecorate. It wouldn't surprise me if Trump wants to outdo every previous president in his redecoration/spending(cause.. ego). Which I don't really have a problem with if he's footing the majority of bill himself. Spend to his hearts desire. 

But if he's trying to go over the allotted amount (around 100k i believe) of taxpayer money to do it, then I'll have issues with it.


----------



## Reaper

Oh look. Another liberal poser (This time our favorite Trump impersonator) Mr. Alec Baldwin goes down in a heap of misogyny and abuse hurled at a female journalist simply asking him to comment on his buddy's rapey exploits. 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/alec-.../articles+(The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles)

Why am I not surprised. I mean, sure ... the journalist is prodding him about a subject that he might be sensitive about, but the fucking creeper had to toss in a gendered insult into the mix. He could have simply said "I don't know, but we should find out the truth." and left it at that.

What is it about certain leftist men that make them turn into misogynistic creeps when angry?

You know the entire expose of Hollywood has started creating a picture in my head that expands upon the core motivations and reasoning behind why female liberalism is so obsessed with rape culture and rampant misogyny ... They seem to attract it for some reason (the reason being in my opinion that since rapists get off on exerting their power and control over their victims, the free/independent and liberated woman is a prize to be conquered and sexually humiliated). 

Liberal women attract the rapists and the misogynists, so it explains why they would think that the majority of men are like that. I don't think I can blame feminism as much as I used to anymore. Not after all that's happening in Hollywood and other shared spaces where women are moving around.


----------



## deepelemblues

So under election law, campaigns are required to keep a record of expenditures over $200. With a statement as to what the purpose of the expenditure is.

Of course, the Democrats didn't do this when it comes to paying Fusion GPS with the result being the fake piss dossier. 

I wonder what else the Side o Beef and the DNC spent money on without recording it. If these were Republicans there'd be a special counsel appointed and it would drive the news cycle for forever. Top story for a long time. Secret campaign spending! Foreign agents! The Pulitzers would hand themselves out. 

But it's the Democrats and the Clintons so it will be a story for like a week then disappear until months later when some Congressional committee will open an investigation and it will be portrayed as vindictive Republicans and :trump trying to scandalmonger because :trump will be done soon thanks to MUH RUSSIA! Promise. That evidence that has not been produced not even one piece after 16 months of investigation, it is coming and :trump will be destroyed!


----------



## amhlilhaus

Reaper said:


> Just because not all pro feminist male allies are rapists does not mean that some cannot be and does not mean it isn't a camoflage predators can put on doesn't mean that it's the feminist belief system doesn't create the predator fpalm.
> 
> The argument is simple, feminism is a disarming tactic. Modern Feminists are anti-gun, pro-abortion and in the extreme "we don't even need mace" kind of women. They are easy targets. They are open books. There is no mystery. They scream off the top of roof tops and are easy prey. Feminism is a garb sexual abusers can wear to disarm feminists. And we're seeing that.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/923554616498884609
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/923206517276512257
> 
> 
> Sounds about right. Chase after women. When they turn them down, turn into creeps ... then go to the "feminism is cool" schtick. It's all just a game for some of these luberal men.
> 
> https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...p-brought-low-things-they-said-growing-online
> 
> The list of assholes who don't actually believe or practice what they preach grows every day. I didn't even know about this guy till this morning.
> 
> BTW, it's not just men that use Feminism as a garb for their personal gains. Here is Ms. Lisa Bloom, fabled FEMINIST ready to smear Rose McGowen as part of her defense for Harvey Weinstein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah sweetie, that ship sailed a LONG time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :banderas


Is that a real childrens book?

I shudder to think of the dick sucling they did for obama


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at anyone thinking Trump is winning when he becomes a bigger joke each week and his approval rating keeps hitting rock bottom.
> 
> Only Trump supporters would think 38% approval rating is winning.
> 
> Oh and the funniest thing today that shows how stupid Trump is, he thought the president of China was a king LMAO And he acted like he had some huge bomb shell when he said did you know he is really a president.
> 
> Trump is by far the dumbest president we have ever had.


Hows your guarantee russia was gonna bring him down looking?


----------



## Empress

First charges have been filed in Robert Mueller's probe.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/924077410038849537


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> Oh look. Another liberal poser (This time our favorite Trump impersonator) Mr. Alec Baldwin goes down in a heap of misogyny and abuse hurled at a female journalist simply asking him to comment on his buddy's rapey exploits.
> 
> https://www.thedailybeast.com/alec-.../articles+(The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles)
> 
> Why am I not surprised. I mean, sure ... the journalist is prodding him about a subject that he might be sensitive about, but the fucking creeper had to toss in a gendered insult into the mix. He could have simply said "I don't know, but we should find out the truth." and left it at that.


Yeah, the guy who was a known domestic abuser and screamed vile insults at his own daughter is a misogynistic asshole. Who knew


----------



## birthday_massacre

virus21 said:


> Yeah, the guy who was a known domestic abuser and screamed vile insults at his own daughter is a misogynistic asshole. Who knew


You are talking about Trump right lol


----------



## Laughable Chimp

birthday_massacre said:


> You are talking about Trump right lol


Since when was there allegations of domestic abuse against Trump and since when did Trump insult his daughter like that?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Laughable Chimp said:


> Since when was there allegations of domestic abuse against Trump and since when did Trump insult his daughter like that?


Plenty of women have accused Trump of assault, and oh yeah Trump didn't insult his daughter, he just talks about how he would fuck her


----------



## Empress

birthday_massacre said:


> Plenty of women have accused Trump of assault, and oh yeah Trump didn't insult his daughter, he just talks about how he would fuck her


Trump also wanted Tiffany aborted. Ivana also accused him of rape before recanting. Marla Maples also backed down from her own allegations after he withheld money from their divorce proceedings.


----------



## Arya Dark

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/924113324014436352


----------



## Reaper

Empress said:


> Trump also wanted Tiffany aborted. Ivana also accused him of rape before recanting. Marla Maples also backed down from her own allegations after he withheld money from their divorce proceedings.


1. Not misogyny. It's a shitty thing to want your child aborted. I agree. But I thought abortions are the norm these days? Do you oppose abortions? 



> Also, this is what he actually said:
> 
> During the interview in question with radio and MTV shock jock Howard Stern, Trump could be heard bragging about the fact that his then-girlfriend Melania could be trusted absolutely to take her birth control every day.
> 
> Trump: She's on the pill.
> 
> Robin Quivers: You know, you fell for that one time before.
> 
> Trump: I did, that happened. “Darling, I'm so happy, we're about to have a child.” I said, “Excuse me? I didn't know about this.”
> 
> The unplanned pregnancy Trump mentioned involved the woman he would later marry, Marla Maples — the unborn child was his daughter, Tiffany.
> 
> And Trump said later on in that same interview that he had asked Maples one question: “What are we going to do about this?”
> 
> That question, according to Trump's critics and MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell, could only be interpreted one way: What Trump was really doing was demanding that Maples abort his child.
> 
> But when one considers the fact that, at the time, Trump and Maples had not yet married (they tied the knot in December 1993, when Tiffany was 2 months old), could that question not have also meant, “Well, do you think that maybe we should get married then?”
> 
> And even if he was suggesting the idea of an abortion, does that somehow negate his later evolution in terms of his own personal values?


http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017...ump-wanted-abort-tiffany-heres-actually-said/

Considering he eventually married her instead of dumping her or aborting the child, it was clear that abortion was not part of the conversation or intent. 

2. Marla Maples claim was that he behaved very differently towards her and that she called it "rape" but it wasn't rape and she herself said that her words should not be misinterpreted. 



> [O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape’, but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.


The allegations around Trump aren't comparable to the current situation that's happening now where these are confirmed cases and well known "secrets". There has been no denial of a single accusation that we talk about in this thread. If someone has denied the allegations, then at least I have not considered them guilty because that case needs to go to the court of law.

If Trump is guilty, take him to court. Or get him to admit it outside of some locker room talk which while distasteful is not an admission of guilt. Find the guilt. Expose it. Then we can compare to actual cases of sexual assault and battery. Otherwise it's harmful to real victims by including false accusers into the mix.


----------



## Empress

Reaper said:


> 1. Not misogyny. It's a shitty thing to want your child aborted. I agree. But I thought abortions are the norm these days? Do you oppose abortions?
> 
> 
> 
> http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017...ump-wanted-abort-tiffany-heres-actually-said/
> 
> Considering he eventually married her instead of dumping her or aborting the child, it was clear that abortion was not part of the conversation or intent.
> 
> 2. Marla Maples claim was that he behaved very differently towards her and that she called it "rape" but it wasn't rape and she herself said that her words should not be misinterpreted.
> 
> 
> 
> The allegations around Trump aren't comparable to the current situation that's happening now where these are confirmed cases and well known "secrets". There has been no denial of a single accusation that we talk about in this thread. If someone has denied the allegations, then at least I have not considered them guilty because that case needs to go to the court of law.
> 
> If Trump is guilty, take him to court. Or get him to admit it outside of some locker room talk which while distasteful is not an admission of guilt. Find the guilt. Expose it. Then we can compare to actual cases of sexual assault and battery. Otherwise it's harmful to real victims by including false accusers into the mix.


I am pro choice. But I do take offense to the likes of Trump parroting pro life stances, including the interference of an immigrant teenager, to score cheap points with his base. It's pandering, paternalistic and misogynist to assume only he knows what's best for a woman. He's clearly all of the above for this particular action of turning a blind eye to an accused rapist. 

As for the claims Marla and Ivana made, a recant is not an admission of fabrication. 

I don't put a lot of my personal business on this board but I will say this. Me too. If you've been following the hashtag and movement, you know what that entails. I'm a real victim and never saw the inside of a courtroom. 

I err more on the side of allowing victims to come forward with their allegations than to continually afford a man who says "Grab them by the pussy" an endless amount of grace and have it dismissed as "locker room talk". The type of support Trump receives is ridiculous. There should be a healthy benefit of doubt but when it comes to this man, his predatory actions/statements are sanitized as just being a "man" while his accusers suffer the burden of having to be virgins who wore all white and were reading the Bible during any improper incident. 

There will never be a perfect victim who does everything right and since that is believed to be the standard, it's not surprising that most don't bother coming forward and continuing with legal proceedings. Speaking of which, I don't believe a sitting President can be drawn into such a matter and depending on the state, statues of limitations are applicable. I'll have to look into that. 

I will allow that the Lisa Bloom's of the world do a disservice to women. She has helped turned all of this into a circus rather than the serious matter it is; learned from her mother, no doubt.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Reaper said:


> 1. Not misogyny. It's a shitty thing to want your child aborted. I agree. But I thought abortions are the norm these days? Do you oppose abortions?


OP would have to oppose abortions to take such a stance. Haven't read on, so lets see...


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Empress said:


> I am pro choice. *But I do take offense to the likes of Trump parroting pro life stances*


You're parroting a pro life stance by ridiculing his alleged desire for having an abortion. If you're pro-choice, be consistent. You think having abortions is cool, so who gives a shit then if a pro-life person decides to have one? It shouldn't matter to you. It's actually quite petty on your part.

You'd been better served not using it as an example of your distaste for Trump. After all, there's like a hundred other examples you could have given, without making yourself looking like a massive hypocrite.


----------



## Empress

TheNightmanCometh said:


> You're parroting a pro life stance by ridiculing his alleged desire for having an abortion. If you're pro-choice, be consistent. You think having abortions is cool, so who gives a shit then if a pro-life person decides to have one? It shouldn't matter to you. It's actually quite petty on your part.
> 
> You'd been better served not using it as an example of your distaste for Trump. After all, there's like a hundred other examples you could have given, without making yourself looking like a massive hypocrite.



I am pro choice and my previous post was quite clear as to why I don't appreciate Trump or others using that to score points with his base. Don't pick and choose when you are for the procedure which is what Trump and others do. 


I used myself as an example because I chose to and to refute the notion that "real victims" take offense to accusers of Trump coming forward. If you don't like it, I'm not losing sleep over it. It's a nice day outside and that's not changing because you think I'm "petty", a "hypocrite" or whatever personal insult I may have missed on your part.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Trump is Pro-Choice ONLY when it suits him. When it's to his benefit and he wants his wife to abort a child. That's the problem Empress has with this situation. It's quite simple. *


----------



## samizayn

AryaDark said:


> *Trump is Pro-Choice ONLY when it suits him. When it's to his benefit and he wants his wife to abort a child. That's the problem Empress has with this situation. It's quite simple. *


The issue with this in the case of powerful and influential men is that 'when it suits him' is never during circumstances where his stance could help less powerful people, but always during circumstances where it can help himself. It's petty though, and we shouldn't call him out on it


----------



## virus21




----------



## virus21

Oh this is not going to end well


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kyle totally decimated Razor in their recent debate. I have not seen a beating this bad since Hitchens would wipe the floor with people.


----------



## DOPA

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/24/pentagon-advocates-requiring-women-to-sign-up-for-/



> The Pentagon says the country should stick with mandatory registration for a military draft, and it advocates a requirement for women to sign up for the first time in the nation’s history.
> 
> The recommendations are contained in a Defense Department report to Congress that serves as a starting point for a commission examining military, national and public service.
> Congress ordered the Pentagon report, and the office of the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness completed it in the early months of the Trump administration.
> 
> Currently, only male citizens and residents age 18-25 are required to register, for a pace of about 2 million each year.
> Women, whom the government has never ordered to sign up, would add 11 million to the Selective Service System database “in short order,” the report says.
> President Carter restarted draft registration in 1980 as a message to Soviet leaders. Congress exempted women because they did not perform combat.
> 
> But today women fly combat aircraft, serve on combat ships and are in the early stages of competing for direct ground combat jobs such as infantry and special operations.
> “It appears that, for the most part, expanding registration for the draft to include women would enhance further the benefits presently associated with the Selective Service System,” the Pentagon report states.
> 
> A gender-neutral registration, the report says, “would convey the added benefit of promoting fairness and equity not previously possible in the process and would comport the military Selective Service System with our nation’s touchstone values of fair and equitable treatment, and equality of opportunity.”
> Congress came close last November to enacting a law that would require women to sign up, with Republican and Democratic backing. An amendment cleared the House Armed Services Committee, but Republican leaders scuttled the move and instead created a commission to conduct a two-year examination.
> 
> The Pentagon report, titled “Report on the Purpose and Utility of Registration System for Military Selective Service,” makes two other significant findings.
> First, there is no foreseeable reason to restart conscription to augment the 2.1 million all-volunteer active and reserve force.
> 
> “The Department of Defense currently has no operational plans that envision mobilization at a level that would require conscription,” the Pentagon says. “Even in the face of sustained conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, DoD has maintained its ability to recruit and retain a professional volunteer force without resorting to a draft.”
> 
> Second, the report says registration should stay because of a number of benefits.
> For one, it sends a strong message to world adversaries that, if necessary, the U.S. can conduct a mass mobilization.
> “Eliminating military selective service could be interpreted by adversaries of the United States as a potential weakness, thus emboldening existing or potential enemies,” the Pentagon says.
> The report quotes Ronald Reagan, who referred to registration as an “insurance policy.”
> 
> The huge database is also a boon to military recruiters, who can access the names and addresses for leads.
> Registration “empowers America’s young men. The voluntary act of registration by a young man on or around his 18th birthday has been, and will continue to be, an opportunity for young American men and male immigrants to consider deliberately a future of military service, and to act accordingly,” the report says.
> 
> Last month 11 former government officials and public service leaders took oaths to serve on the National Commission on Military, National and Public Service. The panel’s chairman is former Rep. Joseph Heck, Nevada Republican, a physician and actively drilling Army Reserve brigadier general.
> One of the commission’s objectives is to find ways to encourage military service. Greater portions of the population have no direct military contact, either by serving themselves or by having relatives who served.
> 
> Draft registration, the Pentagon argues, “is a lone, slender thread that connects all U.S. citizens to their military. … The possibility of a draft links the entirety of the American people to our nation’s wars, and the risks of military service in those wars.”
> 
> “It’s become more of a family business: ‘My grandfather served, my father served, therefore I serve,’” Mr. Heck told The Washington Times. “We have to look at why they are not interested or not able to get the information they need to want to serve.”


Most people will look at this from the perspective of gender politics but for me the draft in of itself i.e forcing people to commit to military service is a terrible idea. It's force via the government and this type of compulsion shouldn't be allowed.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Goku

there are people who are pro-abortion (yes that's my term for it now) who become anti-abortion (it's only fair) later in their life.

no big deal. :Trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

Goku said:


> there are people who are pro-abortion (yes that's my term for it now) who become anti-abortion (it's only fair) later in their life.
> 
> no big deal. :Trump


Men have no right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body.

The only persons who view matters on abortion is the woman who is pregnant.

Its laughable republicans think they can tell a woman she can't have an abortion.


If a woman wants to be pro life for herself that is fine, but she cant tell another woman, oh no you cant have an abortion.


----------



## Goku

can you not


----------



## Art Vandaley

Goku said:


> there are people who are pro-abortion (yes that's my term for it now) who become anti-abortion (it's only fair) later in their life.
> 
> no big deal.


What if you're anti abortion but don't think the government should be involved. 

It's like calling people against making adultery a crime again "pro cheating".


----------



## Reaper

AryaDark said:


> *Trump is Pro-Choice ONLY when it suits him. When it's to his benefit and he wants his wife to abort a child. That's the problem Empress has with this situation. It's quite simple. *


According to what I've read, it seems like he was pro-choice at one point but isn't. 

Plus, a guy who's pushing for the abortion of his kid doesn't marry the woman whose kid he wants dead. 

My wife is a prime example of this. Her father wanted to abort her, and when her mother refused, he bolted never to be heard from again. 

I myself was pro-choice up until a year ago when I finally started listening to the other side of the argument. It changed my mind. My pro-life arguments have nothing to do with religion and me changing my mind has nothing to do with hypocrisy. 



Alkomesh2 said:


> What if you're anti abortion but don't think the government should be involved.
> 
> It's like calling people against making adultery a crime again "pro cheating".


Bad comparison. Cheating isn't the same as wanting to kill what is considered by some people a living human being. The argument is what is the point where something becomes human and pro-life argument is that life begins at the point of conception. And yes, those who believe that will look at a "lump of cells" in their ultrasound and KNOW that there is another life inside them. Those who want it gone try to dehumanize it. If you don't even consider it human, of course you aren't even "killing" it. It reminds me of a popular fascist group that dehumanized an entire group of people to make it easier to exterminate them :hmmm 

All the government needs to do is accept what real science says and that is that life begins at the point of conception and pass legislation based on that.


----------



## Goku

Alkomesh2 said:


> What if you're anti abortion but don't think the government should be involved.
> 
> It's like calling people against making adultery a crime again "pro cheating".


I have no idea what you just said.

I will proceed to exit this thread now


----------



## Art Vandaley

Whether you consider life starting at the semen stage (which orthodox jews believe and hence ban masterbation and consider it murder), conception (as religious Christians tend to), consciousness (as I and many do) or birth is a matter of philosophy/ideology not science.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Whether you consider life starting at the semen stage (which orthodox jews believe and hence ban masterbation and consider it murder), conception (as religious Christians tend to), consciousness (as I and many do) or birth is a matter of philosophy/ideology not science.


Why isn't it a matter of science? It's alive and it's a human because without interruption it will exit the womb still alive. It won't become anything else unless something goes wrong or its interrupted during its formation inside the womb. 

A single cell is alive
A plant is alive

We consider a lot of things alive. The argument that a new life has begun (which is human) at the point of conception is irrefutable scientific fact. 

The idea that it isn't "human enough yet" is the ideological / philosophical argument that is based on arbitrarily chosen criteria. A fetus at even the earliest stages is a living thing. There's no doubt about that. A living thing as innate value. It should not be killed and if it HAS to be, then the reasons for killing it have to be weighed responsibly and rationally - but if you deny the living thing its ability to be considered a living thing, it can never be a responsible decision.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Why isn't it a matter of science? It's alive and it's a human because without interruption it will exit the womb still alive. It won't become anything else unless something goes wrong or its interrupted during its formation inside the womb.
> 
> A single cell is alive
> A plant is alive
> 
> We consider a lot of things alive. The argument that a new life has begun (which is human) at the point of conception is irrefutable scientific fact.
> 
> The idea that it isn't "human enough yet" is the ideological / philosophical argument that is based on arbitrarily chosen criteria. A fetus at even the earliest stages is a living thing. There's no doubt about that. A living thing as innate value. It should not be killed and if it HAS to be, then the reasons for killing it have to be weighed responsibly and rationally - but if you deny the living thing its ability to be considered a living thing, it can never be a responsible decision.


An embryo is not a human being just like a fertilized egg is not a human life.

Just because something is living does not mean its human.

No one is denying an embryo is not a living thing, what people argue is if it's human or not, and it's not.

its also funny you care so much about "human" life before they are born but you don't give a shit about them after they are born since you are against helping the poor and middle class.
But that is typical of people on the right.

Also using your logic anyone that swallows is a cannibal.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> An embryo is not a human being just like a fertilized egg is not a human life.


A fertilized egg at the point of conception will never turn into a dog or a cat or a dolphin. It will _*always *_grow up to be a human. Therefore at point of conception it is a human. 

It doesn't even change. It just progresses from age 0 onwards. 

Try telling some woman who doesn't want an abortion that the baby inside her is not a human. it's such an irrational belief that a fetus isn't a human at the point of conception. It has no basis in science whatsoever. :lmao 



> Just because something is living does not mean its human.


The example is that we consider living things as having innate value and all life has innate value. Therefore so does human life at point of conception. 



> No one is denying an embryo is not a living thing, what people argue is if it's human or not, and it's not.


And that's factually wrong. It's not anything but human because without interruption it won't magically turn into anything else. Therefore if it is allowed to go through the natural process, it will simply grow. It's small size does not change its composition which is that of unique human being inside a woman. It's human. There's no rational / scientific basis for calling it anything *but *a unique human being. 



> its also funny you care so much about "human" life before they are born but you don't give a shit about them after they are born since you are against helping the poor and middle class.
> But that is typical of people on the right.


There are more people in line waiting to adopt than there are babies available to adopt, but as usual you leftists create a fake society that doesn't exist. There are no babies in the system at all that aren't being adopted. At all. There are older kids in the foster system that are also being cared for and generally adopted kids do as well if not better - so this idea that America has a baby/child problem where they are not being cared for is a completely bastardization of reality.

There isn't a SINGLE kid that isn't a run away that is a HOMELESS child in America. 

Every child is cared for. Whether they are cared for poorly or not is not at all relevant to the idea that that what is inside the womb is inhuman which is one of the irrational arguments put forth about the status of humanity at point of conception. What happens to a child after it exits the womb has no bearing on _when _it should be considered human. 



> Also using your logic anyone that swallows is a cannibal.


No because sperm that hasn't fertilized an egg isn't a human. But sperm that has fertilized an egg is and if someone does eat a fetus then they are a cannibal. These are such old and tired arguments that I read 5-10 years ago. They are silly memes and don't make any rational sense because people who made these statements are simply repeating what they read on some progressive group somewhere and never thought about them. 

It's amazing how little you know of science. Simply astounding.


----------



## birthday_massacre

what exactly is your definition of a human being? 



Reaper said:


> A fertilized egg at the point of conception will never turn into a dog or a cat or a dolphin. It will always grow up to be a human. Therefore at the point of conception, it is a human.
> 
> It doesn't even change. It just progresses from age 0 onwards.
> 
> Try telling some woman who doesn't want an abortion that the baby inside her is not a human. it's such an irrational belief that a fetus isn't a human at the point of conception. It has no basis in science whatsoever.
> 
> .


it's not a human being, the cells, and the embryo will at some point turn into a human being but its not a human being at that stage. And no it wont always grow up to be a human because millions of women have miscarriages





Reaper said:


> The example is that we consider living things as having innate value and all life has innate value. Therefore so does human life at point of conception.
> 
> .


So does that mean that you dont cut your lawn? or cut flowers, because plants are living.




Reaper said:


> And that's factually wrong. It's not anything but human because without interruption it won't magically turn into anything else. Therefore if it is allowed to go through the natural process, it will simply grow. It's small size does not change its composition which is that of unique human being inside a woman. It's human. There's no rational / scientific basis for calling it anything but a unique human being.
> 
> .


You keep saying this but that is not what we are talking about. A fertilized egg or embryo is hot a human being yet. It's just a bunch of cells.



Reaper said:


> There are more people in line waiting to adopt than there are babies available to adopt, but as usual you leftists create a fake society that doesn't exist. There are no babies in the system at all that aren't being adopted. At all. There are older kids in the foster system that are also being cared for and generally adopted kids do as well if not better - so this idea that America has a baby/child problem where they are not being cared for is a completely bastardization of reality.
> 
> There isn't a SINGLE kid that isn't a run away that is a HOMELESS child in America.
> 
> Every child is cared for. Whether they are cared for poorly or not is not at all relevant to the idea that that what is inside the womb is inhuman which is one of the irrational arguments put forth about the status of humanity at point of conception. What happens to a child after it exits the womb has no bearing on when it should be considered human.
> 
> .


Only babies are adopted not older kids, and you admit it, it proves my point even more. Thank you for making my point even stronger. last time i checked older kids also fall into the category after they are born. But of course you ignore the facts once again.



Reaper said:


> No because sperm that hasn't fertilized an egg isn't a human. But sperm that has fertilized an egg is and if someone does eat a fetus then they are a cannibal. These are such old and tired arguments that I read 5-10 years ago. They are silly memes and don't make any rational sense because people who made these statements are simply repeating what they read on some progressive group somewhere and never thought about them.
> 
> It's amazing how little you know of science. Simply astounding.
> 
> .



You are the one reciting BS propaganda not me, and it's rich you claiming how little I know about science when you are the one who said creationism should be taught in science class and are a climate change denier.

But stay in your little bubble.


----------



## Stephen90




----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Only babies are adopted not older kids, and you admit it, it proves my point even more. Thank you for making my point even stronger. last time i checked older kids also fall into the category after they are born. But of course you ignore the facts once again.


My parents brought in foster kids, 5 to be exact. Two of them they adopted. None of them were under the age of 11. My dad was a foster child, went to 5 different homes, was adopted by the last family. He was 6 when he was taken from his home. His older brother and sister were also adopted, neither were babies when they were adopted. So, your idea that "only babies are adopted not older kids" is patently false. 



> Age
> Percentage
> 
> Younger than 1 year
> 6%
> 
> Age 1-5 years
> 32%
> 
> Age 6-10 years
> 21%
> 
> Age 11-15 years
> 23%
> 
> Age 16-18 years
> 18%
> 
> Over 18
> 2%
> 
> http://www.childrensactionnetwork.org/resources.html


Again, your assertion is patently false. Refute the fact that a larger percentage of kids 6-15 are adopted than 0-5.

America also adopts more children than all other countries combined, internationally and domestically.


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump opens his tweet with 'not presidential at all' then bashes Michael Moore and his 'bomb' of a Broadway show and rips him for it closing early.

It's the most popular non musical show on Broadway and it closed early because it was only ever on for ten weeks.

What an embarrassment he is.

Not presidential at all. Indeed.


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> Trump opens his tweet with 'not presidential at all' then bashes Michael Moore and his 'bomb' of a Broadway show and rips him for it closing early.
> 
> It's the most popular non musical show on Broadway and it closed early because it was only ever on for ten weeks.
> 
> What an embarrassment he is.
> 
> Not presidential at all. Indeed.


Yes, fatso socialist is an embarrassment

Stop trying to spin his miserable failure pls

Guess that ten week run agreement was pretty smart since it was a miserable failure and wouldn't have made it past ten weeks anyway... Broadway is one of the most ruthlessly capitalist places in existence at its core. Sorry fatso socialist

https://www.forbes.com/sites/russes...debut-closes-with-tepid-results/#6adc83cb5c05
https://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-moores-broadway-show-falls-short-at-the-box-office-1508805059

Even the NYT ripped his shitshow

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/...on-broadway-in-the-terms-of-my-surrender.html


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> My parents brought in foster kids, 5 to be exact. Two of them they adopted. None of them were under the age of 11. My dad was a foster child, went to 5 different homes, was adopted by the last family. He was 6 when he was taken from his home. His older brother and sister were also adopted, neither were babies when they were adopted. So, your idea that "only babies are adopted not older kids" is patently false.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your assertion is patently false. Refute the fact that a larger percentage of kids 6-15 are adopted than 0-5.
> 
> America also adopts more children than all other countries combined, internationally and domestically.


Adoption can take anywhere from 1-5 years to be finalized. Also percentages don't mean shit.

You have to look at the number of kids in the system, not the percentage.

I have a friend who has adopted 4 kids and it takes them years before they become finalized. The first child took 3 years.

Even in your link, it says the average time to finalize was 24 months which is two years so by the time the baby is officially adopted its 2, if it was a 2 year old then the chid would be 4 when its final


----------



## yeahbaby!

If you want to live in a free society then you have to let women abort their babies end of story. Whether they are embryos or whatever is really beside the point isn't it, the current age limit is fine anyway.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Men have no right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body.
> 
> The only persons who view matters on abortion is the woman who is pregnant.
> 
> Its laughable republicans think they can tell a woman she can't have an abortion.
> 
> 
> If a woman wants to be pro life for herself that is fine, but she cant tell another woman, oh no you cant have an abortion.


It's not the woman's body that's being aborted. Your entire argument about what people can do with their own bodies falls in on itself. Like if that child is a girl, clearly her rights are being violated if she's being killed against her will. Your first and final points contradict eachother too , surely if men cannot tell what women can do with their bodies, then women must considering that's a point of contention among the pro abortion crowd. Which I find funny considering you're told what you can or cannot do with your bodies all the time. You can't go out in public nude , there are helmet and seatbelt laws. Hell, there are even incest laws so yes, there are plenty of laws that dictate what someone can or cannot do with their bodies, even though an abortion effects a human life that has no "choice" in the matter.


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> Yes, fatso socialist is an embarrassment
> 
> Stop trying to spin his miserable failure pls
> 
> Guess that ten week run agreement was pretty smart since it was a miserable failure and wouldn't have made it past ten weeks anyway... Broadway is one of the most ruthlessly capitalist places in existence at its core. Sorry fatso socialist
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/russes...debut-closes-with-tepid-results/#6adc83cb5c05
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-moores-broadway-show-falls-short-at-the-box-office-1508805059
> 
> Even the NYT ripped his shitshow
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/...on-broadway-in-the-terms-of-my-surrender.html


The irony that I'm trying to spin his 'failure' (Its not a failure financial or critically but whatever) when Trump was caught lying is pretty laughable even for you deepemblem, you're welcome to prove anything I said false. You're also welcome, just once, to accept that Mr Trump opened his bag fat mouth and embarrassed himself. I know you refused the last dozen times but this time we know he's talking shit.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Stinger Fan said:


> It's not the woman's body that's being aborted. Your entire argument about what people can do with their own bodies falls in on itself. *Like if that child is a girl, clearly her rights are being violated if she's being killed against her will. *Your first and final points contradict eachother too , surely if men cannot tell what women can do with their bodies, then women must considering that's a point of contention among the pro abortion crowd. Which I find funny considering you're told what you can or cannot do with your bodies all the time. You can't go out in public nude , there are helmet and seatbelt laws. Hell, there are even incest laws so yes, there are plenty of laws that dictate what someone can or cannot do with their bodies, even though an abortion effects a human life that has no "choice" in the matter.


Fetuses or 'children' of that tiny age don't have any will as they don't have any consciousness.

But okay fine well lets just bring in laws banning masturbation as that semen could be a child. Lets bring in laws saying sex is only for procreation thus birth control is banned. Let's just tighten up everything I'm sure that will stop everything icky we don't like from happening.

Abortions have always happened and will always happen no matter the legality or not. It would be nice if authorities just accepted that fact once and for all and at least make it safe for the women.


----------



## Stinger Fan

yeahbaby! said:


> Fetuses or 'children' of that tiny age don't have any will as they don't have any consciousness.
> 
> But okay fine well lets just bring in laws banning masturbation as that semen could be a child. Lets bring in laws saying sex is only for procreation thus birth control is banned. Let's just tighten up everything I'm sure that will stop everything icky we don't like from happening.
> 
> Abortions have always happened and will always happen no matter the legality or not. It would be nice if authorities just accepted that fact once and for all and at least make it safe for the women.


People in comas don't have typically have consciousness , should we be allowed to kill them even if they have a good chance of coming out of it?

This is a classic case of false equivalency. Semen by itself cannot create life, it needs the woman's egg in order to create life . This is basic biology. Also, sperm cells are constantly "dying" without masturbation and there's a thing called "wet dreams" where there's discharge by itself, so it renders your point even more irrelevant


----------



## stevefox1200

I miss when our politicians were aloof and distant and it was considered crazy when they did a TV spot or had a meltdown

Like Bush didn't like the democrats but didn't go on a meltdown threatening to put them in jail and he was considered stupid and tone death


----------



## virus21

stevefox1200 said:


> I miss when our politicians were aloof and distant and it was considered crazy when they did a TV spot or had a meltdown


I miss when everyone did that. Social Media like Twitter has made it hard to even pretend to like people.


----------



## wwe9391

Liberals are gonna be very disspointed tomorrow.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Adoption can take anywhere from 1-5 years to be finalized. Also percentages don't mean shit.
> 
> You have to look at the number of kids in the system, not the percentage.
> 
> I have a friend who has adopted 4 kids and it takes them years before they become finalized. The first child took 3 years.
> 
> Even in your link, it says the average time to finalize was 24 months which is two years so by the time the baby is officially adopted its 2, if it was a 2 year old then the chid would be 4 when its final


Well, there's never any convincing you that you're wrong. I'll let the numbers speak for themselves and anyone who wants to look at the facts has the link and the percentages. Anyone who wants to stick to their patently false beliefs are free to do so.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> If you want to live in a free society then you have to let women abort their babies end of story. Whether they are embryos or whatever is really beside the point isn't it, the current age limit is fine anyway.


You do realize how you sound to the pro-life side, right? They believe that's a life, so you're saying that if you want to live in a free society then you have to let women murder their babies end of story. If you already know that, then you clearly understand how dumb that argument sounds to them.

47% of the country consider themselves pro-life, and to them, your argument sounds like pure evil.


----------



## stevefox1200

virus21 said:


> I miss when everyone did that. Social Media like Twitter has made it hard to even pretend to like people.







this used to be enough to prove that a politician was insane before mainstream social media


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Well, there's never any convincing you that you're wrong. I'll let the numbers speak for themselves and anyone who wants to look at the facts has the link and the percentages. Anyone who wants to stick to their patently false beliefs are free to do so.


Like I said percentages don't mean shit without the raw data

For example.

20 out of 100 is 20%

2 out of 4 is 50%

So using your logic more kids in group 2 are adopted just because the percentage is higher even though more kids in the first group are actually adopted.

Even reaper admits that more babies are adopted than older kids


----------



## samizayn

Reaper said:


> All the government needs to do is accept what real science says and that is that life begins at the point of conception and pass legislation based on that.


What's real science


----------



## birthday_massacre

samizayn said:


> What's real science


His idea of real science is creationism being taught in science class and denying climate change


----------



## yeahbaby!

TheNightmanCometh said:


> You do realize how you sound to the pro-life side, right? They believe that's a life, so you're saying that if you want to live in a free society then you have to let women murder their babies end of story. If you already know that, then you clearly understand how dumb that argument sounds to them.
> 
> 47% of the country consider themselves pro-life, and to them, your argument sounds like pure evil.


I don't really give a shit if pro lifers think i'm evil at all, my point is it will always happen and you can't stop it no matter how much you want to virtue signal by calling it murder. 

I especially don't care what America thinks considering on the one hand so many say they're against abortion, yet are happy to bomb half the world into submission in the name of patriotism, as well as sending their own young troops off to die for their country as well. Where's the pro life concern for them?

The point is how are you going to stop it? If women feel they need to get abortions because they have no other choice then they'll do it. IMO then the authorities have a responsibility to make it safe for their bodies.

It's not a matter of yours or anyone else's opinion on the matter. You want your small government then it can stay the fuck out of pregnancies.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> It's not the woman's body that's being aborted. Your entire argument about what people can do with their own bodies falls in on itself. Like if that child is a girl, clearly her rights are being violated if she's being killed against her will. Your first and final points contradict eachother too , surely if men cannot tell what women can do with their bodies, then women must considering that's a point of contention among the pro abortion crowd. Which I find funny considering you're told what you can or cannot do with your bodies all the time. You can't go out in public nude , there are helmet and seatbelt laws. Hell, there are even incest laws so yes, there are plenty of laws that dictate what someone can or cannot do with their bodies, even though an abortion effects a human life that has no "choice" in the matter.


Its something inside the woman's body, its apart of her 

Are you really going to claim it's not inside her body? An ebryo is not a child, it's not even a human being yet. If it's not viable outside the womb it's a nonissue. 
Stop acting like something that can't even think or feel is a human being. Its just a bunch of cells


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> You do realize how you sound to the pro-life side, right? They believe that's a life, so you're saying that if you want to live in a free society then you have to let women murder their babies end of story. If you already know that, then you clearly understand how dumb that argument sounds to them.
> 
> 47% of the country consider themselves pro-life, and to them, your argument sounds like pure evil.


How does he sound pro-life? He is saying that we have to be ok with the womans right to choose and if that is having an abortion, that is her right. Its not your body, so you can't tell her what she can and cant do with it.

it does not matter what any one else believes. If you had a tumor inside your stomach, and 47% of the population said you can't have it removed, would you be ok with that?

The only argument that sounds dumb are the people who claim an embryo is a human being.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Like I said percentages don't mean shit without the raw data
> 
> For example.
> 
> 20 out of 100 is 20%
> 
> 2 out of 4 is 50%
> 
> So using your logic more kids in group 2 are adopted just because the percentage is higher even though more kids in the first group are actually adopted.
> 
> Even reaper admits that more babies are adopted than older kids


You refuted factual percentages. That's all I need to know about your ability to handle an actual conversation on the topic. I'm not gonna sit here and acknowledge your made up statistics over actual statistics. Like I said, you're free to be wrong on the topic. I really don't care if you change your mind. I just wanted to post the reality of the situation as a counter to your erroneous opinion.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> You refuted factual percentages. That's all I need to know about your ability to handle an actual conversation on the topic. I'm not gonna sit here and acknowledge your made up statistics over actual statistics. Like I said, you're free to be wrong on the topic. I really don't care if you change your mind. I just wanted to post the reality of the situation as a counter to your erroneous opinion.



Like I said percentages are meaningless without the raw numbers because of the examples I gave.

Its obvious you don't understand how stats work, so I won't even bother trying to explain it to you. But there is a reason why in MLB for example you have to have a minimum number of at-bats to qualify for the batting title.

Because someone that is 2/5 with a .400 BA is not a better hitter nor do they have more hits than someone who is 340/1000 and has a .340 BA

but using your logic the person who is batting .400 has more hits which is just not true.

You can't just take .400 vs .340 at face value you need the raw data since just looking a percentage is deceiving.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> I don't really give a shit if pro lifers think i'm evil at all, my point is it will always happen and you can't stop it no matter how much you want to virtue signal by calling it murder.


Just an FYI, if you don't give a shit about changing the minds of the people who oppose you, then you're virtue signaling yourself. So, in other words, you're wasting everybody's time.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Like I said percentages are meaningless without the raw numbers because of the examples I gave.
> 
> Its obvious you don't understand how stats work, so I won't even bother trying to explain it to you. But there is a reason why in MLB for example you have to have a minimum number of at-bats to qualify for the batting title.
> 
> Because someone that is 2/5 with a .400 BA is not a better hitter nor do they have more hits than someone who is 340/1000 and has a .340 BA
> 
> but using your logic the person who is batting .400 has more hits which is just not true.
> 
> You can't just take .400 vs .340 at face value you need the raw data since just looking a percentage is deceiving.


Haha, okay BM. You know everything. Forget that the numbers are there, accumulated by people who actually study the issue. Maybe you can give them a call and teach them how to compile data and distribute it correctly. LOL


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Haha, okay BM. You know everything. Forget that the numbers are there, accumulated by people who actually study the issue. Maybe you can give them a call and teach them how to compile data and distribute it correctly. LOL


Its not my fault you don't understand how statics work. Show the raw data of those percentages then we can talk. Because again 2/4 which is 50% isn't the same as 20/40 which is also 50% if you are talking about more or less people. But keep using percentages instead of real numbers





TheNightmanCometh said:


> Just an FYI, if you don't give a shit about changing the minds of the people who oppose you, then you're virtue signaling yourself. So, in other words, you're wasting everybody's time.


I don't think you understand what the term pro-CHOICE means.

It does not mean pro-abortion, pro-choice people are not trying to convince women to have abortions, it means we think a woman has the right to CHOOSE if she wanst to have an abortion or not. 

We don't need to convince them of anything, it's their CHOICE


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> I don't think you understand what the term pro-CHOICE means.
> 
> It does not mean pro-abortion, pro-choice people are not trying to convince women to have abortions, it means we think a woman has the right to CHOOSE if she wanst to have an abortion or not.
> 
> We don't need to convince them of anything, it's their CHOICE


BM, can I have a conversation with Yeah Baby! without you jumping in halfway through and not making any sense?


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> BM, can I have a conversation with Yeah Baby! without you jumping in halfway through and not making any sense?


If you dont think what I said makes sense, then you are even more clueless than I thought.

And no I will jump in whenever I want, that is what a discuss forum is all about.

It seems to me you don't understand what the term pro-choice means.


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> What's real science


There's pseudoscience, climate apocalypse science, organic food science, anti vaccine science. Pretty sure you know the difference and are acting like you don't. It's cute but unnecessary.



Sent from my BTV-W09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

virus21 said:


>


Thanks for posting. Very interesting.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> If you dont think what I said makes sense, then you are even more clueless than I thought.
> 
> And no I will jump in whenever I want, that is what a discuss forum is all about.
> 
> It seems to me you don't understand what the term pro-choice means.


Speaking of making sense. You're the one that said ONLY babies are adopted. So, the numbers are there. You can do the math. Let's see how stubborn you are. I bet very.


----------



## Arya Dark

TheNightmanCometh said:


> BM, can I have a conversation with Yeah Baby! without you jumping in halfway through and not making any sense?


*Have your discussion via PM :draper2 That's what I'd do.

I agree with BM in saying that Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion. You can hate abortion and still be Pro-Choice. I don't think I've ever met anyone that actually LIKES abortion. *


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

AryaDark said:


> *Have your discussion via PM :draper2 That's what I'd do.
> 
> I agree with BM in saying that Pro-Choice don't not mean Pro-Abortion. You can hate abortion and still be Pro-Choice. I don't think I've ever met anyone that actually LIKES abortion. *


I never disputed that, which is why BM's point is completely nonsensical, in terms of what YB and I are talking about.


----------



## samizayn

Reaper said:


> There's pseudoscience, climate apocalypse science, organic food science, anti vaccine science. Pretty sure you know the difference and are acting like you don't. It's cute but unnecessary.


Your view of science is very different to mine though. I can only know to what extent if I ask. You don't have to answer, however.

In any case I wanted to know because you having a different opinion on various scientific fields means you have a different opinion on what particular science should influence what particular policy.



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Just an FYI, if you don't give a shit about changing the minds of the people who oppose you, then you're virtue signaling yourself. So, in other words, you're wasting everybody's time.


Please explain how being indifferent to people's negative opinion of you is virtue signaling.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I never disputed that, which is why BM's point is completely nonsensical, in terms of what YB and I are talking about.


My point is not nonsensical. You are trying to tell someone who is pro-choice, who said "if you don't give a shit about changing the minds of the people who oppose you, then you're virtue signaling yourself. So, in other words, you're wasting everybody's time" when speaking about pro-life vs pro-choice.

If you are pro-CHOICE you don't have to convince the pro-life crowd to come to the choice side since you think people should be able to have a CHOICE.

Not sure what you don't understand about that simple concept.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

samizayn said:


> Please explain how being indifferent to people's negative opinion of you is virtue signaling.


It's not, but you don't have any idea what I'm talking about because you haven't gone back and read his original comment, which I'm calling a virtue signal. How about you go read his original comment, and my comment to it, then his comment to me? Once you do that things will make sense.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> My point is not nonsensical.


Okay, how can I say this in a way that you'll understand. YOUR POINT IS NOT NONSENSICAL. YOU RAMMING IT INTO A CONVERSATION WHERE THAT ISN'T BEING DISCUSSED IS WHAT'S NONSENSICAL. IT HAS NO MEANING TO THE CONVERSATION YM AND I WERE HAVING. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

Like, Sami Zayn, you just jumped in and commented without going back and reading the entire back and forth. So, you're making no sense because you're making a comment only knowing half the conversation. Your point, on it's own, is fine, but in the context of what's being discussed it makes zero sense.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Trump opens his tweet with 'not presidential at all' then bashes Michael Moore and his 'bomb' of a Broadway show and rips him for it closing early.
> 
> It's the most popular non musical show on Broadway and it closed early because it was only ever on for ten weeks.
> 
> What an embarrassment he is.
> 
> Not presidential at all. Indeed.


It was supposed to have a 12 week run. It closed at 10. And no, it wasn't financially successful. I don't know if you know how broadway works, but if a show is popular and financially successful, it stays on longer than its expected run because the demand is high enough to keep it in theaters. 

So yeah, the tweet was fine. Not embarrassing at all. What's embarrassing is that Michael Moore - a true capitalist who is worth 50 million bucks, which easily puts him in one of richest of the 1% consistently uses his platform to hoodwink leftists that he's this blue collar guy just because he cosplays a fat fucking blue collar guy :lol

I love how these socialists don't even TRY to create socialist communes for the poor and destitute ... You know, the socialist utopia that is supposed to be led to and they just keep on feeding their sugary fast food political documentaries and rap songs to their capitalist American consumers :lmao That's real hypocrisy. 

"Pay me to tell you about why you should hate capitalism and what's wrong with capitalism!"


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Its something inside the woman's body, its apart of her
> 
> Are you really going to claim it's not inside her body? An ebryo is not a child, it's not even a human being yet. If it's not viable outside the womb it's a nonissue.
> Stop acting like something that can't even think or feel is a human being. Its just a bunch of cells


You currently right now, are a "sack of cells", you are just a much bigger "sack of cells" than a fetus, thats the natural growth of a human being. Stop denying science because you want to convince yourself its not willful killing of an innocent defenseless human being. That is life , no matter how much you want to change the definition so it suits your political narrative. That human life has its own DNA, its own nervous system etc etc . You'll never admit what an embryo,fetus(whatever label you want to use)is ,was and will always be a human life. 

Just recently in March an article was published that first trimester embryos' and fetuses nervous systems could potentially be developed earlier than previously believed. But to you , science means nothing simply on the basis of political agenda. Stop trying to dehumanize human life

"adult-like pattern of skin innervation is established before the end of the first trimester, showing important intra- and inter-individual variations in nerve branches" and "the size reduction after 3DISCO allowed whole embryos to be imaged via LSFM and Prph+ peripheral nerves to be visualized from the brainstem and spinal cord to their distal extremities."

http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(17)30287-8


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Okay, how can I say this in a way that you'll understand. YOUR POINT IS NOT NONSENSICAL. YOU RAMMING IT INTO A CONVERSATION WHERE THAT ISN'T BEING DISCUSSED IS WHAT'S NONSENSICAL. IT HAS NO MEANING TO THE CONVERSATION YM AND I WERE HAVING. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
> 
> Like, Sami Zayn, you just jumped in and commented without going back and reading the entire back and forth. So, you're making no sense because you're making a comment only knowing half the conversation. Your point, on it's own, is fine, but in the context of what's being discussed it makes zero sense.





Love how you don't even quote my whole reply. The quote I quoted from you was a direct reply to a quote about pro-life vs pro-choice.

Are you really going to deny that? Its on the forum, you act like people cant go back and read it.

here is the quote history of what i replied to, and you want to claim its not about pro life vs pro choice

if you don't give a shit 



TheNightmanCometh said:


> You do realize how you sound to the pro-life side, right? They believe that's a life, so you're saying that if you want to live in a free society then you have to let women murder their babies end of story. If you already know that, then you clearly understand how dumb that argument sounds to them.
> 
> 47% of the country consider themselves pro-life, and to them, your argument sounds like pure evil.





yeahbaby! said:


> I don't really give a shit if pro lifers think i'm evil at all, my point is it will always happen and you can't stop it no matter how much you want to virtue signal by calling it murder.
> 
> I especially don't care what America thinks considering on the one hand so many say they're against abortion, yet are happy to bomb half the world into submission in the name of patriotism, as well as sending their own young troops off to die for their country as well. Where's the pro life concern for them?
> 
> The point is how are you going to stop it? If women feel they need to get abortions because they have no other choice then they'll do it. IMO then the authorities have a responsibility to make it safe for their bodies.
> 
> It's not a matter of yours or anyone else's opinion on the matter. You want your small government then it can stay the fuck out of pregnancies.


So how was my reply non-sensual what it talked about the very points you were making how he sounds like a pro lifer.


Its also funny how you give me and sami shit for replying to you during a convo with another poster when you do that all the time.
that i what a discussion board is all about. If you want to talk to someone one on one talk to them via PM


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

ShowStopper said:


> Thanks for posting. Very interesting.


That video should be required viewing.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> You currently right now, are a "sack of cells", you are just a much bigger "sack of cells" than a fetus, thats the natural growth of a human being. Stop denying science because you want to convince yourself its not willful killing of an innocent defenseless human being. That is life , no matter how much you want to change the definition so it suits your political narrative. That human life has its own DNA, its own nervous system etc etc . You'll never admit what an embryo,fetus(whatever label you want to use)is ,was and will always be a human life.
> 
> Just recently in March an article was published that first trimester embryos' and fetuses nervous systems could potentially be developed earlier than previously believed. But to you , science means nothing simply on the basis of political agenda. Stop trying to dehumanize human life
> 
> "adult-like pattern of skin innervation is established before the end of the first trimester, showing important intra- and inter-individual variations in nerve branches" and "the size reduction after 3DISCO allowed whole embryos to be imaged via LSFM and Prph+ peripheral nerves to be visualized from the brainstem and spinal cord to their distal extremities."
> 
> http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(17)30287-8


yeah and also have a brain that can think, also have organs, arms, legs, etc something an embryo does not have. 

I will ask you the same question I asked repear, what is a human being to you, what is your definition.

Even if you want to claim its a human being, a woman still can choose what to do with her own body. if she wants to have an abortion that is her choice. You don't have the right to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy.

You can call it what ever you want, my view would still be the same. A woman has the right to do what she wants even if you want to call an embryo a human being.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Love how you don't even quote my whole reply. The quote I quoted from you was a direct reply to a quote about pro-life vs pro-choice.
> 
> Are you really going to deny that? Its on the forum, you act like people cant go back and read it.
> 
> here is the quote history of what i replied to, and you want to claim its not about pro life vs pro choice
> 
> if you don't give a shit
> 
> So how was my reply non-sensual what it talked about the very points you were making how he sounds like a pro lifer.
> 
> Its also funny how you give me and sami shit for replying to you during a convo with another poster when you do that all the time.
> that i what a discussion board is all about. If you want to talk to someone one on one talk to them via PM


The quote history you responded to is what's non-sensical because it's half way through an already started conversation. I don't know how many times I have to say that. In fact, it's 3 times now, and with that 3 strikes and you're out. I'm moving on from this because you're hopeless.

What you said is definitely non-sensual. If it was sensual then I gotta tell you I'm not that kinda guy. You gotta at least buy me dinner first.


----------



## Reaper

The personalized definition of a human being is irrelevant. A personalized definition of something is exactly why baby killing is considered acceptable in society. 

The Nazi's personalized defition of Jews was used to dehumanize and exterminate them. Abortionists' personalized definition of babies is used to kill them. 

You can choose to kill a baby, but just because you can arbitrarily use whatever criteria you want to call it "less of a human being" does not give you the right to snuff out a life that has EVERY chance of growing. 

90 year old men and women with dementia and alzhiemers are "less human" in terms of brain function. They have memory impairment. They can barely function. We don't euthanize them just because their brains are dysfunctional. People in vegetative states due to brain damage are still considered people. We don't go killing them and calling them just a bag of bones and cells, now do we? 

Same argument applies to a baby in the womb. It is still a human that is just at a young age and it will grow to be a human. It won't grow to be anything else or less. It doesn't get "converted" or "turn into a human". That is a slight of language that is used to hoodwink people into diminishing what a child is inside a womb at its earliest stage of development. It is not something different or something less. It's just young and growing. 

It is always a human that simply grows .. ages. Its development is part of the normal aging process. 1 year old children are less functional than 10 year old children who less functional than 20 year old children. The brain function argument is total and utter arbitrary bullcrap.

I hate progressivism. It's an ideology that is scarily close to eugenics.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> The quote history you responded to is what's non-sensical because it's half way through an already started conversation. I don't know how many times I have to say that. In fact, it's 3 times now, and with that 3 strikes and you're out. I'm moving on from this because you're hopeless.
> 
> What you said is definitely non-sensual. If it was sensual then I gotta tell you I'm not that kinda guy. You gotta at least buy me dinner first.


it's obvious you don't understand the word non-sensual but I am not surprised based on your posts.

And yes you are moving on because you were exposed as being wrong and could not defend your position.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> The personalized definition of a human being is irrelevant. A personalized definition of something is exactly why baby killing is considered acceptable in society.
> 
> The Nazi's personalized defition of Jews was used to dehumanize and exterminate them. Abortionists' personalized definition of babies is used to kill them.
> 
> You can choose to kill a baby, but just because you can arbitrarily use whatever criteria you want to call it "less of a human being" does not give you the right to snuff out a life that has EVERY chance of growing.
> 
> 90 year old men with dementia and alzhiemers are "less human" in terms of brain function. They have memory impairment. They can barely function. People in vegetative states due to brain damage are still considered people. We don't go killing them now do we? Same argument applies to a baby in the womb. It is still a human. It deserves to live.



Here is the def of a human being.

a man, woman, or child of the species **** sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Does an embryo have superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.? It sure doesn't thus an embryo is not a human being.

The reason i asked for the definition you are using is to see what criteria you are judging it by.

You also bring up people in a vegetation state, and what do people do when others are in that state, they talk about pulling the plug and putting them out of their misery.

I am also for that as well. Death with dignity. Maybe you are against that too and think that people like that should be forced to live until they die on life support.

Are you also against pulling the plug on people in a vegetation state?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> it's obvious you don't understand the word non-sensual but I am not surprised based on your posts.
> 
> And yes you are moving on because you were exposed as being wrong and could not defend your position.


:lauren

BM, it's non-SENSICAL, not non-SENSUAL. 

Your comment here encapsulates you and everything you are absolutely perfectly.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> :lauren
> 
> BM, it's non-SENSICAL, not non-SENSUAL.
> 
> Your comment here encapsulates you and everything you are absolutely perfectly.


Oh look someone commenting on a spelling error because you can't win with the actual topic at hand.

Excuse me if my auto correct choose the wrong word. But keep ignoring the real topic and focus on spelling and grammar, it just shows you know you lost the debate.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Here is the def of a human being.
> 
> a man, woman, or child of the species **** sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.


Why and who made this the definition that everyone has to accept. Also, it's a stupid as fuck definition. It basically literally just said that mute people and cripples who can't stand aren't humans. This is an eugenics definition and I'm aware that it's used in the most cancerous of human societies to even abort children with down syndrome. 



> Does an embryo have superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.? It sure doesn't thus an embryo is not a human being.


It doesn't need to because that definition is completely bullcrap. It means that individuals that are born that are incapable of any of those are inhuman. 

That sounds like a terrible definition and if you ascribe to this definition of a human being then you're not thinking rationally about the innate flaws in this definition. 

My statement about dehumanizing is correct then. 



> The reason i asked for the definition you are using is to see what criteria you are judging it by.


No. You ask for the definition so that you can shove your definition that you picked up from your progressive/eugenics manual to shove down everyone's throat as THE definitive definition. This definition is bullshit. 



> You also bring up people in a vegetation state, and what do people do when others are in that state, they talk about pulling the plug and putting them out of their misery.


No. My aunt lived like that for 5 years. And then she showed signs of improvement and recovered.

I'm glad you're not one of my family members and were not her son. What a callous thing to do. 



> I am also for that as well. Death with dignity. Maybe you are against that too and think that people like that should be forced to live until they die on life support.


Well, then I hope that you never get to make that decision for someone. 



> Are you also against pulling the plug on people in a vegetation state?


That is completely irrelevant to why I brought this up. 

But good to know that at least you're consistent with regards to how you view human life. I'm sorry, but I don't go around making decisions about life as easily as you seem to want to. 

In the end, nothing you've stated here justifies abortion. You haven't provided any conclusive evidence that a human child is not a human child other than a very flawed definition that can be easily contradicted as it can't even be held to its own parameters.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Jesus christ we can go on and on about what makes a human baby or sack of cells or whatever back and forth all day, no one is going to change anyone else's mind.

Go way overboard and call it inflammatory terms like baby killing and somehow bring dehumanising and fucking nazis into it, the bottom line is the cells grow into the baby in the woman's body > women have the right to control what happens in their body in terms of the majority of things including terminating pregnancies as it's their (I believe) constitutional right and decision to make.

To actually legislate against that and somehow force women to take unwanted pregnancies to term which is what I assume most pro-lifers advocate is against the woman's rights and freedoms and would set a very dangerous precedent.

And yes, the woman's rights are more important than the unborn baby as she is a fully developed human, she is literally growing the baby and the baby cannot develop without her.


----------



## Reaper

The right to kill another human isn't anyone's right. I don't care if your sensitive feelings are hurt by legitimate comparisons because that's what you guys have done. You've created this arbitrary non-human (dehumanization) and simply defined what is a human (and is simply growing) as non-human where a unique human being that will grow into a human can be made to kill. 

"Women's rights" is just another cloak. It's a woman's right to use protection. It's a woman's right to not have random dick pound her pussy. It's a woman's right to get herself education and it's a woman's right to use protection. 

But it's not a woman's _right _to kill another human being that is not threatening her life. You want all the freedom and none of the consequences. I say that if you if want to have sex that bad and not want a baby, get yourself sterilized. Or sleep with a man that has had a vasectomy. Of course, I don't really want that, but no matter how you spin it, it's not a woman's _right_ to kill a baby. It's her _choice_.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Why and who made this the definition that everyone has to accept. Also, it's a stupid as fuck definition. It basically literally just said that mute people and cripples who can't stand aren't humans. This is an eugenics definition and I'm aware that it's used in the most cancerous of human societies to even abort children with down syndrome.
> 
> 
> .


This is why I asked you for your definition of a human being but you said its irrelevant. This is why you are such a dishonest debater. I asked for a definition so we can at least get to a common definition of a human being but you could not even do that. 




Reaper said:


> It doesn't need to because that definition is completely bullcrap. It means that individuals that are born that are incapable of any of those are inhuman.
> 
> That sounds like a terrible definition and if you ascribe to this definition of a human being then you're not thinking rationally about the innate flaws in this definition.
> 
> My statement about dehumanizing is correct then.
> 
> .


Again, this is why I asked you for a definition of a human being. But you refused to give one.




Reaper said:


> No. You ask for the definition so that you can shove your definition that you picked up from your progressive/eugenics manual to shove down everyone's throat as THE definitive definition. This definition is bullshit.
> 
> 
> .


i asked for one so I can see what criteria you go by but again you are a dishonest debater so you refused to give one. And I googled the def of human being and that is what came up. 


QUOTE=Reaper;71114882]

No. My aunt lived like that for 5 years. And then she showed signs of improvement and recovered.

I'm glad you're not one of my family members and were not her son. What a callous thing to do.


.[/QUOTE]

yeah its really callous if someone is bread dead and you just keep them alive because it makes you feel better. My whole family have living wills saying if we are ever brain dead to pull the plug



Reaper said:


> Well, then I hope that you never get to make that decision for someone.
> .


Like I said my family already has it in our wills to pull the plug if we are ever brain dead or in a vegetative state.



Reaper said:


> That is completely irrelevant to why I brought this up.
> 
> But good to know that at least you're consistent with regards to how you view human life. I'm sorry, but I don't go around making decisions about life as easily as you seem to want to.
> 
> In the end, nothing you've stated here justifies abortion. You haven't provided any conclusive evidence that a human child is not a human child other than a very flawed definition that can be easily contradicted as it can't even be held to its own parameters.
> 
> 
> .


it's not irrelevant. 

Sorry but if my family tells me if they are even brain dead or in a vegetative state to pull the plug, I am going to listen to their wishes because that is THEIR CHOICE. You are the type of person that would know a person would not want to be brain dead on life support or be in a bed like a vegetable and force them to stay that way because of your so called morality of thinking you can tell others what to do with their own body or lives.

And you can claim an embryo is a child all you want, even if I were to concede that which i won't I would still say its the woman's right to choose since it's her body. No one has the right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body.

Its cute you think you can tell other woman what they can and can't do when it comes to abortion. If you were a woman and you are against abortion then great don't have abortions. But stop thinking you can tell woman what they can and cant do.

its their choice not yours.


Just curious, if a woman is raped do you think she should be forced to carry the pregnancy?


----------



## Empress

yeahbaby! said:


> Jesus christ we can go on and on about what makes a human baby or sack of cells or whatever back and forth all day, no one is going to change anyone else's mind.
> 
> Go way overboard and call it inflammatory terms like baby killing and somehow bring dehumanising and fucking nazis into it, the bottom line is the cells grow into the baby in the woman's body > women have the right to control what happens in their body in terms of the majority of things including terminating pregnancies as it's their (I believe) constitutional right and decision to make.
> 
> To actually legislate against that and somehow force women to take unwanted pregnancies to term which is what I assume most pro-lifers advocate is against the woman's rights and freedoms and would set a very dangerous precedent.
> 
> And yes, the woman's rights are more important than the unborn baby as she is a fully developed human, she is literally growing the baby and the baby cannot develop without her.


As you mentioned in a previous post, too many shout small government except when it comes to legislating the personal lives of others. I wasn't born during a time of forced pregnancies/back alley abortions and I'd like the right to choose be preserved for others. 

Furthermore, I've come across so many pro lifers who stop caring once the child is born. They take it a step further by declaring that it's not the government's responsibility to provide any form of aid.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Empress said:


> As you mentioned in a previous post, too many shout small government except when it comes to legislating the personal lives of others. I wasn't born during a time of forced pregnancies/back alley abortions and I'd like the right to choose be preserved for others.
> 
> Furthermore, I've come across so many pro lifers who stop caring once the child is born. They take it a step further by declaring that it's not the government's responsibility to provide any form of aid.


Not to mention a lot of the pro-lifers, especially on the right, are against contraception, sex ed, and even planned parenthood, which all help prevent unwanted pregnancies which in turn would lessen the need for abortions.

so if the pro-lives were really against abortion they should all be for conception, sex ed, and planned parenthood which they are not.


----------



## deepelemblues

Empress said:


> As you mentioned in a previous post, too many shout small government except when it comes to legislating the personal lives of others. I wasn't born during a time of forced pregnancies/back alley abortions and I'd like the right to choose be preserved for others.
> 
> Furthermore, I've come across so many pro lifers who stop caring once the child is born. They take it a step further by declaring that it's not the government's responsibility to provide any form of aid.


None of this is a justification for murdering human beings for convenience :draper2

But keep telling yourself it is


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> None of this is a justification for murdering human beings for convenience :draper2
> 
> But keep telling yourself it is


So are you against sex ed, conception and planned parenthood?


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> This is why I asked you for your definition of a human being but you said its irrelevant. This is why you are such a dishonest debater. I asked for a definition so we can at least get to a common definition of a human being but you could not even do that.


I've already defined it. At the point of conception, it's a human. 



> Again, this is why I asked you for a definition of a human being. But you refused to give one.


At the point of conception the fertilized egg is a human. I've defined it. 



> i asked for one so I can see what criteria you go by but again you are a dishonest debater so you refused to give one. And I googled the def of human being and that is what came up.


No, you want someone to give you a neat definition for dehumanization because that's what your definition does. It's not my fault that you're just a parrot of other people's work without realizing why that work is wrong. 



> it's not irrelevant.


Of course it's irrelevant. 



> Sorry but if my family tells me if they are even brain dead or in a vegetative state to pull the plug, I am going to listen to their wishes because that is THEIR CHOICE. You are the type of person that would know a person would not want to be brain dead on life support or be in a bed like a vegetable and force them to stay that way because of your so called morality of thinking you can tell others what to do with their own body or lives.


No. I can tell women who are about to kill a defenceless human being that obviously doesn't want to die that it's wrong to kill that child. I don't care about euthanasia because abortion and euthanasia are not the same thing. 

One is a helpless child that wants to live. The other is a dying old person who has given permission to be killed - and even in that situation I would look at the person's mental state and decide according to circumstance as I've already stated. 

*Get me a signed written will from a baby that it wants to die and I'll say ok. But even then it won't be informed consent. We don't consider children capable of giving informed consent for many, many things. 
*
A baby is not capable of consenting to being killed. 



> And you can claim an embryo is a child all you want, even if I were to concede that which i won't I would still say its the woman's right to choose since it's her body. No one has the right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body.


It's not her body. Her body is a vessel for another human body. Just because something is growing inside her doesn't make it her right to snuff it because it isn't hers. A baby / child is not her property. It is part of the earth. Its existence matters and its existence is not owned by the woman carrying her just because its inside her. 



> Its cute you think you can tell other woman what they can and can't do when it comes to abortion. If you were a woman and you are against abortion then great don't have abortions. But stop thinking you can tell woman what they can and cant do.


Please stop telling murderers that they can't kill. This is piss poor argument. 



> its their choice not yours.


Murder is not a _right_. It is a _choice_. 



> Just curious, if a woman is raped do you think she should be forced to carry the pregnancy?


An extreme example is different from what is the norm. The norm is abortions for economic convenience. I love how you leftists love to go to the most extreme / rare case scenario as though that one case justifies all other cases as well.

See, I know the tactic. The entire idea is to make this a non-murder and a palatable practice therefore first it has to be re-defined as a non-human, and then it has to be cloaked as a right of the person. The idea that something is growing inside someone and therefore it is their right to kill it is an argument of property and we decided a LONG time ago that no one owns another human. Since no one can own another human therefore a fetus now has to be arbitrarily redefined as non-human. 

I know the game. I played it before. It doesn't work anymore.


----------



## Empress

deepelemblues said:


> None of this is a justification for murdering human beings for convenience :draper2
> 
> But keep telling yourself it is


I am pro choice because I am. I don't need to justify that to you or others.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Having an abortion is not murder, just because you keep saying it does not make it true.

And you are a hypocrite now too, so if its an extreme case like rape its ok to have an abortion but in another case its not. But in this case using your logic you are justifying murder, are you not?

So typical of you reaper. 





deepelemblues said:


> None of this is a justification for murdering human beings for convenience :draper2
> 
> But keep telling yourself it is


So you think women who are raped or lets say incest should be forced to carry the pregnancy? Or will you be a hypocrite too and say well its ok in that case.

Because if you are truly pro-life you can't justify abortion in the case of rape or incest.

Murder is murder right?


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> None of this is a justification for murdering human beings for convenience :draper2
> 
> But keep telling yourself it is


Convenience? Come on man.

This is not lying on your tax return to get an extra benefit because it's more convenient or something, it's the prospect of needing to take care of a totally dependent child for a long time and being honest with yourself if you are ready to do that sufficiently.

To just call it 'for convenience' is acting like most woman would just choose abortion in some off hand way to do on the way to work or something. It's probably on of the hardest decisions to make in the world I would think.

Nevertheless have your opinion on it but you or any pro lifer doesn't have the right to stop abortions, plain and simple.


----------



## Reaper

I've posted this in this thread at least 3 times before. In Florida at least (which is very representative of most of America) economic reasons were significantly lower than "Other". Rape was also extremely low. 












> (WR) The State of Florida records a reason for every abortion procedure performed within its borders.
> 
> The pro-life movement often claims it's used as a method of birth control.
> 
> The pro-choice movement claims it's a matter of "reproductive rights" and the women's health.
> 
> Less than 1% of abortion procedures in Florida were performed because the life of the mother was in danger or due to rape.
> 
> An overwhelming majority of abortions were performed as an elective procedure or because of "social or economic reasons."
> 
> The other 1.4% were cited for the following reasons:
> 
> Incest - .001%
> Life of mother - .065%
> Rape - .085%
> Threat to physical health of mother - .288%
> Threat to psychological health of mother - .294%
> Fetal abnormality - .666%
> 
> This isn't exactly the best representative sample of the Country as a whole, but eye opening nonetheless. Which side has a more persuasive argument? You decide.


Sorry, but women are using it as a form of birth control. And yes, economic inconvenience is definitely not a justifiable excuse for abortion. I mean, sure you can go and get it, but it's not a right nor is it a good reason. 

If a father loses his job and decides to kill 1 of his 2 children and maybe shoots the mom too, we wouldn't say "yeah, he couldn't afford them anymore, so it's ok". In fact, this actually does happen - but we call them murderous crazy people instead of just accepting that "yeah, their economic difficulties were a valid justification". 

The _ENTIRE _Pro-choice argument at this point hinges on convincing us that the fetus inside a woman isn't a human being therefore it's ok if we snuff it. 

Well, they're wrong about that one.


----------



## birthday_massacre

yeahbaby! said:


> Convenience? Come on man.
> 
> This is not lying on your tax return to get an extra benefit because it's more convenient or something, it's the prospect of needing to take care of a totally dependent child for a long time and being honest with yourself if you are ready to do that sufficiently.
> 
> To just call it 'for convenience' is acting like most woman would just choose abortion in some off hand way to do on the way to work or something. It's probably on of the hardest decisions to make in the world I would think.
> 
> Nevertheless have your opinion on it but you or any pro lifer doesn't have the right to stop abortions, plain and simple.


Its also funny most of these same posters that want to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy are the same ones who are like yeah they should not get one cent from their taxes to help pay for that child after they are born.

Its like if they want to force a woman to carry a pregnancy they should help pay for the child after its born.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> I've posted this in this thread at least 3 times before. In Florida at least (which is very representative of most of America) economic reasons were significantly lower than "Other". Rape was also extremely low.
> 
> Other was something like 90-95% of all abortions .. and the survey included economic considerations as a separate field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but women are using it as a form of birth control.


yeah because they cant get BC anymore because of the right who are shutting down planned parenthood left and right and don't want teens and women to have access to contraception.

They would not have to use abortion as BC if the right would stop doing those things. Stop defunding planned parenthood there would be less need for abortions.

Trump and his admin just made it so businesses don't have to cover BC in their insurance anymore.

Oh yeah, that will do great for preventing unwanted pregnancies.

if the right really wanted to prevent abortions then they would make it so any woman can get free access to BC.

Do you agree with the GOP making it so businesses don't to cover BC in their insurance plans if they don't want to?


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> yeah because they cant get BC anymore because of the right who are shutting down planned parenthood left and right and don't want teens and women to have access to contraception.
> 
> They would not have to use abortion as BC if the right would stop doing those things. Stop defunding planned parenthood there would be less need for abortions.


Birth control costs less than a cell phone plan a month. Most of these women out there getting abortions can choose what they buy and they don't need to steal someone else's money to buy their contraception. 

I mean, I reaally, reeeeeally wanted Assassin's Creed Origins this month, but I decided against it because I also have to get my teeth fixed ... FUUUCK THIS WOOOOLRD. WHY WON'T IT PAY FOR MY TEETH! 

I wish there was a place I could go to where I could get my teeth fixed for free.

(BTW, I don't even have a cell phone plan :shrug I use skype, facebook and text now and they all work for free).

BTW, Planned Parenthood WHINES about money and yet they're DONATING MILLIONS to democrat politicians :lmao. You guys are so bad at knowledge.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Birth control costs less than a cell phone plan a month. Most of these women out there getting abortions can choose what they buy and they don't need to steal someone else's money to buy their contraception.
> 
> I mean, I reaally, reeeeeally wanted Assassin's Creed Origins this month, but I decided against it because I also have to get my teeth fixed ... FUUUCK THIS WOOOOLRD. WHY WON'T IT PAY FOR MY TEETH!
> 
> I wish there was a place I could go to where I could get my teeth fixed for free.


So, in other words, no you don't want to make it so women can get access to free BC.

So you don't want to see women get help with BC to prevent pregnancies but you want to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy, then, of course, you don't want them to get help with that child after its born.

You are everything that is wrong with the right.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> So, in other words, no you don't want to make it so women can get access to free BC.
> 
> So you don't want to see women get help with BC to prevent pregnancies but you want to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy, then, of course, you don't want them to get help with that child after its born.
> 
> You are everything that is wrong with the right.


:lmao 

WOMEN HAVE ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL. Why the fuck should they get it for _free _and not be taught to make better choices with their bodies. Why shouldn't everyone get everything for free always .. Why even have any limits or abritrarily chosen freebies that people should get :lmao 

"I'M GONNA KILL THIS BABY SINCE YOU DON'T PAY FOR ME TO NOT HAVE ONE!" 

You know what that sounds like? Taking hostages and then threatening to kill them if you don't give them money. 

Yeah, it sounds an awful lot like terrorism to me :shrug


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh look someone commenting on a spelling error because you can't win with the actual topic at hand.
> 
> Excuse me if my auto correct choose the wrong word. But keep ignoring the real topic and focus on spelling and grammar, it just shows you know you lost the debate.


Okay, cool, so I should totally expect an apology for your accusation that I neither know the definition of nonsensical and nonsensual, right?

And I'm ignoring the real topic and focusing on spelling and grammar? Remind me again, who was the one who dedicated an entire post telling me I didn't know what nonsensual means?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Reaper said:


> :lmao
> 
> WOMEN HAVE ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL. Why the fuck should they get it for _free _and not be taught to make better choices with their bodies. Why shouldn't everyone get everything for free always .. Why even have any limits or abritrarily chosen freebies that people should get :lmao
> 
> "I'M GONNA KILL THIS BABY SINCE YOU DON'T PAY FOR ME TO NOT HAVE ONE!"
> 
> *You know what that sounds like? Taking hostages and then threatening to kill them if you don't give them money. *
> 
> Yeah, it sounds an awful lot like terrorism to me :shrug


Taking hostages and being okay with murder. They certainly sound like the side with the most sensible arguments.


----------



## Reaper

I was over-exaggerating obviously ... I don't want to push that argument, because I know that it's a huge exaggeration of the reality.

Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that it all boils down to lack of personal responsibility and wanting bailouts. No. You don't get to make shit decisions and then force everyone to bail you out AND not get called out for your shit either. 

It takes one hell of an ignorant person nowadays to have sex and not know that it can create a baby inside you ... (in fact EVERYONE knows that having sex means you can have a baby ... It's like literally the first thing that propagated any species. Why should we reward ignorance and lack of financial management with freebies? 

Carry the baby to term and give it up. Live with the choices you made. Don't normalize murder. And buy your own contraceptives by being good financial managers.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Reaper said:


> I was over-exaggerating obviously ... I don't want to push that argument, because I know that it's a huge exaggeration of the reality.


Just like I was over-exaggerating their lust for murder. They're ignorant, not murderers.


----------



## yeahbaby!

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Just like I was over-exaggerating their lust for murder. They're ignorant, not murderers.


You've explained why you think abortion is morally wrong a million times, just explain why the state should have the right to ban it. Small Government right?


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Just like I was over-exaggerating their lust for murder. They're ignorant, not murderers.


I wouldn't even call it ignorance at this point. 

It's indoctrination plain and simple that draws from the original eugenicist ideologies of the pre-WWII era. 

I honestly don't think poorly of women who get abortions. My sister and my mother both had 1 each ... My sister because the baby inside her was not developing right and my mom because ... well, I won't say. 

Let's just say that my mom is haunted / traumatized to this day by her abortion. She says she has dreams about a child with long black hair asking her why she killed her. I've heard similar stories from women who had abortions. 

But unfortunately, in order to spare them the pain of abortion, I believe that we've gone TOO far in claiming that what's inside them isn't even a baby and that argument I dislike now. It doesn't make any rational sense.


----------



## Reaper

yeahbaby! said:


> You've explained why you think abortion is morally wrong a million times, just explain why the state should have the right to ban it. Small Government right?


Preventing murder isn't a BIG OR SMALL state issue because the legislative body that passes laws preventing murder is independent of the so-called Federal State in a constitutional republic - or even minarchy. 

If you guys are going to go around creating strawmen about how small state individuals rationalize, at least learn how the small state system even works. 

Legislative issues are to be dealt and enforced through the legal system which is independent of the government.

Again, the philosophy is that murder isn't a _right _and since it isn't a _right_, laws designed to prevent murder aren't state overreach. State overreach is when the State takes away basic human rights and the "_right_" to abortion isn't a _right_, it is a _choice_ where there is no cruel and unusual harm coming to the bearer of the child and in cases where the mother's life and existence is threatened by that of a child then the child may be surrendered --- but at least it should be done in a way where society mourns it and doesn't discard it like it's not even human.


----------



## Goku

AryaDark said:


> *I don't think I've ever met anyone that actually LIKES abortion. *


:goku <---------

you don't need to like abortion to be pro abortion.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Goku said:


> :goku <---------
> 
> you don't need to like abortion to be pro abortion.


Ooh burn! I'd like to say I'm proudly pro abortion, I'm setting up my own abortion clinic actually with new customer discounts.


----------



## Goku

buy 1, get 1 free?


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump opens his tweet with 'not presidential at all' then bashes Michael Moore and his 'bomb' of a Broadway show and rips him for it closing early.
> 
> It's the most popular non musical show on Broadway and it closed early because it was only ever on for ten weeks.
> 
> What an embarrassment he is.
> 
> Not presidential at all. Indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> It was supposed to have a 12 week run. It closed at 10. And no, it wasn't financially successful. I don't know if you know how broadway works, but if a show is popular and financially successful, it stays on longer than its expected run because the demand is high enough to keep it in theaters.
> 
> So yeah, the tweet was fine. Not embarrassing at all. What's embarrassing is that Michael Moore - a true capitalist who is worth 50 million bucks, which easily puts him in one of richest of the 1% consistently uses his platform to hoodwink leftists that he's this blue collar guy just because he cosplays a fat fucking blue collar guy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love how these socialists don't even TRY to create socialist communes for the poor and destitute ... You know, the socialist utopia that is supposed to be led to and they just keep on feeding their sugary fast food political documentaries and rap songs to their capitalist American consumers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's real hypocrisy.
> 
> "Pay me to tell you about why you should hate capitalism and what's wrong with capitalism!"
Click to expand...

He had other commitments which is why it was limited. He's the star, you can't extend a show when the star can't be in it. It didn't bomb, first lie, it didn't get cancelled because of finances second lie. I appreciate lying is normal for Trump and so more acceptable.

As to the 12 weeks thing, that's bullshit because everything I've read it was due to close October 22 after 100 shows, which it did.

Http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-awful-truth-about-michael-moores-broadway-show-wcz/

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/...on-broadway-in-the-terms-of-my-surrender.html

Stop defending liars mate.

It's just another case of Trump pathetically attacking a detractor and ending up giving that person a bigger platform. No one in the UK cared about Moore or his show, now we all read his replies and see Trump once again for the petty bullshitter he is. And his followers keep defending it.

The whole socialism thing is fine, I'm happy with capitalism, it doesn't mean you can't have socialist policies as well.

As to abortion, I dislike people hanving the choice to terminate a baby because you fucked up but I guess im still pro choice because for any other reason it's absolutely fine.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> As to abortion, I dislike people hanving the choice to terminate a baby because you fucked up but I guess im still *pro choice because for any other reason it's absolutely fine.*


So basically according to the Florida stats posted, less than 2% of all abortions. 

Now the question is, does the necessity to abort such a small number require an entire industry? Billions of dollars of funding (worldwide)? Massive propaganda and misinformation?


----------



## stevefox1200

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/131091548266962944









Oldy but goodie


----------



## Art Vandaley

Remeber peeps it isn't big government if it only effects women.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> So basically according to the Florida stats posted, less than 2% of all abortions.
> 
> Now the question is, does the necessity to abort such a small number require an entire industry? Billions of dollars of funding (worldwide)? Massive propaganda and misinformation?


Possibly not, all I think is if you're going to allow abortion for all, having good quality facilities and support is vital. So there being an 'industry' around it in my mind is to have good quality abortion services, if you suddenly say its only for rapes or because contraception failed you're going to drive people to do it yourself abortions or just falsely claiming a reason which is more dangerous to me. 
Its an issue we have with Ireland, people make expensive trips over here to get an abortion. Research suggest banning abortions doesn't mean less abortions, it just means more unsafe abortions, so if you want to keep women healthy you need to let them abort in a safe environment.


----------



## Beatles123

I don't see the point in two threads. Isn't that deviding us further? As the creator of the original thread, isolation from the opposing side was never what I wanted. For all the talk this thread gets of being an eco-chamber, I never once would have suggested Trump haters go to a new thread. 

@Headliner I don't think this is a wise move for either of our sides, tbh :flair


----------



## MickDX

Beatles123 said:


> I don't see the point in two threads. Isn't that deviding us further? As the creator of the original thread, isolation from the opposing side was never what I wanted. For all the talk this thread gets of being an eco-chamber, I never once would have suggested Trump haters go to a new thread.
> 
> @Headliner I don't think this is a wise move for either of our sides, tbh :flair


The other thread is not the same as this one, it's specifically about the collusion with Russia. Here posts about it get lost easily especially after your side dismiss them as BS.


----------



## Beatles123

MickDX said:


> The other thread is not the same as this one, it's specifically about the collusion with Russia. Here posts about it get lost easily especially after your side dismiss them as BS.


But at least both sides can talk about it. I have no problem with talking about it here. I may not agree with it but you can discuss it. What's essentially been done here is the two sides have been segregated and I don't think that's the way to handle this. We should both be trying to understand each other, not widen the gap...


----------



## Laughable Chimp

Am I the only one here who is fine with murdering babies?

Okay, okay before I get banned from this site by what I mean by this is that I'm completely fine with killing things that never even knew it was alive as long as it doesn't hurt. Hell, I'm fine with the idea of people using abortion as a contraceptive measure because I really don't put much value in the lives of a fetus.

So what's the difference between killing a fetus and a newly born baby then? Well, I consider one a human and I don't really consider the other human yet. There's also the problem of how much pain would be inflicted upon the baby in trying to kill it compared to an unborn fetus. 

But really, what people consider human or not and what's ethical or not is just what you're told and indoctrinated to. By my logic, I really shouldn't mind killing a newly born baby if there is a way to do it completely painlessly. To that I say, well logically I really wouldn't mind it unless the purpose is something like you killing babies out of some sadistic pleasure. But my concept of ethics has been thought to me by other people, and its this concept of ethics is what makes me think this is wrong even though my philosophy would make it seem right.

What I'm trying to say is, ethics is very fluid to me as its been for many different countries over many different centuries. So I've chosen to ignore it most of the time and try to do what I think is the best regardless if it contradicts my feelings and emotions on it.

Regardless, my feelings and emotions tell me that a fetus isn't really human or alive until its born combined with my philosophy and way of thinking makes me think that abortion is okay. I don't put much thought into the right to live on something that I don't really consider alive yet. The people who do consider them human are of course anti-abortion. 

But eh, these abortion laws are really a gray area anyway on many things. I think ethics or at least the current majority view on what is ethical is the only thing that is stopping abortion from taking place. Because some people view it as completely ethical, and some don't. No matter what stats or numbers you bring up, it all goes back to what you consider ethical. And I believe ethics is completely subjective yet so deep rooted into someone that you can never convince someone on what is considered ethical or not. So this entire argument never really convinces anybody otherwise.


----------



## Beatles123

I mean...I personally can't really support an idea that, had it been acceptable to my mother at the time, would have likely resulted in my own death and thus probably has ended the prospective lives of other babies with cerebral palsy that could have grown up to be perfectly healthy if given the chance to.

Thats only me though and I know every situation is different. I've found no easy answer.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Possibly not, all I think is if you're going to allow abortion for all, having good quality facilities and support is vital. So there being an 'industry' around it in my mind is to have good quality abortion services, if you suddenly say its only for rapes or because contraception failed you're going to drive people to do it yourself abortions or just falsely claiming a reason which is more dangerous to me.
> Its an issue we have with Ireland, people make expensive trips over here to get an abortion. Research suggest banning abortions doesn't mean less abortions, it just means more unsafe abortions, so if you want to keep women healthy you need to let them abort in a safe environment.


They're using what happens in a place like Africa to make generalizations about what "might" "possibly" happen in the western world. By default what happens in Africa is not going to happen in the western world. There are so many other cultural, social, religious, economic and political factors that drive what happens in Africa that are simply not the same in the West that you can't possibly know what would happen if you made abortions illegal here. 

In the west (america), abortions have increased significantly since all sorts of abortions were made legal. 53 million to be exact. Of course, we have no way to track self-conducted/back alley abortions before 1973, but pretty damned sure that it couldn't possibly have been that high. The propaganda has been very successful in making people devalue life. (I say propaganda because EVERY single leftist article I've read on the subject goes back to just ONE source .. a source that has no additional information about its own sources). 

https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2003/03/lessons-roe-will-past-be-prologue

This is the only source and you can read through this and just see how much they're struggling to equate the numbers using some really junk mathematics. All figures pointed to declining numbers of infections and deaths related to self-abortions as basic human healthcare was improving. They don't even mention where the 200k - 1.2 million number even came from but push it like it's fact. That's the very definition of propaganda. 

At the same time, this article at least acknowledges that even before the 70's, the number of health issues and deaths related to back alley abortions were on the decline before Roe v Wade. The culture of the land was not what it's made out to be today. As usual, the propagandist's biggest weapon is re-writing history. 

The sad thing is, guys like Richard Spencer and the KKK LOVE abortions especially because the rate of abortions is highest within the African American community. Everytime an african american child is aborted, the white supremacists win. :Shrug

In any case, the provision of "safe abortions" in no way leads to the current society we're creating where we start sincerely believing ridiculous nonsense like "a fetus isn't human".


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> In the west (america), abortions have increased significantly since all sorts of abortions were made legal. 53 million to be exact.


We have to be careful with this kind of data, firstly thats 53 million _worldwide_ there are how many more billion people in the world than the when they introduced legal abortions? How effective is our data collection now compared to previous? The Lancet study showed a 79% decline  in terminations in Europe in the last 30 years and our laws have been getting laxer, except for Poland I think. 



> This is the only source


I can give you a few more, the 2006 article here gives numerous examples and you can get free access to it. Here is a snippet.



> Abortion became legal and available on request in South Africa in 1997.44 The Choice on Termination of Pregnancy act No 92 was promulgated in South Africa on Oct 31, 1996, but went into effect on Feb 1, 1997. Since then, the resulting favourable environment has increased women's access to family planning, abortion, and post-abortion care services in the country. After the law was passed, abortion-related deaths dropped 91% from 1994 to 1998–2001


And the synopsis is :



> Women have always had abortions and will always continue to do so, irrespective of prevailing laws, religious proscriptions, or social norms.104 Although the ethical debate over abortion will continue, the public-health record is clear and incontrovertible: access to safe, legal abortion on request improves health.73 As noted by Mahmoud Fathalla, “Pregnancy-related deaths…are often the ultimate tragic outcome of the cumulative denial of women's human rights. Women are not dying because of untreatable diseases. They are dying because societies have yet to make the decision that their lives are worth saving.”105 Simply put, they die because they do not count.


Its choc full of data and studies and is itself peer reviewed. 

Here is another 

And another

Making abortions harder will have an impact on abortion rates, of course, but you're just making women work harder for abortions and put them at more risk. You have to weigh up morally where you stand I guess, I don't think data can give you the full story either way.


----------



## DOPA

Abortion to me is one of if not the hardest political issue for me to have a concrete opinion on because it is a morally complex issue. Unfortunately I think many on both sides in the US oversimplify abortion and in actuality, I think us European counterparts get the issue just about right and have more of mature response to it...for lack of a better term.

I would be lying if I said that I didn't have sympathies to pro-life arguments. I completely understand them and empathize with those arguments. However there are a couple of problems I have with pro-lifers overall:

1) The stark reality that pro-lifers are going to have to accept at least in today's current climate is that there will always be demand for abortions due to unwanted pregnancies. Whether or not this is right is a huge grey area for me but the fact whether or not this is morally speaking right really has no bearing on this fact. The point is no law is going to stop abortions from happening in today's world and if you restrict it to the point of no access you're going to have women try and get access to the procedure in other more often than not dangerous ways which could put the woman's life at risk. That is not something we should be going back to and is not something I am personally willing to risk for the sake of stopping abortions.

2) Although this is only directed to real hardliners, I will never understand the argument that you should force the woman to have a child even if that woman has been raped or forced to conceive it. Now I understand this is a rarity of cases we are talking about here but one of the principles I live by politically is that people should not be coerced against their will. If a woman has essentially coerced into getting pregnant and did not consent to it, then I see no moral argument for forcing the woman to have that child because it is not her choice. Yet I see real hardline social conservatives argue all the time that the woman's access to abortion should be cut off even in the event of rape. I find that to be an abhorrent position.

I don't think it's as simple as "her body her choice" but there has to be a limit.

Having said that, until a number of months ago, I had no idea why the US had such a big pro-life movement outside of religion (which I find to be a weak argument). It was only looking into the abortion laws of European countries compared to the US that it clicked and made perfect sense. Believe it or not and this surprised me, but European countries actually have more restrictive abortion laws on the whole. Germany, Belgium and Finland for example all have unrestricted access to abortion for only *12 weeks.* After that in all cases, abortions are heavily restricted and only done for good reason. Of course the regulations on each country differ but on the whole that is what it is like.

Even taking my own country the UK for example, we have unrestricted access to abortion for 18 weeks and then after that you can only have an abortion for a few reasons:

* Life of the mother in danger
* Rape
* Incest
* Fatal defect in the womb

And you can only do so with the professional consultation of a doctor and there is a waiting period before you get approved.

In the United States, the federal law states you can have an unrestricted abortion for up to *20 weeks*. And only a handful of socially conservative states use that as the cut off point, most go up to around 22-24 weeks with restrictions. Not only that but the most shocking statistic is that *7 states plus DC* have unlimited access to abortion. That's right, even late term abortions are legal in these states. To me that is morally repugnant and wrong whichever way you look at it.

When you look at it from that perspective, it's no wonder that there is a huge pro-life movement in the US and I'd argue there is a big case to make abortions more restrictive on the federal level to match the European examples I have shown.

Honestly in the UK and @draykorinee can confirm this, abortion is very much a settled issue. It is rarely talked about in our political climate and the majority of people are okay with our current abortion laws. I'd say I'm in that catergory too, I don't find our abortion laws to be particularly bad. I would argue there is a case to be made for abortion to be restricted to 12 weeks in line with Germany, Belgium and Finland but it isn't something I'm particularly hung up over.

The only contention I have is that I don't think taxpayer money should be used to fund the procedure, because it is such a morally divisive and grey topic that I don't think those who have pro-life views should be forced to put their tax dollars towards it. By all means have access but keep government funding out of the topic altogether.

One thing hardline pro-choicers have to also contend with is a number of moral questions surrounding the decision of abortion. The biggest example for me is the role of the potential father. Say for example the man in question wants to keep the child and raise it as a dad but the woman in question wants to abort. What can he do in that situation? The reality is he can't do anything because he has no parental rights until the child is born because it's "her body and her choice". So in that situation he is essentially being robbed of becoming a father because the woman in question wants an abortion and that's the end of the question. He can't legally force the woman to have the baby.

This is what I mean by it being a morally difficult issue and one that is not black or white.

For pro-lifers, you are not going to change much by the legislative. If you want there to be a culture of pro-life the way in which you will have to do that is to change people's attitudes and perceptions on the meaning of life itself regarding this topic. Changing a law does nothing if you don't reduce the demand for abortion.


----------



## Reaper

This is going to be my very last post (and probably longest) on this topic ITT: 

(if anyone wants me to continue, feel free to PM me your responses and I'll respond there. 



L-DOPA said:


> Abortion to me is one of if not the hardest political issue for me to have a concrete opinion on because it is a morally complex issue. Unfortunately I think many on both sides in the US oversimplify abortion and in actuality, I think us European counterparts get the issue just about right and have more of mature response to it...for lack of a better term.


Based on what you said later on in this post, the correct statement is "for now as it stands since we don't have the technology readily accessible to help children under 20 weeks survive _outside _of the environment they're supposed to survive in". There was a time when we couldn't for babies under 22 weeks and now we can. 

As human technology gets better, your laws will need to be changed, but I see the opposite happening in Europe where they seem to be advocating for more later term abortions. Am I not wrong about this? 



> 1) The stark reality that pro-lifers are going to have to accept at least in today's current climate is that there will always be demand for abortions due to unwanted pregnancies.


I don't like this argument. Simply because something is the lay of the land and has only taken a few decades really of becoming a prevailing attitude through law and propaganda doesn't mean that the movement needs to settle and accept that no change can possibly happen. The idea is to make change happen under insurmountable opposition. I hate to hyperbolize a little, but your statement here sounds like Sadiq Khan talking about UK terrorism. (I'm not comparing the two, I'm just saying that "accept it" is just also not going to happen. 

What I feel like is that you're trying to hide is that you have pro-choice tendencies and you like the way the system is currently setup but you at least understand the moral implications of abortion. You understand that it is immoral, but through social acceptance and normalization you feel like the movement should just shut up and take it. 

I'm not saying you're a bad person for this nor am I thinking it. I just think that it's apathetic. 



> Whether or not this is right is a huge grey area for me but the fact whether or not this is morally speaking right really has no bearing on this fact.


Morality is the very reason why the modern secularist pro-life movement exists. You take morality out of the equation and there is no movement. :shrug 



> The point is no law is going to stop abortions from happening in today's world and if you restrict it to the point of no access you're going to have women try and get access to the procedure in other more often than not dangerous ways which could put the woman's life at risk. That is not something we should be going back to and is not something I am personally willing to risk for the sake of stopping abortions.


Laws are not made to demand perfection but to push for deterrence. One of the facts dray and I concluded is that we don't have the right or accurate data to determine the impacts of these laws anymore because these laws were enacted at a time when prior to it we didn't have qualifying and analyzabale data on the subject. Therefore we can't conclusively state either way at all that things would revert to barbarism if society makes non-necessary abortions illegal. 

There is a workable solution here where instead of the propaganda of "it isn't even human" we can counter with "society must support a woman in carrying her baby to term". 

Here's an interesting way to look at this. Is it sexism to "deny" a woman her ability to choose, or is it sexism to assume that a woman will be worse off if she carries an unwanted pregnancy to term and won't be able to provide for the child. We know that millions of single-mothers and even parents who don't want kids when they have kids not only make ends meet, they provide good lives for their kids. For me, the economic argument simply doesn't hold any weight at all. 

In fact, I think that the ease of access to abortions helps CREATE the culture of DAD-FLIGHT because the deadbeat PoS does not have to deal with the consequences knowing that the woman he knocked up is just goinng to go the clinic and get an abortion. Sure, there will be asswipes who are cruel to their kids, but generally that number in a civilized society will be lower than is assumed because more married and dating couples who end up having accidental babies do well for themselves and their kids. 

There's not just moral reasons to push for an anti-abortion (or a more restricted) abortion law. There are many potential benefits for society overall and most of them are highly rational. 



> 2) Although this is only directed to real hardliners, I will never understand the argument that you should force the woman to have a child even if that woman has been raped or forced to conceive it.


Very, very few people want this. 



> Now I understand this is a rarity of cases we are talking about here but one of the principles I live by politically is that people should not be coerced against their will.


(*Note*: I'm not talking about rape babies here) I don't think coercion plays as important a role in this. Is it coercive to demand people be responsible for the consequences of their actions? I don't think so in this particular case - especially when an unborn human is inolved that is dependent on a mother for survival .. as a natural process. This is a very unique case because if there was a solution to women not carrying babies, that would take "coercion" out of the equation entirely. Since it can't be done, it's not coercive to expect that a woman weigh all her options excluding abortion. If you take away the rare cases where abortion is necessary, you're left with mostly economic and "other" reasons. If the baby could survive without the mother and then people forced the woman to have a full term pregnancy, then imo it would be coercion. 



> Yet I see real hardline social conservatives argue all the time that the woman's access to abortion should be cut off even in the event of rape. I find that to be an abhorrent position.


It is a very rare and unpopular position. I can understand it however, the reason why I personally don't advocate for it is because in that case there is a HUGE chance of the rape baby not developing a natural bond with the mother and therefore creating a MUCH higher than usual chance of creating a situation of child abandonment and abuse. It's a very rare case. 

Interestingly though and I'm not saying this to advocate for it, but a lot of rape babies have been raised and loved by their mothers who turned around and said that "it's not the baby's fault" and have given birth to them and raised them. 

It's also a rare rationalization, but that rationalization exists. 



> I don't think it's as simple as "her body her choice" but there has to be a limit.


It's _not _her body. It's a unique human being _dependent _on her body. The way we word this is paramount to how we understand it. 



> Even taking my own country the UK for example, we have unrestricted access to abortion for 18 weeks
> 
> And you can only do so with the professional consultation of a doctor and there is a waiting period before you get approved.


The 18 week abortion limit is also questionable because it's based on viability *IF **REMOVED *FROM ITS SOURCE OF NUTRITION. It's _still _arbitrary because in the case of the VAST majority of cases without interruption the baby will continue to survive inside the womb and exit the womb as a healthy living child. 

If you remove any human's source of oxygen, they will die in a few minutes. It doesn't mean that a human is killable because it won't survive without oxygen for more than a few minutes. I mean, you can't create a moral standard around such a situation. 



> In the United States, the federal law states you can have an unrestricted abortion for up to *20 weeks*. And only a handful of socially conservative states use that as the cut off point, most go up to around 22-24 weeks with restrictions. Not only that but the most shocking statistic is that *7 states plus DC* have unlimited access to abortion. That's right, even late term abortions are legal in these states. To me that is morally repugnant and wrong whichever way you look at it.


And over time, this number is and going to continue to shrink. However, again the number is arbitrarily based on survivability of the child outside of the womb when separated from the mother ... BUT if the child is left alone inside the womb it will continue to grow under normal circumstances. Therefore again, the cut off point is arbitrary based on a very ingenuous way of selling the idea as palatable because most people don't realize this. 



> When you look at it from that perspective, it's no wonder that there is a huge pro-life movement in the US and I'd argue there is a big case to make abortions more restrictive on the federal level to match the European examples I have shown.


I think if you start understanding the arbitrary nature of the points of conception, the point of viability arguments that pro-choicers use, you'll start seeing even more why the pro-life movement here is so much stronger - even amongst secular rationalists like myself. 



> Honestly in the UK and @draykorinee can confirm this, abortion is very much a settled issue. It is rarely talked about in our political climate and the majority of people are okay with our current abortion laws. I'd say I'm in that catergory too, I don't find our abortion laws to be particularly bad. I would argue there is a case to be made for abortion to be restricted to 12 weeks in line with Germany, Belgium and Finland but it isn't something I'm particularly hung up over.


Again, more arbitrary numbers. Fetus will continue to stay alive if left uninterrupted in the vast majority of cases. Why are we stuck on arbitrary numbers? 



> The only contention I have is that I don't think taxpayer money should be used to fund the procedure, because it is such a morally divisive and grey topic that I don't think those who have pro-life views should be forced to put their tax dollars towards it. By all means have access but keep government funding out of the topic altogether.


Voluntary charity all the way. It will work. People are just not willing to give it a chance. Also, you and I at least can agree with this that the VAST majority of tax payer money is wasted and fleeces pockets and gets lost to corruption. 



> The biggest example for me is the role of the potential father. Say for example the man in question wants to keep the child and raise it as a dad but the woman in question wants to abort. What can he do in that situation? The reality is he can't do anything because he has no parental rights until the child is born because it's "her body and her choice". So in that situation he is essentially being robbed of becoming a father because the woman in question wants an abortion and that's the end of the question. He can't legally force the woman to have the baby.


Father's sperm went into the creation of the child. Just because his body isn't the vessel does not deny him the right to be a father. This is one of the weaker arguments imo and unfortunately a popular one. 



> This is what I mean by it being a morally difficult issue and one that is not black or white.


Morality to me is absolute (but not absolute as derived from religious absolutism). There can be things that seem more right and seem more wrong than others, but at the end of it when you chip away all the emotions, there is still only wrong and right.



> For pro-lifers, you are not going to change much by the legislative. If you want there to be a culture of pro-life the way in which you will have to do that is to change people's attitudes and perceptions on the meaning of life itself regarding this topic. Changing a law does nothing if you don't reduce the demand for abortion.


The legislation can and will change. I believe that 100 years from now when it has finally succeeded and we have the tech that lays waste to our barbarism around abortions, our descendants will look back us with bewilderment and even anger. 

Slavery was "morally ambiguous" not too long ago. 

And that ends my epic on abortions. I think I'm done with this topic now as well.


----------



## Draykorinee

I wont extend this debate on abortion, I just wished women who let men spill their beans up them took contraceptive prior to or took the morning after pill (Which prevents pregnancy and is not an abortion) or live with the consequences. Frankly though, the idea that the predominantly religious pro lifers pay taxes for things they don't like fills me with cheer because they avoid paying taxes on far more money than what goes to abortion clinic.


----------



## Reaper

All roads to the Russian collusion narrative now lead straight to Podesta ... and the lobbying that happened during the time when the previous administration was involved in the whole Ukraine propaganda. Which would make perfect sense. 



> Sources: Podesta Group, Mercury Are Companies ‘A’ and ‘B’ in Indictment
> by JULIA AINSLEY, TOM WINTER and CAROL E. LEE
> 
> WASHINGTON — The lobbying firms the Podesta Group and Mercury Public Affairs are the unnamed companies in the grand jury indictment of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates, according to three sources with knowledge of the investigation.
> 
> The indictment, unsealed Monday, refers to "Company A" and "Company B" as the firms Manafort and Gates solicited in 2012 to lobby on behalf of the Ukranian government. Company A is Mercury Public Affairs and Company B is the Podesta Group, the sources said.
> 
> The revelation of the companies’ identities points to more details about the players involved in the high-stakes venture run by Manafort and Gates to push the interest of a pro-Russia Ukranian political party inside the United States. It also provides a glimpse into the material special prosecutor Robert Mueller has corroborated on both companies and the potential legal repercussions both groups could face.
> 
> Tony Podesta, who founded the left-leaning Podesta Group in 1988, stepped down from his position with the firm on Monday morning, an employee told NBC News.
> 
> NBC News reported last week that Podesta and the Podesta group had become a subject of Mueller’s probe into ties between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia.
> 
> Tony Podesta is the brother of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, who is not under investigation.
> 
> The Podesta Group previously withheld from disclosing its work under the Foreign Agents Registrant Act (FARA), claiming they believed the group was not affiliated with the Ukrainian government.
> 
> According to the indictment, the lobbying firms were paid $2 million from offshore accounts controlled by Manafort.
> 
> Their work included lobbying "multiple members of Congress and their staffs about Ukraine sanctions, the validity of Ukraine elections" that the reasons for imprisoning Yulia Tymoshenko, the political rival of Russian-backed Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
> 
> The indictment also revealed that Gates told Company A, now known to be Mercury, in February 2012 that it would be "representing the Government of Ukraine in [Washington] D.C."
> 
> A spokeswoman for Mercury could not be reached for comment. A spokeswoman for the Podesta Group declined to comment.
> 
> Manafort and Gates attempted to distance themselves from the work of the lobbying firms after press reports in August 2016, according to the indictment.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

stevefox1200 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/131091548266962944
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldy but goodie


Prime, grade-A locker room talk tweet. :trump2

Had he not goofed by being keen on the "Russia having dirt on Hillary" plan, he'd totally overshadow Eric as the lulziest Trump son. But I suppose largely overshadowing him is better than nothing. :lol


----------



## Reaper

Meanwhile Newsweek is in FULL on delusion mode :lmao


----------



## stevefox1200

Reaper said:


> All roads to the Russian collusion narrative now lead straight to Podesta ... and the lobbying that happened during the time when the previous administration was involved in the whole Ukraine propaganda. Which would make perfect sense.


Don't even start that "Podesta and Hillary are the masterminds!!!!!" bullshit

Muller has been working for the Republicans since Ford and his lobbying firm only works for repbulcians 

They were doing contract work for him 

Podesta is a far off branch in the case


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> Meanwhile Newsweek is in FULL on delusion mode :lmao


Newsweek does know how the line of secession works right?






http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/board-elections-admit-purged-200-000-voters-rolls-article-1.3586490
So who hijacked the election?


----------



## wwe9391

Reaper said:


> Meanwhile Newsweek is in FULL on delusion mode :lmao


Oh god they did not write this did they? :lmao that is too funny. 


If there is one thing that we can take away from all this, its that Hillary Clinton will never be president.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Reaper said:


> Meanwhile Newsweek is in FULL on delusion mode :lmao


That article's author is definitely gonna live up to her last name when Hilldog gets jack shit when the dust settles after this covfefe.

:trump3


----------



## Arya Dark

*NEWSWEEK :maisie2*


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> You've explained why you think abortion is morally wrong a million times, just explain why the state should have the right to ban it. Small Government right?


I actually haven't stated why I think it's morally wrong a million times. I just pointed out that your argument would make those who are pro-life think you're evil.

That being said, I do believe it's a life. The state has a say in what can't be done to a life already. I don't see how this is any different. As long as the mother's life isn't at risk, or as long as she wasn't raped, I see no excuse good enough to end a life.


----------



## Beatles123

stevefox1200 said:


> Don't even start that "Podesta and Hillary are the masterminds!!!!!" bullshit
> 
> Muller has been working for the Republicans since Ford and his lobbying firm only works for repbulcians
> 
> They were doing contract work for him
> 
> Podesta is a far off branch in the case


Unless their name is Rand Paul, you'll find many republican voters aren't happy with the republicans right now.

McCain, Rubio etc can :gtfo


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/925175475751677952


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I actually haven't stated why I think it's morally wrong a million times. I just pointed out that your argument would make those who are pro-life think you're evil.
> 
> That being said, I do believe it's a life. The state has a say in what can't be done to a life already. I don't see how this is any different. As long as the mother's life isn't at risk, or as long as she wasn't raped, I see no excuse good enough to end a life.


Since you consider it murder, then its ok to murder an unborn child if the mother was raped but if she wasn't raped then its not ok

You are a hypocrite and don't give a shit about murdering an unborn child.

Using your logic why is even rape a "good excuse" when the unborn child did nothing wrong, so you think the unborn child deserves to die in some cases like rape but not others like if the mother does not want a child?

Typical of the right to be hypocrites


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Since you consider it murder, then its ok to murder an unborn child if the mother was raped but if she wasn't raped then its not ok
> 
> You are a hypocrite and don't give a shit about murdering an unborn child.
> 
> Using your logic why is even rape a "good excuse" when the unborn child did nothing wrong, so you think the unborn child deserves to die in some cases like rape but not others like if the mother does not want a child?
> 
> Typical of the right to be hypocrites


He never said that at all. Stop.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> *Since you consider it murder, then its ok to murder an unborn child if the mother was raped but if she wasn't raped then its not ok*
> 
> You are a hypocrite and don't give a shit about murdering an unborn child.
> 
> Using your logic why is even rape a "good excuse" when the unborn child did nothing wrong, so you think the unborn child deserves to die in some cases like rape but not others like if the mother does not want a child?
> 
> Typical of the right to be hypocrites


Well, when you put it like that, then no it's not okay. Thanks for making things so clear. I'm definitely and completely pro-life now. With people like you arguing on the side of pro-choice, no wonder more people are considering themselves pro-life. You make such convincing arguments in favor of being pro-life.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Beatles123 said:


> He never said that at all. Stop.


He's pushed reading comprehension aside in favor of looking for a "GOTCHA!" moment. He's not very good at it, which is surprising because for as long as I've been here he's been doing that. You'd think after 10 months he'd be better at it.


----------



## yeahbaby!

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I actually haven't stated why I think it's morally wrong a million times. I just pointed out that your argument would make those who are pro-life think you're evil.
> 
> That being said, I do believe it's a life. The state has a say in what can't be done to a life already. I don't see how this is any different. As long as the mother's life isn't at risk, or as long as she wasn't raped, I see no excuse good enough to end a life.


So how do you enforce a law of banning abortions? It's not really practical IMO, besides being at complete odds with allowing people their basic freedoms of course.

If you were to ban it, there would most likely be an increase in more dangerous back alley jobs, or some doctors would probably still do them anyway out of compassion.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Well, when you put it like that, then no it's not okay. Thanks for making things so clear. I'm definitely and completely pro-life now. With people like you arguing on the side of pro-choice, no wonder more people are considering themselves pro-life. You make such convincing arguments in favor of being pro-life.





TheNightmanCometh said:


> He's pushed reading comprehension aside in favor of looking for a "GOTCHA!" moment. He's not very good at it, which is surprising because for as long as I've been here he's been doing that. You'd think after 10 months he'd be better at it.


You were being a hypocrite, you claim you are pro-life but you are not really pro-life since you think abortion is ok when it comes to rape.

So in your eyes its ok to "murder" that unborn child if the woman was raped. 

How exactly is that being pro-life? At least when the mother is at risk, you can fall back on the mothers life.

Don't blame me because you are a hypocrite when it comes to abortion and being so-called pro-life


----------



## stevefox1200

Beatles123 said:


> Unless their name is Rand Paul, you'll find many republican voters aren't happy with the republicans right now.
> 
> McCain, Rubio etc can :gtfo


I meant to put Manafort instead of Muller (although Muller is also a Republican) all those damn Ms

Some hardcore Trump supporters are trying to link Manafort and Hillary and create a nartive that the FBI is ACTUALLY investigating Hillary 

Yes, Manafort worked with the the Podesta, they were working together analyzing the Ukraine conflect and it was contract work

No, Podesta have basically nothing to do with the investigation other than doing business with a criminal (which destroys their credibility and makes them a person of interest with the FBI). They are likely resigning due to being involved with other criminal matters that the FBI will find because they are persons of intrest 

Hillary and the fucking Uranium has nothing to do with this 

Also this committee is specifically investigating the "Russian connection", any warrants issued in their name HAS to have something to do with, if its for something else it will be handed off to the appropriate department.


----------



## FriedTofu

Just ban sex outside of marriage to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancy drastically. Seems like the most logical conclusion in this debate to me. :troll


----------



## wwe9391

Trump is gonna be our president until January 20th, 2021 at the earliest. If anyone here thinks this investigation is gonna bring him down then you are really gonna be disappointed. 

Sorry but its the truth. 
Manafort, Gates, and Popalapolis are gonna be the scapegoats. Hopefully some DNC folks go down as well.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> So how do you enforce a law of banning abortions? It's not really practical IMO, besides being at complete odds with allowing people their basic freedoms of course.
> 
> If you were to ban it, there would most likely be an increase in more dangerous back alley jobs, or some doctors would probably still do them anyway out of compassion.


I had a really long post written and when I went to send it, it said I was logged out, so now it's gone, which is a shame.

As far as how I would enforce it, well I would make it illegal, and just like everything else that's illegal, have detectives look for back alley abortion clinics, shut them down, and prosecute the people who work there. After that, it's up to legislators to create exemptions to the law, most notably for women who's life is in danger if they were to have the baby; that I understand. I would also say in cases of rape and incest, but your fellow pro-choicer, BM, convinced me that killing a baby under those circumstances is murder, so I've changed my mind on that.

Something else I stated before my post was deleted was murder is against the law. As a result, those who want to commit murder have to do so in the cover of darkness, and cover their tracks, so they don't get caught. If murder was legal they could kill out in the open. I'm not interested in making bad things easier to do.

Abortion is a matter of circumstance. Women weren't put in the position of being pregnant against their will. They made the choice to have sex and the consequence of that is getting pregnant. If you didn't want to get pregnant then you shouldn't have had sex, it's that simple. So, I don't have sympathy for a woman putting herself into a circumstance she doesn't like when it's of her own making. That being said, the woman has options; adoption being one of them.

As Reaper pointed out in the state of Florida, 98% of abortions are elective, which I would argue is reflective of the entire nation within a percentage or two, driven by social and financial circumstances. It wasn't because of the mother's health, it wasn't because of rape, or incest. It was a woman just simply making the choice that she didn't want to have a baby because it would be hard. That's not a good enough reason to me to kill a life.

Again, back alley abortions is not my problem. Should we have them, in the case of abortion being outlawed? Of course not, but if abortion is illegal then women shouldn't be having sex, so should I really feel bad for the woman who willingly had sex, got pregnant, and then had to resort to going to some back alley to kill the baby because she just didn't want it? No, of course I shouldn't, nobody should. 

*Every day people make decisions and they have to deal with the consequences. Why should this be any different?*


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

wwe9391 said:


> Trump is gonna be our president until January 20th, 2021 at the earliest. If anyone here thinks this investigation is gonna bring him down then you are really gonna be disappointed.
> 
> Sorry but its the truth.
> Manafort, Gates, and Popalapolis are gonna be the scapegoats. Hopefully some DNC folks go down as well.


Just out of curiosity, why do you think they're just the scapegoats and not just the actual guilty party? You want Trump to be found guilty of something, that's cool, but if he's not that doesn't mean he necessarily got away with something. He actually could be innocent. Lack of evidence doesn't only mean the evidence hasn't been found yet, it could also mean that evidence doesn't exist.

On an unrelated note:

This is an actual, real life, Democratic ad being run in Virginia right now. This is not a joke.






:eyeroll


----------



## yeahbaby!

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I had a really long post written and when I went to send it, it said I was logged out, so now it's gone, which is a shame.
> 
> As far as how I would enforce it, well I would make it illegal, and just like everything else that's illegal, have detectives look for back alley abortion clinics, shut them down, and prosecute the people who work there. After that, it's up to legislators to create exemptions to the law, most notably for women who's life is in danger if they were to have the baby; that I understand. I would also say in cases of rape and incest, but your fellow pro-choicer, BM, convinced me that killing a baby under those circumstances is murder, so I've changed my mind on that.
> 
> Something else I stated before my post was deleted was murder is against the law. As a result, those who want to commit murder have to do so in the cover of darkness, and cover their tracks, so they don't get caught. If murder was legal they could kill out in the open. I'm not interested in making bad things easier to do.
> 
> Abortion is a matter of circumstance. Women weren't put in the position of being pregnant against their will. They made the choice to have sex and the consequence of that is getting pregnant. If you didn't want to get pregnant then you shouldn't have had sex, it's that simple. So, I don't have sympathy for a woman putting herself into a circumstance she doesn't like when it's of her own making. That being said, the woman has options; adoption being one of them.
> 
> As Reaper pointed out in the state of Florida, 98% of abortions are elective, which I would argue is reflective of the entire nation within a percentage or two, driven by social and financial circumstances. It wasn't because of the mother's health, it wasn't because of rape, or incest. It was a woman just simply making the choice that she didn't want to have a baby because it would be hard. That's not a good enough reason to me to kill a life.
> 
> Again, back alley abortions is not my problem. Should we have them, in the case of abortion being outlawed? Of course not, but if abortion is illegal then women shouldn't be having sex, so should I really feel bad for the woman who willingly had sex, got pregnant, and then had to resort to going to some back alley to kill the baby because she just didn't want it? No, of course I shouldn't, nobody should.
> 
> *Every day people make decisions and they have to deal with the consequences. Why should this be any different?*


Far too many shoulds and shouldn'ts in your post there pal. Those words deal with your conservative view of how you think the world should be, not how it is, and not how everyone wants it to be.

You don't have the right to enforce your beliefs on other people, especially women who are pregnant - their circumstances are none of your concern so really the best thing to do is allow people to deal with their own bodies.


Do you have kids? If so, don't abort them. That's how you get to exercise your beliefs on the matter.


----------



## Cabanarama

TheNightmanCometh said:


> This is an actual, real life, Democratic ad being run in Virginia right now. This is not a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :eyeroll


Good for them. It's about time they start doing shit like this. The Democrats keep losing because they won't fight dirty like the Republicans do and go for the jugular like the Republicans. 
Michelle Obama's motto of "when they go low, we go high" is noble, but it doesn't win elections. The Democrats need to do a lot more shit like this...


----------



## Beatles123

stevefox1200 said:


> I meant to put Manafort instead of Muller (although Muller is also a Republican) all those damn Ms
> 
> Some hardcore Trump supporters are trying to link Manafort and Hillary and create a nartive that the FBI is ACTUALLY investigating Hillary
> 
> Yes, Manafort worked with the the Podesta, they were working together analyzing the Ukraine conflect and it was contract work
> 
> No, Podesta have basically nothing to do with the investigation other than doing business with a criminal (which destroys their credibility and makes them a person of interest with the FBI). They are likely resigning due to being involved with other criminal matters that the FBI will find because they are persons of intrest
> 
> Hillary and the fucking Uranium has nothing to do with this
> 
> Also this committee is specifically investigating the "Russian connection", any warrants issued in their name HAS to have something to do with, if its for something else it will be handed off to the appropriate department.


Podesta is actually a pretty slimey cunt actually. It wouldn't surprise me if he was involved in some way. :shrug


----------



## Beatles123

Cabanarama said:


> Good for them. It's about time they start doing shit like this. The Democrats keep losing because they won't fight dirty like the Republicans do and go for the jugular like the Republicans.
> Michelle Obama's motto of "when they go low, we go high" is noble, but it doesn't win elections. The Democrats need to do a lot more shit like this...


Would it change much, you think? Honest question.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Meanwhile Newsweek is in FULL on delusion mode


The article was written by a feminist. :lol

- Vic


----------



## Laughable Chimp

yeahbaby! said:


> Far too many shoulds and shouldn'ts in your post there pal. Those words deal with your conservative view of how you think the world should be, not how it is, and not how everyone wants it to be.
> 
> You don't have the right to enforce your beliefs on other people, especially women who are pregnant - their circumstances are none of your concern so really the best thing to do is allow people to deal with their own bodies.
> 
> 
> Do you have kids? If so, don't abort them. That's how you get to exercise your beliefs on the matter.


You either believe abortion is wrong or you don't based on whether you believe it is murder or not. Some people don't, some people do. Its just too much of a gray area.

But people forcing their views on what is ethical on other is what annoys me. So you consider it murder. Fine. A lot of us however don't, so you can't force us to try and conform to your views on what is ethical or not.


----------



## Draykorinee

So another judge just blocked another one of Trump's propaganda led decisions. Thankfully they didn't block the one that stopped transgender from getting reassignment on the military budget, that shit didn't fly.


----------



## Cabanarama

Beatles123 said:


> Would it change much, you think? Honest question.


I'm not sure it how much it would change, but it would definitely help more than it would hurt.
One thing that Republicans are definitively better than than Democrats is campaigning and getting their message out to voters. One of the reasons is that Republicans are willing to get as cutthroat/ dirty as possible and do whatever it takes to win, while the Democrats tend to pull punches. It would only be beneficial for the Democrats to go for the jugular more often.


----------



## Beatles123

Cabanarama said:


> I'm not sure it how much it would change, but it would definitely help more than it would hurt.
> One thing that Republicans are definitively better than than Democrats is campaigning and getting their message out to voters. One of the reasons is that Republicans are willing to get as cutthroat/ dirty as possible and do whatever it takes to win, while the Democrats tend to pull punches. It would only be beneficial for the Democrats to go for the jugular more often.


For me its the identity politics that pisses me off. Get that shit out of there and be less extreme about Socialism and i wouldnt mind so much.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I had a really long post written and when I went to send it, it said I was logged out, so now it's gone, which is a shame.
> 
> As far as how I would enforce it, well I would make it illegal, and just like everything else that's illegal, have detectives look for back alley abortion clinics, shut them down, and prosecute the people who work there. After that, it's up to legislators to create exemptions to the law, most notably for women who's life is in danger if they were to have the baby; that I understand. I would also say in cases of rape and incest, but your fellow pro-choicer, BM, convinced me that killing a baby under those circumstances is murder, so I've changed my mind on that.
> 
> Something else I stated before my post was deleted was murder is against the law. As a result, those who want to commit murder have to do so in the cover of darkness, and cover their tracks, so they don't get caught. If murder was legal they could kill out in the open. I'm not interested in making bad things easier to do.
> 
> Abortion is a matter of circumstance. Women weren't put in the position of being pregnant against their will. They made the choice to have sex and the consequence of that is getting pregnant. If you didn't want to get pregnant then you shouldn't have had sex, it's that simple. So, I don't have sympathy for a woman putting herself into a circumstance she doesn't like when it's of her own making. That being said, the woman has options; adoption being one of them.
> 
> *As Reaper pointed out in the state of Florida, 98% of abortions are elective, which I would argue is reflective of the entire nation within a percentage or two, driven by social and financial circumstances. It wasn't because of the mother's health, it wasn't because of rape, or incest. It was a woman just simply making the choice that she didn't want to have a baby because it would be hard. That's not a good *enough reason to me to kill a life.
> 
> Again, back alley abortions is not my problem. Should we have them, in the case of abortion being outlawed? Of course not, but if abortion is illegal then women shouldn't be having sex, so should I really feel bad for the woman who willingly had sex, got pregnant, and then had to resort to going to some back alley to kill the baby because she just didn't want it? No, of course I shouldn't, nobody should.
> 
> *Every day people make decisions and they have to deal with the consequences. Why should this be any different?*


And like I pointed out, Flordia defunded planned parenthood and are closing them left and right. Not to mention Florida is always trying to cut off women's access to birth control.

But gee I wonder why most of Floridas abortions are elective. Maybe if they would stop fucking with womens access to birth control, especially the ones who cant afford it, women would not get pregnant when they don't want to.

If you want to stop women from having abortions for unwanted pregnancies give them free access to birth control.


But of course, conservatives will say oh why should taxpayer money go to giving women free birth control to those who cant afford it.

I went even get into the conservatives who are against BC because they think its immoral.


----------



## Reaper

As much as anti=Trumpers want to believe that Manafort's indictments have anything to do with Trump, they don't. Belief doesn't coincide with reality. 

The charges are for everything that he did when he was working with the Podesta group with the Obama administration ... Whether he did it as a republican or democrat or repubdomatstliltskin is irrelevant. Whether there was illegal collusion between the Podesta Group, Hillary Clinton, Obama's funding of the Fusion GPS company that published the fake dossier are ALL separate stories, but relevant political discussions at this time. 

It's not whataboutism to talk about the same story that has multiple threads. 

However, the only thing relevant is that it has nothing to do with anything he did that had anything to do with the Trump campaign involved in any illegal collusion with Russia.

Nothingburger with regards to Trump. But it's good to see the Alex Jones's of both sides happy to have something to feed into their very well-formed hallucinations.

The fantasy that somehow the small fries will lead to the downfall of the big bad mafia don is a classic hollywood fueled dumpster fire of an imaginary story. Some people are however phobic enough to be that delusional. It's their right to live in a fantasy.


----------



## wwe9391

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Just out of curiosity, why do you think they're just the scapegoats and not just the actual guilty party? You want Trump to be found guilty of something, that's cool, but if he's not that doesn't mean he necessarily got away with something. He actually could be innocent. Lack of evidence doesn't only mean the evidence hasn't been found yet, it could also mean that evidence doesn't exist.
> 
> On an unrelated note:
> 
> This is an actual, real life, Democratic ad being run in Virginia right now. This is not a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :eyeroll


Oh dude I'm on Trumps side. I don't think theres any evidence of collusion at all.


----------



## stevefox1200

Reaper said:


> As much as anti=Trumpers want to believe that Manafort's indictments have anything to do with Trump, they don't. Belief doesn't coincide with reality.
> 
> The charges are for everything that he did when he was working with the Podesta group with the Obama administration ... Whether he did it as a republican or democrat or repubdomatstliltskin is irrelevant. Whether there was illegal collusion between the Podesta Group, Hillary Clinton, Obama's funding of the Fusion GPS company that published the fake dossier are ALL separate stories, but relevant political discussions at this time.
> 
> It's not whataboutism to talk about the same story that has multiple threads.
> 
> However, the only thing relevant is that it has nothing to do with anything he did that had anything to do with the Trump campaign involved in any illegal collusion with Russia.
> 
> Nothingburger with regards to Trump. But it's good to see the Alex Jones's of both sides happy to have something to feed into their very well-formed hallucinations.
> 
> The fantasy that somehow the small fries will lead to the downfall of the big bad mafia don is a classic hollywood fueled dumpster fire of an imaginary story. Some people are however phobic enough to be that delusional. It's their right to live in a fantasy.


This current investigation wouldn't and can't arrest someone one without charges related to the Russian investigation

If it was purely tax issues it would have been handed over to the IRS, Muller intentionally wants Manaford in his lockup and under his jurisdiction, likely to offer him a deal with threats of handing him over to the IRS who won't give a fuck


----------



## The Hardcore Show

wwe9391 said:


> Oh dude I'm on Trumps side. I don't think theres any evidence of collusion at all.


You do know that he is under investigation for more then that right?


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> This current investigation wouldn't and can't arrest someone one without charges related to the Russian investigation
> 
> If it was purely tax issues it would have been handed over to the IRS, Muller intentionally wants Manaford in his lockup and under his jurisdiction, likely to offer him a deal with threats of handing him over to the IRS who won't give a fuck


This has nothing to do with the original "Trump is a Russian Puppet/Trump sold America to the Russians" hallucination. 

Don't go changing goal posts. The ORIGINAL investigation and the ORIGINAL narrative is COMPLETELY 100% built upon "Trump is a treasomous bastard who sold America to the Russians". 

Anything LESS or ELSE is _*completely 100%*_ irrelevant. 

Since you're now a card carrying democrat, please stick to your party's original stated intents for backing this investigation please. Don't try to fool people as this investigation is ever-changing and not getting us anywhere NEAR its ORIGINAL PURPOSE.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Reaper said:


> This has nothing to do with the original "Trump is a Russian Puppet/Trump sold America to the Russians" hallucination.
> 
> Don't go changing goal posts. The ORIGINAL investigation and the ORIGINAL narrative is COMPLETELY 100% built upon "Trump is a treasomous bastard who sold America to the Russians".
> 
> Anything LESS or ELSE is _*completely 100%*_ irrelevant.
> 
> Since you're now a card carrying democrat, please stick to your party's original stated intents for backing this investigation please.


Trump is going to meet his end most likely by obstructing justice and not so much of being involved with Russia and people below him not so much.


----------



## Reaper

The Hardcore Show said:


> Trump is going to meet his end most likely by obstructing justice and not so much of being involved with Russia and people below him not so much.


Ok 

Sent from my BTV-W09 using Tapatalk


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Reaper said:


> Ok
> 
> Sent from my BTV-W09 using Tapatalk


Any other reason he fired the FBI director then?


----------



## stevefox1200

Reaper said:


> This has nothing to do with the original "Trump is a Russian Puppet/Trump sold America to the Russians" hallucination.
> 
> Don't go changing goal posts. The ORIGINAL investigation and the ORIGINAL narrative is COMPLETELY 100% built upon "Trump is a treasomous bastard who sold America to the Russians".
> 
> Anything LESS or ELSE is _*completely 100%*_ irrelevant.
> 
> Since you're now a card carrying democrat, please stick to your party's original stated intents for backing this investigation please. Don't try to fool people as this investigation is ever-changing and not getting us anywhere NEAR its ORIGINAL PURPOSE.


The committee can ONLY investigate connections to Russian interference in the election, they have ZERO other power and if they cause creep they will be disbanded 

Everyone they arrest is involved with the above no matter the charges. If the charges seem "weird" or "unrelated" its because they feel the arrestie is involved with the above and want them under their jurisdiction so they can question and offer deals 

If they felt Manafort had nothing on Trump they would hand his charges over to the IRS (an who knows if they Russian charges don't stick they may)
If it comes out that they are arresting anyone NOT involved no matter the charges they can be shut down for breaching their jurisdictions, they are not allowed to go secret police


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> The committee can ONLY investigate connections to Russian interference in the election, they have ZERO other power and if they cause creep they will be disbanded
> 
> Everyone they arrest is involved with the above no matter the charges. If the charges seem "weird" or "unrelated" its because they feel the arrestie is involved with the above and want them under their jurisdiction so they can question and offer deals
> 
> If they felt Manafort had nothing on Trump they would hand his charges over to the IRS (an who knows if they Russian charges don't stick they may)
> If it comes out that they are arresting anyone NOT involved no matter the charges they can be shut down for breaching their jurisdictions, they are not allowed to go secret police


So nothing to do with Trump / Russia collusion then except your conspiracy theories then. 

Ok. 



The Hardcore Show said:


> Any other reason he fired the FBI director then?


I dunno. I don't have that kind of an imagination.


----------



## stevefox1200

Reaper said:


> So nothing to do with Trump / Russia collusion then except your conspiracy theories then.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno. I don't have that kind of an imagination.


The committee is investigating Russia inference in the election

Trump won

Hillary lost

They wouldn't give a fuck if the LOSER was one getting the Russian support because it didn't work


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Reaper said:


> So nothing to do with Trump / Russia collusion then except your conspiracy theories then.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno. I don't have that kind of an imagination.


What will you do if they suggest impeachment (even if nothing comes from it) or charge Trump?


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> The committee is investigating Russia inference in the election
> 
> Trump won
> 
> Hillary lost
> 
> They wouldn't give a fuck if the LOSER was one getting the Russian support because it didn't work


What does this have to do with Trump/Russia collusion?



The Hardcore Show said:


> What will you do if they suggest impeachment (even if nothing comes from it) or charge Trump?


The same thing I'll do when Zeus shows up in my front lawn and begs me to impregnate Hera ... 

See, I'm not very good at this imagination thing.


----------



## deepelemblues

NYT reporting 6 people dead, at least 12 injured in a combined truck / shooting attack in lower Manhattan. Attacker ran people over on a bike path with a rented Home Depot truck, then a school bus driver rammed the truck to stop him, he got out and started shooting. Attacker was shot twice and is still alive and in custody.

EDIT: a source from the Joint Terrorism Task Force says that when the man left the truck, he was shouting ALLAHU ACKBAR, and that his two weapons were a paintball gun and a BB gun. He drove down a bike path for 8 blocks running people over before the school bus driver rammed the truck. There were schoolchildren on the bus and as many as 10+ may have been injured by the crash.


----------



## Reaper

Even if it turns out to be a muslim, they're just going to do the full news cycle without mentioning it and eventually people will forget it. 

That's what they did with the Fort Lauderdale airport shooter. The vast majority of people don't even know he is an ISIS convert.


----------



## Reaper

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22939/exclusive-dnc-official-discriminates-against-elliott-hamilton#



> *EXCLUSIVE: DNC Official Says She Doesn't Want To Recruit 'Cisgender Straight White Males'*
> 
> They don't want more individuals in the "majority" having jobs within the party ...
> 
> Employees within the Democratic National Committee are looking for new employees in the Technology Department. However, the DNC is apparently not interested in your resume if you happen to be a white male.
> 
> In an email issued to DNC insiders on Monday, Data Services manager Madeleine Leader announced that the Technology Department is looking to fill several positions and asked interested parties to forward the openings to their colleagues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Daily Wire contacted Ms. Leader about the contents of her email, but she declined to comment.
> 
> After the latest scandals to plague the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 presidential election, the new leadership under Tom Perez and Keith Ellison (D-MN) seek to rebrand the party as a more inclusive and welcoming community. Unfortunately, this email doesn't exactly help their case.


When Tumblrina's enter the real world.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Trump is all about being anti-terrorism yet he wants cuts to the anti-terrorism funding. 


https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/schumer-asks-trump-to-rethink-anti-terrorism-cuts/

Schumer asks Trump to rethink anti-terrorism cuts

After President Donald Trump blamed New York Senator Chuck Schumer and the D iversity Visa Lottery Program for allowing the suspect in Tuesday's lower Manhattan attack to enter the U.S., Schumer responded by pointing out what could be considered hypocrisy on the president's part: If Trump wants to stop terrorists, why does he want to cut anti-terrorism funding? 

"I have always believed and continue to believe that immigration is good for America," the Democratic senator wrote in a Wednesday statement. "President Trump, instead of politicizing and dividing America, which he always seems to do at times of national tragedy, should be focusing on the real solution—anti-terrorism funding—which he proposed cutting in his most recent budget." 

Schumer added: "I'm calling on the president to immediately rescind his proposed cuts to this vital anti-terrorism funding." 


The latest budget plan released by the Trump administration in May includes a $4.7 billion increase to the Department of Homeland Security's overall budget. However, it simultaneously cut $582.8 million from "critical counterterrorism programs that DHS administers," according to a July report from the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Trump's budget also slashed $35.9 million from the Complex Coordinated Terrorist Attacks program, as well as an additional $10 million from the Countering Violent Extremism budget. 

Schumer has spoken out about the Trump administration's cuts to federal anti-terrorism programs before, warning Trump that his budget could put New Yorkers in danger. 

"It makes absolutely no sense for the just-released Trump budget to cut the anti-terror dollars New York City uses to keep us all safe," Schumer said in the wake of May's attacks in Manchester, England. "At a time when terrorism is on the rise, we should not be cutting anti-terrorism funds that prevent costly and crippling disasters and, more importantly, save lives." 

The New York senator wasn't alone in his concerns. In July, a spokesperson from the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri had raised concerns that the Trump administration's proposed budget didn't "prioritize what's most needed for counterterrorism efforts." 

Trump has made it fairly clear where his priorities lie: Almost $1.6 billion of his administration's proposed budget would go to the president's promised southern border wall, which is forecast to cost roughly $21.6 million per mile


----------



## Dave Santos

Did anyone see snoop dogs new music cover image of Trump dead under the American flag? Curious what Vince thinks about this? Would he remove reference to Snoop and Trump as he did to hulk? It's a very heated time on both sides.


----------



## Reaper

Looks like the DNC might be looking into rebranding itself by putting everything on Clinton ... as IF Clinton was powerful enough on her own to get the ENTIRE party to cooperate with her unanimously. Man, this party is corrupt to its rotten core. They need to just burn it to the ground and start anew. 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774?cid=apn


> *Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC
> *When I was asked to run the Democratic Party after the Russians hacked our emails, I stumbled onto a shocking truth about the Clinton campaign.
> By DONNA BRAZILE November 02, 2017
> 
> Before I called Bernie Sanders, I lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music. I wanted to center myself for what I knew would be an emotional phone call.
> 
> I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.
> 
> So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.
> 
> Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks.
> 
> By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.
> 
> ***
> 
> The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.
> 
> “What?” I screamed. “I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.”
> 
> That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.
> 
> If I didn’t know about this, I assumed that none of the other officers knew about it, either. That was just Debbie’s way. In my experience she didn’t come to the officers of the DNC for advice and counsel. She seemed to make decisions on her own and let us know at the last minute what she had decided, as she had done when she told us about the hacking only minutes before the Washington Post broke the news.
> 
> “No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”
> 
> “Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.
> 
> Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.
> 
> “Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”
> 
> Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.
> 
> “That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”
> 
> “What’s the burn rate, Gary?” I asked. “How much money do we need every month to fund the party?”
> 
> The burn rate was $3.5 million to $4 million a month, he said.
> 
> I gasped. I had a pretty good sense of the DNC’s operations after having served as interim chair five years earlier. Back then the monthly expenses were half that. What had happened? The party chair usually shrinks the staff between presidential election campaigns, but Debbie had chosen not to do that. She had stuck lots of consultants on the DNC payroll, and Obama’s consultants were being financed by the DNC, too.
> 
> When we hung up, I was livid. Not at Gary, but at this mess I had inherited. I knew that Debbie had outsourced a lot of the management of the party and had not been the greatest at fundraising. I would not be that kind of chair, even if I was only an interim chair. Did they think I would just be a surrogate for them, get on the road and rouse up the crowds? I was going to manage this party the best I could and try to make it better, even if Brooklyn did not like this. It would be weeks before I would fully understand the financial shenanigans that were keeping the party on life support.
> 
> ***
> 
> Right around the time of the convention, the leaked emails revealed Hillary’s campaign was grabbing money from the state parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races. A Politico story published on May 2, 2016, described the big fund-raising vehicle she had launched through the states the summer before, quoting a vow she had made to rebuild “the party from the ground up … when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen.”
> 
> Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie’s people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary.
> 
> I wanted to believe Hillary, who made campaign finance reform part of her platform, but I had made this pledge to Bernie and did not want to disappoint him. I kept asking the party lawyers and the DNC staff to show me the agreements that the party had made for sharing the money they raised, but there was a lot of shuffling of feet and looking the other way.
> 
> When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.
> 
> The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
> 
> I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.
> 
> When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.
> 
> I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.
> 
> The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.
> 
> ***
> 
> I had to keep my promise to Bernie. I was in agony as I dialed him. Keeping this secret was against everything that I stood for, all that I valued as a woman and as a public servant.
> 
> “Hello, senator. I’ve completed my review of the DNC and I did find the cancer,” I said. “But I will not kill the patient.”
> 
> I discussed the fundraising agreement that each of the candidates had signed. Bernie was familiar with it, but he and his staff ignored it. They had their own way of raising money through small donations. I described how Hillary’s campaign had taken it another step.
> 
> I told Bernie I had found Hillary’s Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that the cancer was that she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee. Had I known this, I never would have accepted the interim chair position, but here we were with only weeks before the election.
> 
> Bernie took this stoically. He did not yell or express outrage. Instead he asked me what I thought Hillary’s chances were. The polls were unanimous in her winning but what, he wanted to know, was my own assessment?
> 
> I had to be frank with him. I did not trust the polls, I said. I told him I had visited states around the country and I found a lack of enthusiasm for her everywhere. I was concerned about the Obama coalition and about millennials.
> 
> I urged Bernie to work as hard as he could to bring his supporters into the fold with Hillary, and to campaign with all the heart and hope he could muster. He might find some of her positions too centrist, and her coziness with the financial elites distasteful, but he knew and I knew that the alternative was a person who would put the very future of the country in peril. I knew he heard me. I knew he agreed with me, but I never in my life had felt so tiny and powerless as I did making that call.
> 
> When I hung up the call to Bernie, I started to cry, not out of guilt, but out of anger. We would go forward. We had to.


:lol 

Considering that she was the one who leaked the debate questions to Hillary, she's PART of the entire system of corruption. She helped her as much as she could. 

But nah man, don't look at me. She was the only one. The most powerful woman in the universe who pulled off a heist :lmao


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/926088990666653696
--

The Mueller investigation is now going to satisfy itself with catching some random evil ruskies to satisfy the Ruskiphobes in America and then it's going to disappear. They have nothing significant at all. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/prosecutors-consider-bringing-charges-in-dnc-hacking-case-1509618203

It's your typical Horse and Pony Show designed to appease the constituents since it's now so blatantly working both sides :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Looks like the DNC might be looking into rebranding itself by putting everything on Clinton ... as IF Clinton was powerful enough on her own to get the ENTIRE party to cooperate with her unanimously. Man, this party is corrupt to its rotten core. They need to just burn it to the ground and start anew.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774?cid=apn
> 
> 
> :lol
> 
> Considering that she was the one who leaked the debate questions to Hillary, she's PART of the entire system of corruption. She helped her as much as she could.
> 
> But nah man, don't look at me. She was the only one. The most powerful woman in the universe who pulled off a heist :lmao
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/926088990666653696
> --
> 
> The Mueller investigation is now going to satisfy itself with catching some random evil ruskies to satisfy the Ruskiphobes in America and then it's going to disappear. They have nothing significant at all.
> 
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/prosecutors-consider-bringing-charges-in-dnc-hacking-case-1509618203
> 
> 
> It's your typical Horse and Pony Show designed to appease the constituents since it's now so blatantly working both sides :lol


Even more evidence the primary was rigged against Bernie Sanders.

Its things like this why the justice democrats were formed. And the DNC is already trying to rig it against them as well with their fuckery with how Tom Perez and the DNC are trying to block the justice democrats from getting key voter contact tools.


----------



## virus21

Third Party, third party, third party!


----------



## Reaper

America definitely needs a competitive third party. The two party system has far too much room for corruption.

Sent from my BTV-W09 using Tapatalk


----------



## deepelemblues

America doesn't need a third party.

A successful third party would almost instantaneously become swampified

What America needs is no successful political parties. No successful parties = no party machines


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> America doesn't need a third party.
> 
> A successful third party would almost instantaneously become swampified
> 
> What America needs is no successful political parties. No successful parties = no party machines


Now there. You sound like a libertarian here. 

No. I gave up on the idea that a government-less society can exist. I like the idea of the chaos that a third strong party would bring to the table, so I will support it to the point where it renders the democrats completely useless. :trump 

BTW, the FIX is definitely in to try to make the Democrats more "progressive" and even more socialist. Pocahontas just endorsed Brazile's coming out party. 

I feel bad for the future of America.


----------



## DOPA

Never heard something so messed up on a corruption level in all my life in terms of western countries.auVDwtv4Vb4


----------



## birthday_massacre

L-DOPA said:


> Never heard something so messed up on a corruption level in all my life in terms of western countries.auVDwtv4Vb4




I just can't stop being right LOL

I love how I kept telling everyone and showing how the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie and most Trump supporters kept telling me I was wrong, yet the DNC actually admit it.

its time to let the real progressives take over and get money out of politics.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

Breaking News: "Heroic Twitter Employee ends the Holocaust by taking down Trump's Twitter today and ends global famine and brings peace and prosperity and equality to all humans"

:mj4


----------



## Vic Capri

The Twitter employee "accidentally" deleted the account.

Edit: Supposedly, it was done by a customer support employee on his last day of work. 

- Vic


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

How amazing "The Resistance" is. https://www.mediaite.com/online/tru...-service-employee-on-his-last-day-on-the-job/ :eyeroll


----------



## Reaper

I'm not upset by the fact that some twit deleted Trump's account. 

Free society. I mean, there was a time when some Iraqi tossed a shoe at Bush and honestly, that made for some really funny memes. 

The real story is that every single narrative the Democrats have tried to spin under Hillary, Podesta and Pelosi has come back to destroy the party. I mean, I wish I was exaggerating, but the actual liberal democrats are pretty much dead silent and have absolutely nothing to say because they know that they've been duped. I mean, a huge chunk of the voter base was already starting to abandon the democrats, but now their fate is sealed. 

Sure, the delusional far left sees this as a victory, but little do they know that since American politics are so polarized, a party split at this point pretty much guarantees conservative politics will win for decades. It takes a very long time for a party to establish itself and almost every country where there has been a split within a party it has taken a very long time for it to recover. 

At the end of the day, what's going to happen is that the pro-Hillary branch of the DNC will die out, the progressives will take over, they'll push their socialist politics, and Americans will reject them. There will be some abandoning of the DNC voter base to the Republicans (not a lot), but by and large the more moderate democrat will win against the more progressive democrat. American democrat majority are centrists ... maybe center right. They don't care much for socialist politics.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Reaper said:


> I'm not upset by the fact that some twit deleted Trump's account.
> 
> Free society. I mean, there was a time when some Iraqi tossed a shoe at Bush and honestly, that made for some really funny memes.
> 
> The real story is that every single narrative the Democrats have tried to spin under Hillary, Podesta and Pelosi has come back to destroy the party. I mean, I wish I was exaggerating, but the actual liberal democrats are pretty much dead silent and have absolutely nothing to say because they know that they've been duped. I mean, a huge chunk of the voter base was already starting to abandon the democrats, but now their fate is sealed.
> 
> Sure, the delusional far left sees this as a victory, but little do they know that since American politics are so polarized, a party split at this point pretty much guarantees conservative politics will win for decades. It takes a very long time for a party to establish itself and almost every country where there has been a split within a party it has taken a very long time for it to recover.
> 
> At the end of the day, what's going to happen is that the pro-Hillary branch of the DNC will die out, the progressives will take over, they'll push their socialist politics, and Americans will reject them. There will be some abandoning of the DNC voter base to the Republicans (not a lot), but by and large the more moderate democrat will win against the more progressive democrat. American democrat majority are centrists ... maybe center right. They don't care much for socialist politics.


If we are talking about the current far-right extreme win at all costs GOP in power right now there will be no United States to run if what you say comes true over the next few decades. In less that is what you want a country completely GOP red to the point of it reaching dictator like levels. Anymore power they would pretty much run this entire country on both the Federal and State levels.


----------



## Yeah1993

I'm actually struggling to think of why anybody would want Trump's twitter account deleted. The way he acts on twitter tends to be where a lot of ammo against him comes from, why would someone anti-Trump want that gone?


----------



## Goku

Yeah1993 said:


> I'm actually struggling to think of why anybody would want Trump's twitter account deleted. The way he acts on twitter tends to be where a lot of ammo against him comes from, why would someone anti-Trump want that gone?


impulsive reaction?

feeling of achievement?


----------



## stevefox1200

Yeah1993 said:


> I'm actually struggling to think of why anybody would want Trump's twitter account deleted. The way he acts on twitter tends to be where a lot of ammo against him comes from, why would someone anti-Trump want that gone?


The man did tweet death threats to a hostile world leader while talking about how stupid diplomacy was which confused the fuck out of the international community

Most of the world lives under some type of dictatorship where whatever the leader says is the official national stance so when they read about statements from the US president they assume that that will be the official US stance continuing forward 

So when Trump tweets "diplomacy is useless" many nations assume that the US will no longer use diplomacy and will respond to things they don't like with force 

Its one of the reasons that most presidents tend to be very careful of their words and never speak ill of a nation or a movement unless they are totally ready for the government to consider it hostile


----------



## Draykorinee

Yeah1993 said:


> I'm actually struggling to think of why anybody would want Trump's twitter account deleted. The way he acts on twitter tends to be where a lot of ammo against him comes from, why would someone anti-Trump want that gone?


Exactly, keep giving him the rope in my opinion.


----------



## Reaper

I for one welcome a Republican supermajority despite not being a Republican. 

It's better than the deadlock were at right now and Republican politics are intrinsically anti-fascist.

The vast majority of americans live like Republicans in our daily lives but then go out and vote Democrat for some really weird reasons. 



Goku said:


> impulsive reaction?
> 
> feeling of achievement?


Probably just trolling.



stevefox1200 said:


> *Most of the world lives under some type of dictatorship* where whatever the leader says is the official national stance so when they read about statements from the US president they assume that that will be the official US stance continuing forward


No it doesn't. Since this is wrong, therefore anything else that follows from that point is wrong.

---

Card Carrying Democrats have very little credibility as far as I'm concerned anyways. This is their propaganda during the Bush presidency. And this is their propaganda now. 




























Oh look. It goes even further back:


----------



## DOPA

birthday_massacre said:


> I just can't stop being right LOL
> 
> I love how I kept telling everyone and showing how the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie and most Trump supporters kept telling me I was wrong, yet the DNC actually admit it.
> 
> its time to let the real progressives take over and get money out of politics.


I don't remember Trump supporters saying that the DNC didn't rig the primaries against Bernie? After all, Trump actually argued this a lot during the election cycle and even tried to win Bernie supporters to his cause by using it as a talking point. I especially don't remember seeing a whole load of Trump supporters here saying that the DNC rigging the primaries argument was nonsense. If anything in general, it was the card carrying Hillary supporters and the MSM saying that it was all nonsense and a conspiracy theory.

I wouldn't blow your own trumpet if I were you, this was pretty much the worst kept secret in American politics and was a significant reason why Hillary didn't attract the base and the Obama coalition needed to win the election. A significant portion of the people who voted for Obama in the swing states such as Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania either switched to Trump, went third party or just abstained. A big reason for that was the snubbing of Bernie in the primaries, I've even seen Trump supporters admit that.

The only thing we didn't know is how bad the scale of the corruption was. I knew Scultz was essentially involved and trying to tip the scale in favour of Hillary because they are friends and I assmued Scultz used the DNC in order to bias the process in favour of Hillary. I would have never have thought that the DNC would essentially have been another arm of the Hillary campaign, which is a scary amount of power and corruption in the hands of one individual.

This also officially blows away the argument that the Republicans are undoubtedly more corrupt the Democrats. If the DNC were literally willing to hand over control of their operations to Hillary in order to both get themselves out of debt and to stop Bernie from winning the nomination then the DNC still in it's current form will literally do anything to impose it's vision at the expense of the party's base support. Scary thought indeed.

I mirror what some other users have been saying: until the US gets away from the 2 party system, these problems will continue to emerge on both sides of the aisle.


----------



## Goku

L-DOPA said:


> I wouldn't blow your own trumpet if I were you


birthday_massacre is the wf ambulance chaser. Nothing happens without him knowing better.


----------



## Draykorinee

Two party system is a bit of a travesty TBH. I've voted for three different parties in my shortish life.


----------



## Reaper

It got the job done for centuries because both the parties were pretty close to one another, but over time the Republican party started moving left and abandoned a lot of their fiscally conservative policies and the democrats moved farther left. 

The people of America are however more conservative than they even see themselves (like I said that most Americans actually live like conservatives as only 20% of Americans spend more than they earn) but yet go out and vote in governments at the federal level (most State Level governments are good at fiscal responsibility) that do not hold themselves to that standard anymore and keep piling on debt ... Most, if not all of the money that is spent by the government remains unaudited, unchecked ... meanwhile, we pore over our balance sheets on a monthly basis making sure that our books are balanced. 

Anyone that looks at their own finances and says "I can't spend more than I earn" and then goes out and votes democrat (or any other tax and spend party that just prints money) is literally doing the opposite of what they do in their own personal life. The thought is that you're getting a chunk of someone else's money, but that is not the truth as almost 80% of Americans are now in debt themselves - a big reason for that being mismanagement of taxation by the government that has resulted in all sorts of rising costs. The taxed money is not giving anyone in the world their money's worth and instead of getting some benefit, people are over-taxed. 

Canada for example, the general population is now paying more in taxes than food, housing and medical. 




Spoiler: Image















American's too have been voting against their own interests for decades. The best solution obviously is to disband the federal government entirely and restore power to the States, but if there is going to be a federal government, then a fiscally responsible one is the only one that we should be voting. 

It makes absolutely no sense for 50% of the population voting in Keynesian / hybrid socialist governments when they don't live like that government themselves.

Practically when you look at the constituents, we don't even need more than 1 party in a country like America because the vast majority of us actually agree on some very important public policies.


----------



## birthday_massacre

L-DOPA said:


> I don't remember Trump supporters saying that the DNC didn't rig the primaries against Bernie? After all, Trump actually argued this a lot during the election cycle and even tried to win Bernie supporters to his cause by using it as a talking point. I especially don't remember seeing a whole load of Trump supporters here saying that the DNC rigging the primaries argument was nonsense. If anything in general, it was the card carrying Hillary supporters and the MSM saying that it was all nonsense and a conspiracy theory.
> 
> I wouldn't blow your own trumpet if I were you, this was pretty much the worst kept secret in American politics and was a significant reason why Hillary didn't attract the base and the Obama coalition needed to win the election. A significant portion of the people who voted for Obama in the swing states such as Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania either switched to Trump, went third party or just abstained. A big reason for that was the snubbing of Bernie in the primaries, I've even seen Trump supporters admit that.
> 
> The only thing we didn't know is how bad the scale of the corruption was. I knew Scultz was essentially involved and trying to tip the scale in favour of Hillary because they are friends and I assmued Scultz used the DNC in order to bias the process in favour of Hillary. I would have never have thought that the DNC would essentially have been another arm of the Hillary campaign, which is a scary amount of power and corruption in the hands of one individual.
> 
> This also officially blows away the argument that the Republicans are undoubtedly more corrupt the Democrats. If the DNC were literally willing to hand over control of their operations to Hillary in order to both get themselves out of debt and to stop Bernie from winning the nomination then the DNC still in it's current form will literally do anything to impose it's vision at the expense of the party's base support. Scary thought indeed.
> 
> I mirror what some other users have been saying: until the US gets away from the 2 party system, these problems will continue to emerge on both sides of the aisle.


Come on stop lying dude, everyone (Trump supporters) was saying I was lying about the DNC rigging it against Bernie, you are better than lying even though I kept posting all the evidence. If you want to claim the ones doing tha were just the troll Trump supporters, they will still Trump supporters and there are a lot of (well were a lot) of those on here before most got banned during and after the primaries.

Its just funny how people are now admitting was I was right and like they believed it back then too. Maybe you did but most Trump supporters did not.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Come on stop lying dude, everyone (Trump supporters) was saying I was lying about the DNC rigging it against Bernie, you are better than lying even though I kept posting all the evidence. If you want to claim the ones doing tha were just the troll Trump supporters, they will still Trump supporters and there are a lot of (well were a lot) of those on here before most got banned during and after the primaries.
> 
> Its just funny how people are now admitting was I was right and like they believed it back then too. Maybe you did but most Trump supporters did not.


You have a real bad habit of making stuff up about others. You need to stop coming up with conflicts that don't happen just to boost your self esteem and say "I'm always right and you're always wrong" . Like , give it a rest already


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> You have a real bad habit of making stuff up about others. You need to stop coming up with conflicts that don't happen just to boost your self esteem and say "I'm always right and you're always wrong" . Like , give it a rest already


LOL yeah, that is a good one. Just like how Trump supporters claim he has no ties to Russia, yet at some point, you will all say oh we never said he didn't have any Russian connections.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL yeah, that is a good one. Just like how Trump supporters claim he has no ties to Russia, yet at some point, you will all say oh we never said he didn't have any Russian connections.


At this point....who doesn't have some sort of ties to Russia, seems like if you past Russia on a plane you're in collusion with them. 

Anyway, you explicitly claim he'd be impeached "by the end of the year" and we're already in November. Still waiting on that impeachment


----------



## Goku

Trump himself said the DNC rigged the election against Bernie.

But in BM's mind, he was the only person who said it and Trump's supporters (the supporters of the man who kept saying the DNC rigged the election against Bernie) said he was lying.

I don't know if this is delusion or dementia enguin


----------



## stevefox1200

Reaper said:


> I for one welcome a Republican supermajority despite not being a Republican.
> 
> It's better than the deadlock were at right now and Republican politics are intrinsically anti-fascist.
> 
> The vast majority of americans live like Republicans in our daily lives but then go out and vote Democrat for some really weird reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably just trolling.
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't. Since this is wrong, therefore anything else that follows from that point is wrong.
> 
> ---
> 
> Card Carrying Democrats have very little credibility as far as I'm concerned anyways. This is their propaganda during the Bush presidency. And this is their propaganda now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look. It goes even further back:












Darker the Red the more the authoritarian, from the Economist Intelligence Unit from 2016 

I tend to count the yellows as they have "Free elections" where 101% of the population votes for the ruling party 

I you want a US sources here is https://freedomhouse.org/ a NGO that was formed in the 1940s that keeps track of the civil liberties in the world, they estimate that 65% of the world lives under some type of single party authoritarian regime

Almost all of Africa, almost all of the middle east and almost all of Asia live under a government which are military controlled, have a single party or have a pure one man ruling government


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Come on stop lying dude, everyone (Trump supporters) was saying I was lying about the DNC rigging it against Bernie, you are better than lying even though I kept posting all the evidence. If you want to claim the ones doing tha were just the troll Trump supporters, they will still Trump supporters and there are a lot of (well were a lot) of those on here before most got banned during and after the primaries.
> 
> Its just funny how people are now admitting was I was right and like they believed it back then too. Maybe you did but most Trump supporters did not.


Bull, sh*t! None of us are admitting anything and no one here said Bernie wasn't getting screwed in some way, but it certainly wasnt enough to where he would have won. Bernie is a meme foe college kids, nothing more.

By the way, i know what you've probably been doing and its not cool. You really need to leave me alone.


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> Darker the Red the more the authoritarian, from the Economist Intelligence Unit from 2016
> 
> I tend to count the yellows as they have "Free elections" where 101% of the population votes for the ruling party
> 
> I you want a US sources here is https://freedomhouse.org/ a NGO that was formed in the 1940s that keeps track of the civil liberties in the world, they estimate that 65% of the world lives under some type of single party authoritarian regime
> 
> Almost all of Africa, almost all of the middle east and almost all of Asia live under a government which are military controlled, have a single party or have a pure one man ruling government


Authoritarian does not equal dictatorship and even IF you can twist it into meaning something like that, the logical flow from "it's a dictatorship to it's too dumb to understand what foreign policy is" is ludicrous. Not buying what you're selling.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Bull, sh*t! None of us are admitting anything and no one here said Bernie wasn't getting screwed in some way, but it certainly wasnt enough to where he would have won. Bernie is a meme foe college kids, nothing more.
> 
> By the way, i know what you've probably been doing and its not cool. You really need to leave me alone.


Yes it was enough to where he would have won lol

And there you go again proving how uninformed you are. Bernie is the most popular politician in the country

The only thing that is a meme for college kids is the shit Trump supporters like you believe and post.



Stinger Fan said:


> At this point....who doesn't have some sort of ties to Russia, seems like if you past Russia on a plane you're in collusion with them.
> 
> Anyway, you explicitly claim he'd be impeached "by the end of the year" and we're already in November. Still waiting on that impeachment


Oh so now you are admitting Trump has ties to Russia where as before you claimed he didn't. 

I said I would not be surprised if Trump was impeached by the end of the year, and it still looks to be going that way.

What I explicitly claimed was he would not make it 4 years which he won't. That is obvious with everything that is going on.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

virus21 said:


>


Holy shit, the DNC primary was rigged for Hillary. :lmao Poor Bernie. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

ShowStopper said:


> Holy shit, the DNC primary was rigged for Hillary. :lmao Poor Bernie. :lol


More like poor USA because if not for that shit Bernie Sanders would be president right now and not that walking disaster Trump


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

birthday_massacre said:


> More like poor USA because if not for that shit Bernie Sanders would be president right now and not that walking disaster Trump


I just feel bad for the Bernster.


----------



## Art Vandaley




----------



## Reaper

ShowStopper said:


> I just feel bad for the Bernster.


Don't. He would've lined his pockets with the tax money while bleeding Americans dry like every other socialist before him.

A socialist having a net worth of millions and a wife that's under investigation for fraud is not an improvement, but more of the same.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Yes it was enough to where he would have won lol
> 
> And there you go again proving how uninformed you are. Bernie is the most popular politician in the country
> 
> The only thing that is a meme for college kids is the shit Trump supporters like you believe and post.


 Whatever man, think yourself a vesel of truth if you want,but I know you better than anyone here at this point and yer damn lucky i keep my mouth shut. I only opened my mouth because you went over the line and i want you to know I don't appreciate it.


----------



## Goku

Reaper said:


> Don't. He would've lined his pockets with the tax money while bleeding Americans dry like every other socialist before him.
> 
> A socialist having a net worth of millions and a wife that's under investigation for fraud is not an improvement, but more of the same.


at the very least he escaped the humiliation of being buried by :trump


----------



## Reaper

Goku said:


> at the very least he escaped the humiliation of being buried by :trump


Even anti-Trump REPUBLICANS are abandoning the congressional primaries and claiming that they can't beat Trumpist republicans. 

The movement is real. Trumpism is even more powerful than Trump himself :move


----------



## Beatles123

Reaper said:


> Even anti-Trump REPUBLICANS are abandoning the congressional primaries and claiming that they can't beat Trumpist republicans.
> 
> The movement is real. Trumpism is even more powerful than Trump himself :move


Where is Rand in all this?


----------



## Reaper

Beatles123 said:


> Where is Rand in all this?


Think of Trump like a shark and Rand as the minnow that hides under it in order to not get eaten, but also mutually benefit from the shark's prey. 

I like Rand's politics, but not the _way _he conducts business. 

It's hard for me to trust him.


----------



## Beatles123

Reaper said:


> Think of Trump like a shark and Rand as the minnow that hides under it in order to not get eaten, but also mutually benefit from the shark's prey.
> 
> I like Rand's politics, but not the _way _he conducts business.
> 
> It's hard for me to trust him.


Who are some Trumpian badasses to watch out for in 2018 that can continue what he started, you think? I liked Rand for example since hes helping the tax plan.


----------



## Reaper

Beatles123 said:


> Who are some Trumpian badasses to watch out for in 2018 that can continue what he started, you think? I liked Rand for example since hes helping the tax plan.


I think so. I haven't really examined the nominees in detail yet, but as far as Rand is concerned, I respect that he takes a stand for what he believes in most of the time, but he also votes erratically in the sense that if he's not getting all of his way at all, then he votes against it and encourages others to do so which essentially results in no gains at all - which is a poor way of doing things. Every salesman knows that in order to get to the closing of a sale, you need to start by getting that foot in the door. Or if you want to break a dam, you need to crack it first. 

The thing that Democrats do well is that they understand how to nickle and dime their way into big gains over time. 

The thing Republicans do poorly (and Rand is a part of that problem) is that it's either go big or go home. Sometimes a well timed bunt or steal is better than a home run.

https://medium.com/@GreenPill_Media...2018-midterm-election-candidates-297b67ebf558 <--- Read this now. These are your future Trumpists and should be supported.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Even anti-Trump REPUBLICANS are abandoning the congressional primaries and claiming that they can't beat Trumpist republicans.
> 
> The movement is real. Trumpism is even more powerful than Trump himself :move


At least you admit far right winged racism movement is real, and Trump is at the head of it


----------



## Cabanarama

We need to stop this narrative that somehow Bernie was robbed of the presidency. A few things:
1. Yes, the Democrats did rig the primaries for Hillary. We've known this. We also need to acknowledge the same time, it didn't make the difference. Hillary still would have beaten Bernie easily. Which makes the Democrats getting involved even dumber. Had the DNC not put their hands on the scale, Hillary still would have won, but the Bernie supporters would not have been as upset and enough would have flipped to her in the general for her to win. So ultimately, the rigging wound up hurting Hillary more than it helped.
2. Most of the support from Bernie came from an anti-Hillary standpoint than anything else. If there was another credible opponent to Hillary, Bernie would have been standing with Martin O'Malley on the irrelevant scrap heap of candidates. 
3. Where the DNC really screwed up was convincing any credible opponents not to run because it was "Hillary's turn". A generic Democrat would have easily won, and Joe Biden would have beaten both Hillary and Bernie easily, and would have creamed Trump in a massive landslide , but he was talked out of running for the sake of "party unity" (that worked out well) 
4. If Bernie got the nomination, he probably doesn't win the presidency. He does better than Hillary (at least in the electoral college, not the popular vote), but he still likely falls short. Yes, Bernie beats Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, but there are some states where he performs worse than Hillary, most notably Virginia where even though it's a blue state they tend to reject the more progressive Democrats. Losing Virginia would drop Bernie over the 270 threshold. He would perform better in Ohio than Hillary did, but enough to turn it blue and win the presidency? Probably not. 
5. A generic Democrat would have done significantly better than Hillary or Bernie. Unlike Hillary a generic Democrat takes Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, unlike Bernie, a generic Democrat takes Virginia, and and unlike Bernie or Hillary, a generic Democrat takes Florida and probably North Carolina as well.

As for being "the most popular politician in the country" thing, do you know who the most popular politician in the country was four years ago? Hillary. So that shows how little that actually means...


----------



## birthday_massacre

Cabanarama said:


> We need to stop this narrative that somehow Bernie was robbed of the presidency. A few things:
> 1. Yes, the Democrats did rig the primaries for Hillary. We've known this. We also need to acknowledge the same time, it didn't make the difference. Hillary still would have beaten Bernie easily. Which makes the Democrats getting involved even dumber. Had the DNC not put their hands on the scale, Hillary still would have won, but the Bernie supporters would not have been as upset and enough would have flipped to her in the general for her to win. So ultimately, the rigging wound up hurting Hillary more than it helped.
> 2. Most of the support from Bernie came from an anti-Hillary standpoint than anything else. If there was another credible opponent to Hillary, Bernie would have been standing with Martin O'Malley on the irrelevant scrap heap of candidates.
> 3. Where the DNC really screwed up was convincing any credible opponents not to run because it was "Hillary's turn". A generic Democrat would have easily won, and Joe Biden would have beaten both Hillary and Bernie easily, and would have creamed Trump in a massive landslide , but he was talked out of running for the sake of "party unity" (that worked out well)
> 4. If Bernie got the nomination, he probably doesn't win the presidency. He does better than Hillary (at least in the electoral college, not the popular vote), but he still likely falls short. Yes, Bernie beats Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, but there are some states where he performs worse than Hillary, most notably Virginia where even though it's a blue state they tend to reject the more progressive Democrats. Losing Virginia would drop Bernie over the 270 threshold. He would perform better in Ohio than Hillary did, but enough to turn it blue and win the presidency? Probably not.
> 5. A generic Democrat would have done significantly better than Hillary or Bernie. Unlike Hillary a generic Democrat takes Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, unlike Bernie, a generic Democrat takes Virginia, and and unlike Bernie or Hillary, a generic Democrat takes Florida and probably North Carolina as well.
> 
> As for being "the most popular politician in the country" thing, do you know who the most popular politician in the country was four years ago? Hillary. So that shows how little that actually means...


Bernie was 19 points ahead of Trump on election day, and Bernie would not have lost the swing states that Hillary did that cost her the election and no he would not have lost states like Virgina not to Trump.

Bernie would have destroyed Trump. And no a generic Democrat would not have beaten Trump. Trump would have crushed Biden.

Trump pretended he was a populist Bernie is a real populist, that is what America wanted.

Bernie would have embarrassed Trump in the debates and exposed him unlike Hillary.

Don't forget some Bernie supporters votes went to Jill Stein, didn't vote or voted for Trump out of spite.

If Bernie was the nominee, that would not have happened.

Even Trumps own pollster admits Bernie would have won

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...would-have-defeated-trump-in-the-presidential

here is one more article right after the election showing Bernie would have won

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...6/11/09/bernie-sanders-donald-trump/93530352/


----------



## virus21




----------



## Arya Dark




----------



## 2 Ton 21

Trump went to Hawaii.










:kobelol


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> Trump went to Hawaii.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :kobelol


have to admit that I'm not orange impeach sign is pretty clever.


----------



## Cabanarama

birthday_massacre said:


> Bernie was 19 points ahead of Trump on election day, and Bernie would not have lost the swing states that Hillary did that cost her the election and no he would not have lost states like Virgina not to Trump.
> 
> Bernie would have destroyed Trump. And no a generic Democrat would not have beaten Trump. Trump would have crushed Biden.
> 
> Trump pretended he was a populist Bernie is a real populist, that is what America wanted.
> 
> Bernie would have embarrassed Trump in the debates and exposed him unlike Hillary.
> 
> Don't forget some Bernie supporters votes went to Jill Stein, didn't vote or voted for Trump out of spite.
> 
> If Bernie was the nominee, that would not have happened.
> 
> Even Trumps own pollster admits Bernie would have won
> 
> http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...would-have-defeated-trump-in-the-presidential
> 
> here is one more article right after the election showing Bernie would have won
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...6/11/09/bernie-sanders-donald-trump/93530352/


You don't think things would have been different had Bernie endured months and months of smear campaigns, his name being dragged through the mud, and skeletons being pulled from his closet? You don't think that if Bernie actually posed a real threat to win the nomination, that he would have been smeared recklessly by Hillary, and in the general what the Trump team would have done? If he didn't have skeletons in his closet, they would have manufactured skeletons and destroyed his reputation. 

You do have to go state by state. 
Bernie appealed to a certain region of voters. He appealed to rust belt voters and would have won them over easily. But if you consider how vastly unpopular she was in that region, and how she lost those three states by such a tiny margin, any other Democrat probably would have won. The only other states where Bernie would have done substantially better than Hillary are certain deep red states where he still would have lost so it wouldn't have mattered.

On the other hand, there are some states that would have rejected someone as progressive as Bernie. Bernie would not have done performed better than Hillary outside of the rust belt or certain deep red states. Virginia has become a pretty firm blue state, but they favor the more middle of the road Democrats and reject the more progressive types, and Bernie would have had a lot of trouble there, as he would in most non rust-belt swing states.

Joe Biden is very popular in that region and knows how to connect with the rust-belt kinda voters, and would have cleaned up the region, not only taking Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, but Ohio and Iowa as well. At the same time, he doesn't have the problems Bernie would have had winning over voters in Virginia or the swing states. With Biden or a generic Democrat, they take Florida and probably North Carolina, with a strong chance of Arizona and Georgia as well.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Bernie was 19 points ahead of Trump on election day, and Bernie would not have lost the swing states that Hillary did that cost her the election and no he would not have lost states like Virgina not to Trump.
> 
> Bernie would have destroyed Trump. And no a generic Democrat would not have beaten Trump. Trump would have crushed Biden.
> 
> Trump pretended he was a populist Bernie is a real populist, that is what America wanted.
> 
> Bernie would have embarrassed Trump in the debates and exposed him unlike Hillary.
> 
> Don't forget some Bernie supporters votes went to Jill Stein, didn't vote or voted for Trump out of spite.
> 
> If Bernie was the nominee, that would not have happened.
> 
> Even Trumps own pollster admits Bernie would have won
> 
> http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...would-have-defeated-trump-in-the-presidential
> 
> here is one more article right after the election showing Bernie would have won
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...6/11/09/bernie-sanders-donald-trump/93530352/


It's easy to be 19-points up when you don't have to take part in head-to-head debates, which helped Trump, against Hillary, immensely.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> It's easy to be 19-points up when you don't have to take part in head-to-head debates, which helped Trump, against Hillary, immensely.


Like I said, Trump had nothing on Sanders, no ammo what so ever. Bernie would have embarrassed Trump in the debates, exposing Trump how clueless he is on the issues. Hillary was super corrupt thus why it was easy for Trump to point that out. What exactly would Trump say about Bernie, ooh he is a socialist. To which Bernie would go into what that means like he always did and would show how he would help real Americans and not just he rich.

Not to mention Bernie even challenged Trump to a debate and Trump pussied out and said no because he knew Sanders would exoise him.




Cabanarama said:


> You don't think things would have been different had Bernie endured months and months of smear campaigns, his name being dragged through the mud, and skeletons being pulled from his closet? You don't think that if Bernie actually posed a real threat to win the nomination, that he would have been smeared recklessly by Hillary, and in the general what the Trump team would have done? If he didn't have skeletons in his closet, they would have manufactured skeletons and destroyed his reputation.
> 
> You do have to go state by state.
> Bernie appealed to a certain region of voters. He appealed to rust belt voters and would have won them over easily. But if you consider how vastly unpopular she was in that region, and how she lost those three states by such a tiny margin, any other Democrat probably would have won. The only other states where Bernie would have done substantially better than Hillary are certain deep red states where he still would have lost so it wouldn't have mattered.
> 
> On the other hand, there are some states that would have rejected someone as progressive as Bernie. Bernie would not have done performed better than Hillary outside of the rust belt or certain deep red states. Virginia has become a pretty firm blue state, but they favor the more middle of the road Democrats and reject the more progressive types, and Bernie would have had a lot of trouble there, as he would in most non rust-belt swing states.
> 
> Joe Biden is very popular in that region and knows how to connect with the rust-belt kinda voters, and would have cleaned up the region, not only taking Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, but Ohio and Iowa as well. At the same time, he doesn't have the problems Bernie would have had winning over voters in Virginia or the swing states. With Biden or a generic Democrat, they take Florida and probably North Carolina, with a strong chance of Arizona and Georgia as well.


What could Trump exactly smear Bernie on? Bernie would embarrass Trumps by sticking to the facts and not get into a pissing match like Hillary fell into.
Bernie would have keep telling more and more people what he would do for them unlike Hillary who just made it about her being the first women president and her in with her BS and why they should not vote for Trump. That was her downfall

Trump would have had nothing on Bernie. You don't think Bernie was smeared by Hillary and the press? And the only way they could beat him was by rigging the primary against him. As for making up allegations to smear him, the American people would know Trump was lying. Trumps stupid little names he calls people Bernie would have no sold them and stuck to the facts and tore Trump apart on the facts by asking him questions during the debate that Trump would not even be able to answer. Bernie would have forced Trump to show he was clueless something Hillary was not smart enough to do.


Bernie would have gone to all the states Hillary lost that she thought she had locked in and even more to get his platform out there. He would have exposed Trump for not really being what he claimed to hvae stood for and shown why he is really for those things. No states would not have rejected Bernie for being too progressive. Sure maybe some of the deep red states but dems never win those. Bernie would have won all the democratic states and the swing states which would have easily given him the election

As the year went on the more popular Bernie Sanders got as his message got out there, the same would have held true for the general election, especially with the debates. Dont forget the DNC also buried the democratic debates so less people would watch because they did not want Bernie getting his message out there.

Sanders would have crushed Trump, all the polls and evidence shows that, even Trumps own pollster admits it.

Trump would not have stood a chance. Not to mention Trumps approval rating at the time of the election was 37% vs Bernies around 54%. 

And dude Biden is a joke, Trump would have destroyed him. Again the US wanted a populist, that is why Trump won because he was pretending to be populist. 

You cant honestly think Biden would have done better than Trump, come on now.



If Bernie runs in 2020 and if Trump is still president, which I doubt, Bernie will landslide Trump

this has been done to death, its my last post on this topic.

If people don't want to believe all the evidence that Bernie would have won, and even the word of the Trump Pollster then ok. But that won't change what would have happened.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Like I said, Trump had nothing on Sanders, no ammo what so ever. Bernie would have embarrassed Trump in the debates, exposing Trump how clueless he is on the issues.


I'm not interested in debating your fantasy scenario, so let's just jump to the end where you call me a racist and I laugh at you.


----------



## virus21




----------



## virus21




----------



## DOPA

birthday_massacre said:


> Come on stop lying dude, everyone (Trump supporters) was saying I was lying about the DNC rigging it against Bernie, you are better than lying even though I kept posting all the evidence. If you want to claim the ones doing tha were just the troll Trump supporters, they will still Trump supporters and there are a lot of (well were a lot) of those on here before most got banned during and after the primaries.
> 
> Its just funny how people are now admitting was I was right and like they believed it back then too. Maybe you did but most Trump supporters did not.


Just stop already. I have no reason to lie because I'm not even a Trump supporter, stop claiming things when you have nothing to back up the accusation.


----------



## sesel

So the Trump Russia thing is still at discussion? I remeber a guy from CNN saying that they had no proof at all and they were just airing this news for money.....


----------



## birthday_massacre

sesel said:


> So the Trump Russia thing is still at discussion? I remeber a guy from CNN saying that they had no proof at all and they were just airing this news for money.....


If you want a real discussion about the Russia investigation go into that thread.

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anyth...obstruction-justice-investigation-thread.html


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

sesel said:


> So the Trump Russia thing is still at discussion? I remeber a guy from CNN saying that they had no proof at all and they were just airing this news for money.....


It's a good diversion from the DNC rigging shit for Hillary and the now implosion that they are dealing with.


----------



## Cabanarama

ShowStopper said:


> It's a good diversion from the DNC rigging shit for Hillary and the now implosion that they are dealing with.


No, it's the other way around. Anything involving Hillary is nothing but a diversion from Trump supporters when they have no defense for him. She's irrelevant at this point.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Cabanarama said:


> No, it's the other way around. Anything involving Hillary is nothing but a diversion from Trump supporters when they have no defense for him. She's irrelevant at this point.


Nah, she's not irrelevant anymore. That's some pretty crazy news.


----------



## Draykorinee

ShowStopper said:


> Cabanarama said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's the other way around. Anything involving Hillary is nothing but a diversion from Trump supporters when they have no defense for him. She's irrelevant at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, she's not irrelevant anymore. That's some pretty crazy news.
Click to expand...

She's only relevant as a distraction.


----------



## CamillePunk

Reading excerpts from Donna Brazile's book is hilarious and insightful.

The Democratic Party was wildly in debt and all kinds of sketchy financial shit was going down. But these people wanted to be in charge of the nation's economy. :banderas

Meanwhile Brazile was haunted by the death of Seth Rich and scared for her life, even installing cameras in her own home and closing the blinds in her office. :woah Pretty weird response to a supposed botched robbery.

Oh yeah and Hillary's health was a major concern for the DNC so all the talk about that just being right-wing conspiracy talk is proven to be nonsense. :lol



birthday_massacre said:


> Come on stop lying dude, everyone (Trump supporters) was saying I was lying about the DNC rigging it against Bernie, you are better than lying even though I kept posting all the evidence. If you want to claim the ones doing tha were just the troll Trump supporters, they will still Trump supporters and there are a lot of (well were a lot) of those on here before most got banned during and after the primaries.
> 
> Its just funny how people are now admitting was I was right and like they believed it back then too. Maybe you did but most Trump supporters did not.


:lmao What the fuck I repeatedly said the DNC rigged it against Bernie and even used that at one point to convince you to support Trump or at least not vote for Hillary. Why do you make stuff up?

Also Trump himself TO THIS DAY continues to say it was rigged against Bernie so why would Trump supporters say that it was a lie? :lol


----------



## virus21




----------



## DOPA

Senator Rand Paul was attacked outside his home in Kentucky recently, so that makes two attacks against Republicans/Conservatives since Trump became president, and this time against one of the only good ones. The FBI believe this was a politically motivated attack and a neighbour apparently has stated the attacker and Rand had some sort of ongoing feud....of course it could be over nothing political at all but it of course does not justify the attack.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/rand-paul-assault-boucher_us_59fe441de4b0c9652fffbbe1



> A neighbor was arrested after Republican Sen. Rand Paul was attacked at his home in Bowling Green, Kentucky, on Friday afternoon, according to a police report.
> 
> Officials initially said that Paul suffered minor injuries to his face and a rib, but an aide told the Washington Post on Sunday evening that *the senator suffered five broken ribs and bruises to his lungs.*
> 
> Rene Albert Boucher, 59, has been charged with fourth-degree assault with a minor injury, a misdemeanor, according to arrest records. He was being held Saturday afternoon at the Warren County Regional Jail in lieu of a $5,000 bond. No details were released by police on what precipitated the attack.
> 
> The FBI is “involved making sure it wasn’t politically motivated,” a police spokesman told WBKO-TV.
> 
> “We are working with our state and local partners to determine if there was a violation of federal law,” FBI spokesman David Habich told USA Today.
> 
> It’s not known when Paul will be back on the job. “This type of injury is caused by high-velocity severe force,” Paul’s chief of staff Doug Stafford told The Washington Post. “It is not clear exactly how soon he will return to work, as the pain is considerable as is the difficulty in getting around, including flying.”
> 
> Fox News reported that Boucher allegedly attacked the senator and one-time presidential candidate as Paul, 54, was mowing his lawn.
> 
> A neighbor told WAVE3-TV that the two men had an ongoing feud. Boucher is a registered Democrat.
> 
> According to the arrest warrant obtained by WKBO and the Bowling Green Daily News, Paul told police that his neighbor walked onto his property and tackled him from behind, forcing him to the ground. Police were called to the home shortly before 3:30 p.m. Friday.
> 
> The senator’s injury did not require treatment at a hospital. The arrest warrant said that Boucher admitted to tackling Paul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Senator Paul was blindsided and the victim of an assault,” his spokeswoman Kelsey Cooper said in a statement. “The assailant was arrested and it is now a matter for the police. Senator Paul is fine.”
> 
> The Bowling Green Daily News reported that Boucher is a local anesthesiologist and pain specialist who developed a cloth vest product designed to relieve back pain.
> 
> State Police Master Trooper Jeremy Hodges told The Associated Press that he couldn’t reveal any other details of the assault because of security issues.
> 
> The investigation is ongoing.



And here is what I think is a local source (correct me if I'm wrong), confirming that the FBI believe this was a politically motivated attack:

http://www.wnky.com/story/36764458/senator-paul-assaulted-at-home-in-bowling-green



> Bowling Green, KY -
> Senator Rand Paul is recovering after a man assaulted the Senator at his Kentucky home on Friday November 3rd.
> 
> According to Senator Paul's Press office, "Senator Paul was blindsided and the victim of an assault. The assailant was arrested and it is now a matter for the police. Senator Paul is fine.”
> 
> Kentucky State Police say the Senator was not transported to the hospital.
> 
> Police tell WNKY News 59 year old Rene Boucher of Bowling Green was arrested for the assault.
> 
> He's charged with one count of Assault 4th - minor injury. Boucher remains in the Warren County Detention Center.
> 
> *WNKY has learned that Boucher is the Senator’s neighbor. The FBI believe that the attack was politically motivated*.



:hogan.


----------



## Cabanarama

CamillePunk said:


> Reading excerpts from Donna Brazile's book is hilarious and insightful.
> 
> The Democratic Party was wildly in debt and all kinds of sketchy financial shit was going down. But these people wanted to be in charge of the nation's economy. :banderas


I dunno, the economy has always done significantly better with them in charge than the other guys, so... :draper2


----------



## DesolationRow

Donna Brazile saying she was actively afraid of Hillary Clinton, in a manner of speaking, following Seth Rich's fairly odd murder. :sodone :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

L-DOPA said:


> Senator Rand Paul was attacked outside his home in Kentucky recently, so that makes two attacks against Republicans/Conservatives since Trump became president, and this time against one of the only good ones. The FBI believe this was a politically motivated attack and a neighbour apparently has stated the attacker and Rand had some sort of ongoing feud....of course it could be over nothing political at all but it of course does not justify the attack.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/rand-paul-assault-boucher_us_59fe441de4b0c9652fffbbe1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A neighbor was arrested after Republican Sen. Rand Paul was attacked at his home in Bowling Green, Kentucky, on Friday afternoon, according to a police report.
> 
> Officials initially said that Paul suffered minor injuries to his face and a rib, but an aide told the Washington Post on Sunday evening that *the senator suffered five broken ribs and bruises to his lungs.*
> 
> Rene Albert Boucher, 59, has been charged with fourth-degree assault with a minor injury, a misdemeanor, according to arrest records. He was being held Saturday afternoon at the Warren County Regional Jail in lieu of a $5,000 bond. No details were released by police on what precipitated the attack.
> 
> The FBI is &#8220;involved making sure it wasn&#8217;t politically motivated,&#8221; a police spokesman told WBKO-TV.
> 
> &#8220;We are working with our state and local partners to determine if there was a violation of federal law,&#8221; FBI spokesman David Habich told USA Today.
> 
> It&#8217;s not known when Paul will be back on the job. &#8220;This type of injury is caused by high-velocity severe force,&#8221; Paul&#8217;s chief of staff Doug Stafford told The Washington Post. &#8220;It is not clear exactly how soon he will return to work, as the pain is considerable as is the difficulty in getting around, including flying.&#8221;
> 
> Fox News reported that Boucher allegedly attacked the senator and one-time presidential candidate as Paul, 54, was mowing his lawn.
> 
> A neighbor told WAVE3-TV that the two men had an ongoing feud. Boucher is a registered Democrat.
> 
> According to the arrest warrant obtained by WKBO and the Bowling Green Daily News, Paul told police that his neighbor walked onto his property and tackled him from behind, forcing him to the ground. Police were called to the home shortly before 3:30 p.m. Friday.
> 
> The senator&#8217;s injury did not require treatment at a hospital. The arrest warrant said that Boucher admitted to tackling Paul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8220;Senator Paul was blindsided and the victim of an assault,&#8221; his spokeswoman Kelsey Cooper said in a statement. &#8220;The assailant was arrested and it is now a matter for the police. Senator Paul is fine.&#8221;
> 
> The Bowling Green Daily News reported that Boucher is a local anesthesiologist and pain specialist who developed a cloth vest product designed to relieve back pain.
> 
> State Police Master Trooper Jeremy Hodges told The Associated Press that he couldn&#8217;t reveal any other details of the assault because of security issues.
> 
> The investigation is ongoing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is what I think is a local source (correct me if I'm wrong), confirming that the FBI believe this was a politically motivated attack:
> 
> http://www.wnky.com/story/36764458/senator-paul-assaulted-at-home-in-bowling-green
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bowling Green, KY -
> Senator Rand Paul is recovering after a man assaulted the Senator at his Kentucky home on Friday November 3rd.
> 
> According to Senator Paul's Press office, "Senator Paul was blindsided and the victim of an assault. The assailant was arrested and it is now a matter for the police. Senator Paul is fine.&#8221;
> 
> Kentucky State Police say the Senator was not transported to the hospital.
> 
> Police tell WNKY News 59 year old Rene Boucher of Bowling Green was arrested for the assault.
> 
> He's charged with one count of Assault 4th - minor injury. Boucher remains in the Warren County Detention Center.
> 
> *WNKY has learned that Boucher is the Senator&#8217;s neighbor. The FBI believe that the attack was politically motivated*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

This story already has its own thread


----------



## DOPA

draykorinee said:


> This story already has its own thread


Thanks . Thought it would be in here if anywhere else but posted in that thread.


----------



## Banez

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/927514513947156480
When your middle finger causes you to get fired.

:maisielol


----------



## Draykorinee

Banez said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/927514513947156480
> When your middle finger causes you to get fired.


I support this woman's right to flip off the president, no one should lose their jobs over that. But she wants to work for PETA, she's clearly accepting of violent thugs.


----------



## Reaper

You want to flip your boss and not be fired for it? 

She was employed by a government contractor. Making the government her boss's client. You wanna go to your company's client, flip their boss off and not get fired for it? 

:monkey 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/927632624264167424
And that's why CNN does it. 

When DNC voters go to the polls, they don't remember anything except "he dn't feed the fishy right. I HATE HIM"


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

DesolationRow said:


> Donna Brazile saying she was actively afraid of Hillary Clinton, in a manner of speaking, following Seth Rich's fairly odd murder. :sodone :lol


If Hilary Clinton actually has people killed then why didn't we hear about Anthony Weiner having an accident or" commiting suicide" 2-4 years ago


----------



## deepelemblues

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ative-before-and-after-trump-jr-sit-down.html

:mj

It's becoming more and more obvious with each passing day that MUH RUSSIA was collusion between the Side o Beef campaign, pro-Side o Beef organizations like Fusion GPS, and Russians connected to the Russian government to entrap the :trump campaign so as to accuse _it _of collusion with the Russian government. 

Luckily for America the :trump campaign had far more integrity than Side o Beef and her minions (not hard, the Side o Beef machine has no integrity) and did not take a bite of the proffered apple. Unlike Side o Beef's campaign, which colluded directly with Ukrainian government operatives and with, as we know now, through the intermediary of Fusion GPS, Russian citizens connected to the Russian government. I would not be surprised one bit if direct links between the Side o Beef campaign and the Kremlin are discovered in the near future.

Again, any time a Democrat accuses a Republican of something, it is 100% justified to assume that it was actually the Democrat who was engaging in the alleged wrongdoing.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> You want to flip your boss and not be fired for it?
> 
> She was employed by a government contractor. Making the government her boss's client. You wanna go to your company's client, flip their boss off and not get fired for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/927632624264167424
> And that's why CNN does it.
> 
> When DNC voters go to the polls, they don't remember anything except "he dn't feed the fishy right. I HATE HIM"


She was actually fired because she made it get Facebook and Twitter picture so broke social media rules. It wasn't the flipping off the 'boss' so yes, I think in your own time you should be allowed to make political statements. She fucked up by attaching it to her social media.


----------



## Vic Capri

Liberals are celebrating that they won elections in blue states after complaining about koi fish. :lol

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> Liberals are celebrating that they won elections in blue states after complaining about koi fish. :lol
> 
> - Vic


You think that is funny, Trump admitted he was surprised how many countries there were in the world 

How much dumber can Trump be?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> You think that is funny, Trump admitted he was surprised how many countries there were in the world
> 
> How much dumber can Trump be?


I know at least one person that's dumber than he is.

:Tripslick


----------



## Goku

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I know at least one person that's dumber than he is.
> 
> :Tripslick


online friends don't count!


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Banez said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/927514513947156480
> When your middle finger causes you to get fired.
> 
> :maisielol












:trump3


----------



## Goku

one year ago :banderas

:move


----------



## virus21




----------



## The Absolute

One year ago, fam.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

birthday_massacre said:


> You think that is funny, Trump admitted he was surprised how many countries there were in the world
> 
> How much dumber can Trump be?


We were saying that over a year ago and he keeps finding news way to answer that question so give him time and I'm sure he'll say something even dumber.


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> Liberals are celebrating that they won elections in blue states after complaining about koi fish. :lol
> 
> - Vic


Somebody's really mad about Gillespie losing.


----------



## CamillePunk

One year since Trump's landslide election victory.  Please celebrate responsibly everyone. Unless you're anti-Trump in which case I guess enjoy yelling helplessly at the sky. I'm sure that'll be fun too.


----------



## Draykorinee

So on a rating of A*-F what would rate the first year of Donald Trump on:

Economy
Global standing
Crime
Making America great again
Memes

?


----------



## MrMister

I'm now looking forward to the anniversary of the immense enormous crowd at his inauguration. :banderas


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> I'm now looking forward to the anniversary of the immense enormous crowd at his inauguration. :banderas


yeah the crowd and his EC win were as "enormous " as Trumps hands


----------



## MrMister

Pretty sure it's the largest crowd ever though.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> Pretty sure it's the largest crowd ever though.


LOL It was not even close

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...had-biggest-inaugural-crowd-ever-metrics-don/

Ill assume u are being sarcastic


----------



## Draykorinee

I'm pretty sure he is being saracastic BM lol, even Sean Spicer backed down from his 'biggest inauguration ever'.


----------



## birthday_massacre

draykorinee said:


> I'm pretty sure he is being saracastic BM lol, even Sean Spicer backed down from his 'biggest inauguration ever'.


You never know with some Trump supporters, because Trump still believes he won by a landslide and a lot of his supporters believe anything he says.


----------



## virus21

> Washington (CNN) — Favorable views of the Democratic Party have dropped to their lowest mark in more than a quarter century of polling, according to new numbers from a CNN poll conducted by SSRS.
> Only 37% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Democrats, down from 44% in March of this year. A majority, 54%, have an unfavorable view, matching their highest mark in polls from CNN and SSRS, CNN/ORC and CNN/USA Today/Gallup stretching back to 1992.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUBSCRIBE
> 00:00 / 00:00 more CNN podcasts
> The rating includes low favorable ratings from some core Democratic groups, including nonwhites (48%) and people under 35 years old (33%). The numbers come amid recent feuds and divisions in the Democratic Party, as former interim chair Donna Brazile's new book has unveiled new questions about infighting during the 2016 presidential campaign.
> But the Republican Party isn't doing any better, with just 30% of Americans holding a favorable view. That's essentially the same as September, when the rating hit its lowest point in polling back to 1992, but down from 42% in March. A broad 6 in 10, 61%, have an unfavorable opinion.
> Read the full poll results
> Brazile: I found no evidence Democratic primary was rigged
> Related Article: Brazile: I found no evidence Democratic primary was rigged
> This means both parties sit at or near rock bottom as voters go to the polls across the country on Tuesday, most prominently in governor's races in Virginia and New Jersey, as well as dozens of local and mayoral races nationwide.
> A substantial 33% of liberals and 41% of conservatives have unfavorable views of the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. Plus, 4 in 10 independents, 42%, say they have an unfavorable view of both parties vs. only 8% who say they have a favorable view of both.
> Indeed, a bare majority of Americans, 51%, say it's bad for the country that the Republican Party is in control of Congress. Only 38% say GOP control is good for the nation. That's worse than at any point in CNN's polling on the Democratic majority in Congress between 2007 and 2010.
> A look ahead to 2018
> But at least for now, all of those negatives for the GOP appear to outweigh the Democrats' decline in popularity when it comes to the ballot box, with Democrats continuing to hold a lead on a generic congressional ballot. Democrats top Republicans on that question by a wide 12 percentage points, 50% to 38%. That's similar to a 14-point gap between the two parties last month.
> Republicans and Democrats remain almost unanimously united behind their own candidates in 2018, but Democrats hold a crucial 10-point lead among independents.
> There are more warning signs for Democrats in this poll. Overall, 36% of registered voters who identify as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting next year, down from 44% who said so in September. That puts Democratic enthusiasm on par with that of Republicans, which stands at 37%.
> And there are signs in the poll that more of next year's vote may be driven by dislike of a party than affection for one.
> Sweeping majorities of voters have unfavorable views of the party they won't support in 2018: 87% of people who say they'd back a Democrat have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party, and 89% of those who say they'll back the Republican have a negative view of the Democrats.
> Still, a sizable number view the party they do plan to vote for unfavorably: A third of voters on both sides, 32%, say they have an unfavorable view of the party whose candidate they say they'll support in 2018.
> Former DNC chair torches Clinton in new book
> Related Article: Former DNC chair torches Clinton in new book
> Trump's record unpopularity, now down to just 36% approval, also bleeds into the midterm elections: Roughly the same number, 35%, say they'd be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports Trump over one who opposes the president, down from 41% in April.
> Americans say their own member of Congress deserves re-election in November, 46% to 39%, with a sizable 15% unsure. But two-thirds, 65%, say most members of Congress don't deserve re-election. Even among Republicans, who control both chambers of Congress, 51% say most members aren't worthy of another term.
> The future of GOP tax reform
> On the Republican tax reform plan, only 31% of Americans say they support the GOP tax reform proposals in Congress. Less than half, 45%, say they oppose the plans, down from 52% last month, when the question wording included Donald Trump's name. A quarter have no opinion on GOP tax reform plans.
> Support for the tax plan overall is largely split down party lines: 64% of Republicans, 31% of independents and 8% of Democrats say they support the plan.
> Only 21% say they will be better off under the GOP tax plan vs. 32% who say they will be worse off, similar to the divide in October before details of the plan were released. And by a two-to-one margin, Americans say it would increase the deficit instead of shrinking it, 40% to 18%.
> Republican leaders in Congress have said they hope to pass sweeping tax reform legislation by the end of December, adding at least one major legislative accomplishment in their first year.
> 
> Poll: Americans concerned about Russia probe
> 
> Related Video: Poll: Americans concerned about Russia probe 02:05
> Majorities of Americans oppose some core tenets of the GOP tax plan: 52% say they oppose lowering the corporate tax rate, 56% say they oppose repealing the estate tax and 52% oppose eliminating deductions for state and local income and sales taxes.
> Still, majorities back some parts: a broad, bipartisan 79% say they support increasing the child tax credit and 55% say they favor increasing the standard deduction. About half of Americans, 49%, say they favor limiting the home interest deduction to only $500,000 worth of mortgage debt.
> The CNN poll was conducted by SSRS by telephone Nov. 2 to Nov. 5 among a random national sample of 1,021 adults. The margin of sampling error for results among the full sample is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points; it is larger for subgroups.


http://archive.is/dNAP8#selection-1127.0-1702.0


----------



## birthday_massacre

That 37% matches Trumps approval rating. And yes everyone especially people in the democratic party are not happy with establishment Democrats.

This is nothing new. This is why the justice democrats were formed to fix this issue. Because the establishment democrats are basically republican lites


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> So on a rating of A*-F what would rate the first year of Donald Trump on:
> 
> Economy
> Global standing
> Crime
> Making America great again
> Memes
> 
> ?


Economy - A+
Global Standing - A+ 
Crime - not really the president's job, go talk to the liberal mayors of our major crime centers
Making America Great Again - B-
Memes- A++++++++++++++++++++++


----------



## The Hardcore Show

The DOJ is not allowing AT&T to buy Time Warner until they sell CNN.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> Economy - A+
> Global Standing - A+
> Crime - not really the president's job, go talk to the liberal mayors of our major crime centers
> Making America Great Again - B-
> Memes- A++++++++++++++++++++++


:lmao that meme is amazing.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

@L-DOPA :


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/928358296267960326
:deandre


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> So on a rating of A*-F what would rate the first year of Donald Trump on:
> 
> Economy
> Global standing
> Crime
> Making America great again
> Memes
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> Economy - A+
> Global Standing - A+
> Crime - not really the president's job, go talk to the liberal mayors of our major crime centers
> Making America Great Again - B-
> Memes- A++++++++++++++++++++++
Click to expand...

The memes have been the best, never has a president been so blessed. It almost makes up for his failures.

The crime thing is nonsense of course, Trump can influence crime in many ways. This is from Trump himself.



> "the crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon come to an end. Beginning on January 20th, 2017, safety will be restored


So, is Trump lying or are you?


----------



## birthday_massacre

The republican who wrote that anti-trans bill lost to a trans woman


https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/...em-marshall-race-13th-district-455855633.html

*Danica Roem Elected Virginia's First Transgender State Legislator*

Danica Roem, a 33-year-old journalist turned public works advocate, has won Virginia’s 13th District House of Delegates seat, becoming the first openly transgender person elected and seated to a state legislature in the United States. 
Roem beat out the district’s 26-year incumbent, conservative values and government transparency champion Bob Marshall.
The race attracted national attention as Marshall, 73, a conservative who proposed a bill restricting which bathrooms transgender people could use, faced off against the transgender stepmother who plays in a metal band.
The district also found itself in the spotlight as one of a few Republican-governed areas that voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race.

oem, speaking to MSNBC by phone following her victory, said that her campaign was based on a platform of "building up our infrastructure instead of tearing down each other."
She said she didn't want to "pile on" after a hard night for Marshall and his supporters. But she said it was important to note that discrimination "is a disqualifier."
THE CAMPAIGN
Roem ran on a platform focused on infrastructure projects to create jobs and fix Virginia's clogged Route 28, along with raising teacher pay.


Marshall put government issues at the center of his campaign, promoting government transparency, small businesses and school choice for parents.
Roem spent more time in the spotlight than her opponent. Marshall refused to debate Roem and often declined interviews. 
In an NPR interview in September, Marshall said the election was about America's national character and Roem was going against nature.

Danica clearly is out here doing this for making a marker in the national character that you can engage in this behavior -- which clearly goes against the laws of nature and nature's God -- and hold public office to make decisions on behalf of the common good," Marshall said. "That is what is kind of at stake here."
He refused to speak with News4's Julie Carey about flyers his campaign sent out last month. Those flyers referred to Roem as "him."
"When Delegate Marshall realized that he cannot win on public policy issues, on traffic, jobs, schools and health care, he resorted to trash," Roem responded.

Roem told News4 that when she was knocking on Virginians' doors, voters didn't ask about her gender. But across the country, a number of groups and individuals took interest in the race because of Roem's background.
After President Donald Trump announced on Twitter his intention to ban transgender people from the military, Roem received $52,000 in donations in one day, News4 reported.
The outside money came throughout the campaign, though. Roem was supported by Victory Fund, a national group that aims to elect LGBTQ leaders. Some of her largest campaign donations, according to Virginia Department of Elections filings, were from individuals in New York and Chris Abele, a county executive from Milwaukee, Wisconsin who donated $40,000.

During the final fundraising period of the race, Roem brought in more than $300,000, significantly more than Marshall’s roughly $165,000. Few of Marshall’s donations came from outside Virginia.
Roem becomes not only her state's first transgender legislator but also the only out trans state legislator in the country, according to the Victory Fund. 
In 2012, Democrat Stacie Laughton became the first openly transgender candidate elected to a state legislature. But she was never seated in the New Hampshire House after revelations that she had failed to disclose a felony conviction, The New York Times reported. Another lawmaker, Althea Garrison, came out as transgender while serving in the Massachusetts House but lost subsequent races.


THE CANDIDATES
Both Roem and Marshall have a long history in Virginia’s 13th District, which encompasses parts of Prince William County and Manassas City.
Roem was born in Manassas and attended Catholic school in northern Virginia until she moved away for college. After college, she returned to Virginia and worked for the Gainesville Times, a local newspaper. She later worked for the Prince William Times and the Montgomery County Sentinel.
In 2013, Roem began her transition to life as a woman. She changed her name and started hormone replacement therapy.

It was great. I could just keep doing my job,” Roem said on her website.
Marshall was born in Takoma Park, Maryland, and moved to Prince William County with his family in 1980, according to his website. He was elected to the House of Delegates in 1991 and has served in the legislature since.
In office, he fought to preserve privacy and help small businesses, supporting a measure that prohibited police from searching phones without a warrant. He also wrote a bill cutting the burden of paperwork on Virginia businesses.

e has championed conservative causes. Marshall sponsored Virginia’s own failed “bathroom bill,” which would have effectively banned transgender people from using opposite-sex bathrooms in government buildings and schools. He tried to block Virginia from adding sex and gender discrimination to anti-discrimination rules.
"Starting next year Delegate Marshall will be one of my constituents and I'm not going to attack my own constituents," Roem said Tuesday night on MSNBC. "I think if there's any lesson that came out of the race this year it's that attacking your constituents, singling them out, stigmatizing them and trying to make people feel bad about themselves — that's not our Virginia."
Abby Vesoulis contributed to this report.


----------



## DOPA

draykorinee said:


> So on a rating of A*-F what would rate the first year of Donald Trump on:
> 
> Economy
> Global standing
> Crime
> Making America great again
> Memes
> 
> ?


Heck why not, I'll give it a shot, though I'm sure I'll be missing key statistics and what not in order to inform a much better opinion, working off memory:

*Economy: B-*

Between that and C+ but I'll be kind to Trump on this one because the last few presidents haven't been exactly great on the economy. Jobs and growth on the whole are still growing at a reasonable rate during most months as far as I recall, he hasn't done anything disastrous to really damage things. People will argue and debate on whether or not it's following on from Obama's policies but you have to keep in mind that this is from the type of people who will rightly state for example Reagan exploded the deficit in his first year from the Carter years yet will attribute blame to Bush for Obama's first year tripling the deficit from Bush back in 2008 and subsequently having a trillion dollars worth of debt every year of his first term, which is rather dishonest to be honest. So I don't put much stock into those people.

Trump supporters will point to the record stock market boom as an indication of the economy doing well but this is really only an indicator of big business and not the economy as a whole. One really can't point to the stock market as a reasonable measure for economic success without other key information to show that the economy is booming as a whole and whilst the economy isn't doing bad it certainly isn't in a boom period. Not only that but I see the stock market boom as a huge negative, as it has been artificially driven up by the practice of stock buybacks, private companies buying up stocks from the Federal Reserve at well below the market level in order to boost up the value of the stocks as a whole. It's based on faulty crony capitalism due to the policies of the Federal Reserve and cannot last forever. If the oncoming economic crash in the states ends up being from the stock market then it is entirely on the shoulders of Trump.

The debt and the deficits continue to rise but that is not unlike the last two presidents, so I won't assign special blame to Trump but he doesn't get a pass either. And we are still waiting on tax reform. Can't say it's been utterly disastrous though.

*Global Standing: D*

Let's be honest, he hasn't gotten many political friends aside from the Polish and a few other countries :lol. I've not been happy with a lot of his foreign policy, he's been way to cozy towards the Saudi's, sold a bunch more weapons which is contributing to the genocide in Yemen. Bulked up troops in Afghanistan which is just going to escalate the conflict and produce more of the same, and I've not been too thrilled with the tensions around North Korea, though with that one at least we can say Kim Jong Un has done his fair share of provocation and therefore warranted at least some sort of response. The threat of war in the region though.....

One area I can at least say he's handled much better for the most part is Syria. The arming of "the moderate rebels" has stopped which is a huge plus, ISIS is being defeated and ousted in both Syria and Iraq since Trump became president. Not all of that can be attributed to Trump but it's still a big success.

The fact I can say something positive about Trump's foreign policy already even though there has been a tonne of negative makes him better than both Bush and Obama in this area, yes even with only a year into his presidency.

*Crime: N/A*

Honestly I can't answer this question because it varies from state to state and it's hard to measure how much Trump has to do with the crime rate. You can't attribute Trump for example to the mass shootings because it has happened under various presidents. Same with the Antifa violence and the clashes between them and the white nationalists. Even trying to attribute that to Trump presents problems because identity politics has been a problem way before Trump, Antifa for example were causing problems before Trump became president and the white nationalist protests and attacks have very much been a reaction to a degree to the identity politics of the far left. This is very much a cultural clash and problem which Trump has minimal to do with. He could have handled it better initially though.

*Making America great again: C*

Eh, despite the sensationalism, a lot of it has been business as usual. The only thing that's been different is essentially both the media's reporting and reaction to Trump, which has been the most hostile I've ever seen in my lifetime and of course the endless investigation into possible ties to Russia. But a lot of it has been business as usual, people are painting out for example courts knocking back proposals and executive orders as revolutionary when this has happened under every president. It seems like every proposal from Trump has accompanied with it a heightened response which has been blown way out of proportion with incomplete information.

I will say for the most part, Trump has tried to keep to his agenda and what he promised, which regardless of what you think of his proposals is rare for a politician. So I give him credit for trying to stick to his guns, though recently with pressure on him to get results and something to credit his name to, he has started to go away from it a bit. Particularly with hints at amnesty, which is not going to sit well his supporters (and I disagree with it too for my own reasons).

The biggest failure of his MAGA agenda is very simple: Obamacare. He did not take enough decisive action or try to push hard enough in my opinion behind the scenes to get a full repeal and replace. Instead, he's had to rely on executive orders essentially based off of proposals that Rand Paul has championed for years in order to get some semblance of change. Obamacare though, still remains in place and will continue to get worse unless the main problems are addressed.

There's been a notable lack of achievements on Trump's end which is a problem but other than the handling of Obamacare, I wouldn't say Trump's first year has been a disaster.

*Memes: A+*

Honestly in many ways, this has been the most entertaining presidency I've ever seen. The meme's and the trolling has been glorious. I will maintain that the CNN gif of them getting beaten down by Trump is one of the greatest things I've ever seen. It legitimately had me laughing so hard.

The best thing about Trump's presidency in all honesty has been the bat shit insane response and outcry from the left. The meltdowns have been glorious to watch and it's been both entertaining and cringe worthy to see the over the top response from some of his detractors. You'd think Hitler had been reincarnated or that the US was some totalitarian dictatorship with the way some of the reactions have been.

It's exposed a lot of the regressive left/SJW types and exposed them to the mainstream and the general public with how ridiculous they are which can only be a good thing. The college campus protests particularly at Berkeley have been great examples.

The negative knockback with all of this though is because of MSM like CNN and MSNBC's ridiculous reports on Trump, criticizing him either for the most stupid of things or on issues where they simply don't present all of the relevant facts of either what Trump is trying to do or what his proposals would actually do, we essentially have issues where there is legitimate wrong doing or the wrong policy that Trump is implementing (the biggest coming to mind are the Saudi arms deal, the escalation in Afghanistan and using the hurricane in Texas to deliberately halt spending reform by playing politics) aren't covered and given the necessary exposure. Essentially a lot of Trump's actual wrongdoings in my opinion aren't getting the newsworthy traction they deserve because of the MSM constantly attacking him for the stupidest of reasons.

But yeah, the meme's are dank :trump.









Lumpy McRighteous said:


> @L-DOPA :
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/928358296267960326
> :deandre


Damn, that sucks so much :hogan.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Just a little reminder before this anniversary is over:










:trump2


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Goku said:


> online friends don't count!


This person isn't a friend. :wink2:


----------



## Cabanarama

birthday_massacre said:


> You think that is funny, Trump admitted he was surprised how many countries there were in the world
> 
> How much dumber can Trump be?


The only people dumber than Trump are those that support him...


----------



## yeahbaby!

I think my favourite moment of Year One of Trump is the 'Lord Giveth and Lord Taketh Away' emergence and subsequent disappearance of this human goombah caricature:



















Ah, the lack of memories.


----------



## Cabanarama

yeahbaby! said:


> I think my favourite moment of Year One of Trump is the 'Lord Giveth and Lord Taketh Away' emergence and subsequent disappearance of this human goombah caricature:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the lack of memories.


And he had to come around at a time when a number of the talk show comedians (as well as SNL) were on vacation... so much potential for good material we never got to see.


----------



## Draykorinee

L-DOPA said:


> *Crime: N/A*
> 
> Honestly I can't answer this question because it varies from state to state and it's hard to measure how much Trump has to do with the crime rate. You can't attribute Trump for example to the mass shootings because it has happened under various presidents. Same with the Antifa violence and the clashes between them and the white nationalists. Even trying to attribute that to Trump presents problems because identity politics has been a problem way before Trump, Antifa for example were causing problems before Trump became president and the white nationalist protests and attacks have very much been a reaction to a degree to the identity politics of the far left. This is very much a cultural clash and problem which Trump has minimal to do with. He could have handled it better initially though.


I agree with what you wrote, even this. I think its unfair to attribute changes after a year when it comes to crime. The problem was he did campaign on a promise of making America safer, so at some point he has to do that.

The issue of crime is multifaceted which is why troll posts like Camillepunks where he attacks democrats and the most violent cities but neglects to mention 8/10 of the most violent states are Republican. Its an asinine comment and just furthers the idea of Red Vs Blue instead of the bipartisan issue it is and shows that people really don't understand causation V Correlation.


----------



## Vic Capri

One year ago, millions of smug people were humbled.

- Vic


----------



## Art Vandaley

yeahbaby! said:


> I think my favourite moment of Year One of Trump is the 'Lord Giveth and Lord Taketh Away' emergence and subsequent disappearance of this human goombah caricature:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the lack of memories.


Lest we forget


----------



## Yeah1993

draykorinee said:


> So on a rating of A*-F what would rate the first year of Donald Trump on:
> 
> Economy
> Global standing
> Crime
> Making America great again
> Memes
> 
> ?


Anyone giving him below an A+ for memes is kidding themselves. Whether it comes from him or his family or his supporters or his detractors, a new meme-able thing pops out like 3 times a week.


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> One year ago, millions of smug people were humbled.
> 
> - Vic


Just like you and Trump got humbled on Tuesday.


----------



## Cabanarama

Stephen90 said:


> Just like you and Trump got humbled on Tuesday.


It is kinda interesting how quiet this thread is about that beatdown...


----------



## Stephen90

Cabanarama said:


> It is kinda interesting how quiet this thread is about that beatdown...


Yes it is.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Cabanarama said:


> It is kinda interesting how quiet this thread is about that beatdown...


Exactly, all the Trump supporters can do is make troll posts, but whenever Trump and the GOP loses badly its crickets.


----------



## Stephen90

birthday_massacre said:


> Exactly, all the Trump supporters can do is make troll posts, but whenever Trump and the GOP loses badly its crickets.


Yes they wanna brag about winning a year ago but yet don't wanna talk about what happened 2 days ago.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stephen90 said:


> Yes they wanna brag about winning a year ago but yet don't wanna talk about what happened 2 days ago.


But if the GOP won all those races, you know they would all be bragging about it. I am just waiting for them to come in and try to downplay it.


----------



## Stephen90

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...17/11/how_donald_trump_sank_ed_gillespie.html

How Donald Trump Sank Ed Gillespie
Quantifying the Trump effect in Virginia.

By William Saletan
Republican candidate for Virginia governor Ed Gillespie
Republican gubernatorial candidate Ed Gillespie talks with campaign volunteers as he arrives to cast his vote on Tuesday in Alexandria, Virginia.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Barack Obama spent his first year as president reaching out to Americans who hadn’t voted for him. Donald Trump spent his first year attacking and antagonizing everyone outside of his base. The difference showed up starkly in Virginia on Tuesday. Trump destroyed the Republican gubernatorial nominee, Ed Gillespie, by delivering hundreds of thousands votes to the Democrat, Ralph Northam.


ADVERTISING


William Saletan
WILLIAM SALETAN
Will Saletan writes about politics, science, technology, and other stuff for Slate. He’s the author of Bearing Right.

Going into the election, Democrats worried that Trump might bolster turnout for Gillespie, who seemed to be making a late surge as he echoed Trump’s talking points. But in the end, Trump produced many more votes against Gillespie than for him. Gillespie received more votes than Bob McDonnell, the GOP’s victorious 2009 nominee for governor. What buried Gillespie was a 70 percent increase, nearly 600,000 ballots, in votes for the Democratic nominee.*

Advertisement 

That’s a shocking number. Many factors could account for it, but the biggest is Trump.

Media exit polls weren’t conducted in Virginia’s 2001 and 2005 elections, when George W. Bush was president. So the best election we can use for comparison is 2009—when Obama, like Trump, had been in office for nearly a year. Obama had won Virginia the year before, but the voters who came out for the governor’s race were relatively conservative. In the 2009 exit poll, 51 percent of respondents said they had voted for Sen. John McCain for president in 2008; only 43 percent said they had voted for Obama. McDonnell trounced the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Creigh Deeds, 59 percent to 41 percent. But Obama failed to give Republicans anything like the boost Trump has given to Democrats.

In 2009, 31 percent of Virginia voters said they strongly approved of Obama’s performance as president. This year, only 22 percent of Virginia voters said they strongly approved of Trump’s performance. When you take into account how these people voted, the baseline of strong Obama approvers who voted for Deeds was 7 percentage points higher, as a share of the total electorate, than the baseline of strong Trump approvers who voted for Gillespie. So Gillespie, thanks to Trump, started out with a relatively weak base.

Trump also lined up nearly half of the electorate against Gillespie. On Tuesday, 47 percent of Virginia voters said they strongly disapproved of Trump. That’s 12 percentage points higher than the percentage of Virginia voters who said in 2009 that they strongly disapproved of Obama. It translated, almost ballot for ballot, into a wave of strong Trump disapprovers voting for Northam, far in excess of the anti-Obama wave eight years ago.

Advertisement 

In both years, exit pollsters asked voters whether “one reason for your vote for governor” was to express support or opposition for the incumbent president. The number who said they were voting to express support for the president came out the same, at 17 percent. But the level of opposition rose significantly. In 2009, only 24 percent of Virginia voters said they were voting to express opposition to Obama. This year, 34 percent said they were voting to express opposition to Trump.

To appreciate the magnitude of this shift, you have to consider how it affected the overall tally. Given the enormous surge in turnout between 2009 and 2017, Trump actually supplied more votes to Gillespie than Obama supplied to Deeds: slightly more than 400,000, compared to 300,000. So Trump’s benefit to his party, in terms of gross turnout, was about 100,000 votes better than Obama’s.

But this was dwarfed by Trump’s cost. In 2009, roughly 460,000 Virginians voted for McDonnell in part to express opposition to Obama. In 2017, roughly 860,000 voted for Northam in part to express opposition to Trump. That’s a difference of 400,000 ballots.

Subtract Trump’s 400,000-vote boost for Northam from his 100,000-vote boost for Gillespie, and you get a net loss of 300,000 for Republicans. That’s what Trump cost the GOP, above and beyond what Obama cost the Democrats. This 300,000-vote difference exceeded Northam’s margin over Gillespie. It was decisive.


ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads
Want More Politics? Listen to the Political Gabfest.

Join Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz as they discuss and debate the week’s biggest political news.
Advertisement 
The Trump–Obama gap can’t be dismissed as a product of Virginia becoming more liberal. Moderates accounted for the same percentage of ballots in both years—42 percent—but they shifted their votes dramatically. In 2009, they voted for Deeds, the nominee of the president’s party, 53 percent to 47 percent. This year, they went for Northam, the nominee of the opposition party, 64 percent to 33 percent. Moderates cast 340,000 more ballots for Northam than for Gillespie. If Trump’s candidate had done as well with moderates as Obama’s did, the GOP would have won.

Top Comment

I once almost fell on top of Stephen Hawking, and that is the kind of experience that money can't buy. More...

502 CommentsJoin In
The upshot isn’t just that Trump cost his party this election. It’s that he did it by behaving in a particularly incendiary way. Obama, too, hurt his party’s nominee in Virginia. But that degree of damage, commonly suffered by the gubernatorial nominee of the president’s party, wouldn’t have been enough to sink Gillespie. To kill him, Trump had to drive an extra 300,000–500,000 voters to the polls. And he did.

*Correction, Nov. 9, 2017: The article originally mischaracterized the increase in votes for the Democratic nominee between 2009 and 2017 as 700 percent. It was 70 percent. (Return.)

One more thing
Since Donald Trump entered the White House, Slate has stepped up our politics coverage—bringing you news and opinion from writers like Jamelle Bouie and Dahlia Lithwick. We’re covering the administration’s immigration crackdown, the rollback of environmental protections, the efforts of the resistance, and more.

Our work is more urgent than ever and is reaching more readers—but online advertising revenues don’t fully cover our costs, and we don’t have print subscribers to help keep us afloat. So we need your help.

If you think Slate’s work matters, become a Slate Plus member. You’ll get exclusive members-only content and a suite of great benefits—and you’ll help secure Slate’s future.

JOIN SLATE PLUS

POLITICS
WHO'S WINNING, WHO'S LOSING, AND WHY.
NOV. 7 2017 11:26 PM
Democrats Breathe Sigh of Relief After Virginia Victory
A party breaks out after Ralph Northam’s big win.

By Jim Newell
Virginia-Gubernatorial-Candidate-Ralph-Northam-Holds-Election-Night-Gathering-In-Fairfax-Virginia
Virginia Gov.-elect Ralph Northam and Lt. Gov.-elect Justin Fairfax at an election night rally on Tuesday.
Win McNamee/Getty Images

FAIRFAX, Virginia—Ralph Northam’s campaign didn’t rent the largest election night party space. The rec room at the student center on George Mason University’s campus only had enough space to comfortably fit about 100 or 150 supporters. It was a size that spoke of narrowness: narrow win, narrow defeat. With tightening polls in the week before the election, the room at GMU seemed designed, at best, for a sigh-of-relief party.

Jim Newell
JIM NEWELL
Jim Newell is a Slate staff writer.

What Democrats got was a broad victory and a blowout party, after Northam won easily, followed by the party’s lieutenant governor and attorney general candidates. Democrats made vast gains in the state Legislature and could wind up winning the House of Delegates majority, something that no prognosticators saw coming.

CONTINUE READING
FOLLOW SLATE 
Twitter

Facebook

Instagram
SLATE ON IPHONE ANDROID KINDLE REPRINTS ADVERTISE WITH US
ABOUT US
CONTACT US
WORK WITH US
USER AGREEMENT
PRIVACY POLICY
FAQ
FEEDBACK
CORRECTIONS
Slate Group Panoply Slate is published by The Slate Group, a Graham Holdings Company. All contents © 2017 The Slate Group LLC. All rights reserved.
×Support our tireless, fearless, yet somehow fun-to-read coverage of Trump’s America


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stephen90 said:


> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...17/11/how_donald_trump_sank_ed_gillespie.html
> 
> How Donald Trump Sank Ed Gillespie
> Quantifying the Trump effect in Virginia.
> 
> By William Saletan
> Republican candidate for Virginia governor Ed Gillespie
> Republican gubernatorial candidate Ed Gillespie talks with campaign volunteers as he arrives to cast his vote on Tuesday in Alexandria, Virginia.
> Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
> 
> Barack Obama spent his first year as president reaching out to Americans who hadn’t voted for him. Donald Trump spent his first year attacking and antagonizing everyone outside of his base. The difference showed up starkly in Virginia on Tuesday. Trump destroyed the Republican gubernatorial nominee, Ed Gillespie, by delivering hundreds of thousands votes to the Democrat, Ralph Northam.
> 
> 
> ADVERTISING
> 
> 
> William Saletan
> WILLIAM SALETAN
> Will Saletan writes about politics, science, technology, and other stuff for Slate. He’s the author of Bearing Right.
> 
> Going into the election, Democrats worried that Trump might bolster turnout for Gillespie, who seemed to be making a late surge as he echoed Trump’s talking points. But in the end, Trump produced many more votes against Gillespie than for him. Gillespie received more votes than Bob McDonnell, the GOP’s victorious 2009 nominee for governor. What buried Gillespie was a 70 percent increase, nearly 600,000 ballots, in votes for the Democratic nominee.*
> 
> Advertisement
> 
> That’s a shocking number. Many factors could account for it, but the biggest is Trump.
> 
> Media exit polls weren’t conducted in Virginia’s 2001 and 2005 elections, when George W. Bush was president. So the best election we can use for comparison is 2009—when Obama, like Trump, had been in office for nearly a year. Obama had won Virginia the year before, but the voters who came out for the governor’s race were relatively conservative. In the 2009 exit poll, 51 percent of respondents said they had voted for Sen. John McCain for president in 2008; only 43 percent said they had voted for Obama. McDonnell trounced the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Creigh Deeds, 59 percent to 41 percent. But Obama failed to give Republicans anything like the boost Trump has given to Democrats.
> 
> In 2009, 31 percent of Virginia voters said they strongly approved of Obama’s performance as president. This year, only 22 percent of Virginia voters said they strongly approved of Trump’s performance. When you take into account how these people voted, the baseline of strong Obama approvers who voted for Deeds was 7 percentage points higher, as a share of the total electorate, than the baseline of strong Trump approvers who voted for Gillespie. So Gillespie, thanks to Trump, started out with a relatively weak base.
> 
> Trump also lined up nearly half of the electorate against Gillespie. On Tuesday, 47 percent of Virginia voters said they strongly disapproved of Trump. That’s 12 percentage points higher than the percentage of Virginia voters who said in 2009 that they strongly disapproved of Obama. It translated, almost ballot for ballot, into a wave of strong Trump disapprovers voting for Northam, far in excess of the anti-Obama wave eight years ago.
> 
> Advertisement
> 
> In both years, exit pollsters asked voters whether “one reason for your vote for governor” was to express support or opposition for the incumbent president. The number who said they were voting to express support for the president came out the same, at 17 percent. But the level of opposition rose significantly. In 2009, only 24 percent of Virginia voters said they were voting to express opposition to Obama. This year, 34 percent said they were voting to express opposition to Trump.
> 
> To appreciate the magnitude of this shift, you have to consider how it affected the overall tally. Given the enormous surge in turnout between 2009 and 2017, Trump actually supplied more votes to Gillespie than Obama supplied to Deeds: slightly more than 400,000, compared to 300,000. So Trump’s benefit to his party, in terms of gross turnout, was about 100,000 votes better than Obama’s.
> 
> But this was dwarfed by Trump’s cost. In 2009, roughly 460,000 Virginians voted for McDonnell in part to express opposition to Obama. In 2017, roughly 860,000 voted for Northam in part to express opposition to Trump. That’s a difference of 400,000 ballots.
> 
> Subtract Trump’s 400,000-vote boost for Northam from his 100,000-vote boost for Gillespie, and you get a net loss of 300,000 for Republicans. That’s what Trump cost the GOP, above and beyond what Obama cost the Democrats. This 300,000-vote difference exceeded Northam’s margin over Gillespie. It was decisive.
> 
> 
> ADVERTISING
> 
> inRead invented by Teads
> Want More Politics? Listen to the Political Gabfest.
> 
> Join Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz as they discuss and debate the week’s biggest political news.
> Advertisement
> The Trump–Obama gap can’t be dismissed as a product of Virginia becoming more liberal. Moderates accounted for the same percentage of ballots in both years—42 percent—but they shifted their votes dramatically. In 2009, they voted for Deeds, the nominee of the president’s party, 53 percent to 47 percent. This year, they went for Northam, the nominee of the opposition party, 64 percent to 33 percent. Moderates cast 340,000 more ballots for Northam than for Gillespie. If Trump’s candidate had done as well with moderates as Obama’s did, the GOP would have won.
> 
> Top Comment
> 
> I once almost fell on top of Stephen Hawking, and that is the kind of experience that money can't buy. More...
> 
> 502 CommentsJoin In
> The upshot isn’t just that Trump cost his party this election. It’s that he did it by behaving in a particularly incendiary way. Obama, too, hurt his party’s nominee in Virginia. But that degree of damage, commonly suffered by the gubernatorial nominee of the president’s party, wouldn’t have been enough to sink Gillespie. To kill him, Trump had to drive an extra 300,000–500,000 voters to the polls. And he did.
> 
> *Correction, Nov. 9, 2017: The article originally mischaracterized the increase in votes for the Democratic nominee between 2009 and 2017 as 700 percent. It was 70 percent. (Return.)
> 
> One more thing
> Since Donald Trump entered the White House, Slate has stepped up our politics coverage—bringing you news and opinion from writers like Jamelle Bouie and Dahlia Lithwick. We’re covering the administration’s immigration crackdown, the rollback of environmental protections, the efforts of the resistance, and more.
> 
> Our work is more urgent than ever and is reaching more readers—but online advertising revenues don’t fully cover our costs, and we don’t have print subscribers to help keep us afloat. So we need your help.
> 
> If you think Slate’s work matters, become a Slate Plus member. You’ll get exclusive members-only content and a suite of great benefits—and you’ll help secure Slate’s future.
> 
> JOIN SLATE PLUS
> 
> POLITICS
> WHO'S WINNING, WHO'S LOSING, AND WHY.
> NOV. 7 2017 11:26 PM
> Democrats Breathe Sigh of Relief After Virginia Victory
> A party breaks out after Ralph Northam’s big win.
> 
> By Jim Newell
> Virginia-Gubernatorial-Candidate-Ralph-Northam-Holds-Election-Night-Gathering-In-Fairfax-Virginia
> Virginia Gov.-elect Ralph Northam and Lt. Gov.-elect Justin Fairfax at an election night rally on Tuesday.
> Win McNamee/Getty Images
> 
> FAIRFAX, Virginia—Ralph Northam’s campaign didn’t rent the largest election night party space. The rec room at the student center on George Mason University’s campus only had enough space to comfortably fit about 100 or 150 supporters. It was a size that spoke of narrowness: narrow win, narrow defeat. With tightening polls in the week before the election, the room at GMU seemed designed, at best, for a sigh-of-relief party.
> 
> Jim Newell
> JIM NEWELL
> Jim Newell is a Slate staff writer.
> 
> What Democrats got was a broad victory and a blowout party, after Northam won easily, followed by the party’s lieutenant governor and attorney general candidates. Democrats made vast gains in the state Legislature and could wind up winning the House of Delegates majority, something that no prognosticators saw coming.
> 
> CONTINUE READING
> FOLLOW SLATE
> Twitter
> 
> Facebook
> 
> Instagram
> SLATE ON IPHONE ANDROID KINDLE REPRINTS ADVERTISE WITH US
> ABOUT US
> CONTACT US
> WORK WITH US
> USER AGREEMENT
> PRIVACY POLICY
> FAQ
> FEEDBACK
> CORRECTIONS
> Slate Group Panoply Slate is published by The Slate Group, a Graham Holdings Company. All contents © 2017 The Slate Group LLC. All rights reserved.
> ×Support our tireless, fearless, yet somehow fun-to-read coverage of Trump’s America


Wonder what Trump is more upset about, Ed losing this election or Trump learning the state's name is Virgina and not Vagina.


----------



## stevefox1200

Whats awkward is the democrats ran really shitty campaigns and most of those places and still won 

seems to becoming a trend at this point


----------



## krtgolfing

draykorinee said:


> I support this woman's right to flip off the president, no one should lose their jobs over that. But she wants to work for PETA, she's clearly accepting of violent thugs.


Go flip off your boss and let me know why happens!


----------



## birthday_massacre

stevefox1200 said:


> Whats awkward is the democrats ran really shitty campaigns and most of those places and still won
> 
> seems to becoming a trend at this point


its because in a lot of those cases, the GOP lost because it was more anti-Trump than anything. The voters are starting to turn on Trump on the right. Trump has been showing all of the GOP secrets out in the open, instead of hiding it. And its showing how awful the GOP party is for everyone but the super rich.

The DNC needs to run real progressives in 2020, if they do it will be a bloodbath and the DNC can take back the house and senate.

But the corrupt establishment DNC will find a way to fuck it up I'm sure.


----------



## Cabanarama

stevefox1200 said:


> Whats awkward is the democrats ran really shitty campaigns and most of those places and still won
> 
> seems to becoming a trend at this point


Democrats always run shitty campaigns... the only reason why they ever win at all is because of how horrible the Republicans are when they're in office...
You have one party (Republicans) that knows how to campaign and win over voters, but awful at pretty much everything once they're in office... then you have another party (Democrats) that tends to be fine in office but are clueless when it comes to campaigning and voter outreach


----------



## birthday_massacre

Cabanarama said:


> Democrats always run shitty campaigns... the only reason why they ever win at all is because of how horrible the Republicans are when they're in office...
> You have one party (Republicans) that knows how to campaign and win over voters, but awful at pretty much everything once they're in office... then you have another party (Democrats) that tends to be fine in office but are clueless when it comes to campaigning and voter outreach


Its because the Democrats try to appeal to Republican and Democratic voters instead of appealing to just democrats. Democrats always let the GOP move them to the right when the DNC should try to move the GOP left.

this is why the justice democrats were started, they are going to run on true progressive values. The corrupt DNC is already doing everything they can to hold them back and that is what the democrats downfall will be if they are successful like they were with fucking over Bernie Sanders


----------



## Stinger Fan

So hold on, the Trump crowd is quiet because of the "beatdown" on Tuesday, yet no one wants to mention how quiet it was around here when Ossoff lost and how the MSM had a melt down over it :lol . Arguing about that stuff is just dumb anyway


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Gillespie deserved to lose after failing miserably in regard to taking Northam and his campaign to task for that fucked up ad regarding the minority kids. De Blasio was a shoe-in, while NJ turning blue was an inevitability instead of a possibility at the rate it was going.

Now if only McConnell could lose his seat. :hmm


----------



## birthday_massacre

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Gillespie deserved to lose after failing miserably in regard to taking Northam and his campaign to task for that fucked up ad regarding the minority kids. De Blasio was a shoe-in, while NJ turning blue was an inevitability instead of a possibility at the rate it was going.
> 
> Now if only McConnell could lose his seat. :hmm


Gillespie was echoing Trumps values and lost.


----------



## Cabanarama

Stinger Fan said:


> So hold on, the Trump crowd is quiet because of the "beatdown" on Tuesday, yet no one wants to mention how quiet it was around here when Ossoff lost and how the MSM had a melt down over it :lol . Arguing about that stuff is just dumb anyway


Ossoff barely lost in a deep red district. He came within percentage 3 points in a district in which no Democrat had come within 20 in decades, and Tom Price had won months earlier 23 points...
A Republican winning a deep red seat isn't newsworthy...just the fact that it was so close is a bad omen for Republicans, considering how close he came, and the Democrats need to gain 24 seats, and that there are about 100 house seats held by Republicans that are more favorable for Democrats than GA-6...
The same applies for all the special elections. Yes, the Republicans have been winning. But if you look at how the Democrats have fared in this special elections compared to how they fared in the same districts in 2016, and they continue to swing in that direction, it will be enough of a swing to easily take the house.
Virginia on the other hand, has been a pretty split state that could go either way on any given election depending on the political climate. Prior to Tuesday, the Republicans had 2/3 of the House of Delegates and a slight majority in the state senate. While Hillary won Virginia last year and they already had a Democratic governor and senators, all were won in fairly close elections. Northam won in a landslide, and the Dems picked up at least 15 delegates (four are still too close to call), and have gone from 1/3 of the seats to what is most likely a 50/50 split...
It's not just that the Democrats won, but how they won, not just in Virginia, but everywhere else. With the cities becoming increasingly blue and the rural areas becoming increasingly red, the suburbs are now the battlegrounds that will decide the elections for the foreseeable future, and the Republicans got clobbered badly among suburban voters. Factor in the unusually high voter turnout by younger voters and other Dem-leaning demographics, and that is a bad, bad sign for Republicans, considering they tend to rely heavily on their demographic base (older, white, christian, rural) having significantly higher vote turnouts than everyone else.
Either way, the 2018 midterms are looking bleak for Republicans. The party that controls the white house always loses seats in the mid terms, unless the president has an approval rating in the high 60's. Trump is half that, and has unprecedented disapproval ratings for this point in the presidency. Since 25 of the 33 senate seats up for re-election are Democrats, with 6 of the Republican seats in deep red states, so it will be nearly impossible to take the senate, but otherwise it will be a bloodbath for Republicans.


----------



## Cabanarama

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Gillespie deserved to lose after failing miserably in regard to taking Northam and his campaign to task for that fucked up ad regarding the minority kids. De Blasio was a shoe-in, while NJ turning blue was an inevitability instead of a possibility at the rate it was going.
> 
> Now if only McConnell could lose his seat. :hmm


First of all, Northam had nothing to do with that ad, it was done by an independent outside group. Secondly, the ads Gillespie ran were much worse, falsely linking Northam to MS-13 and child pornography, not to mention in general trying to win by appealing to white supremacists....


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

birthday_massacre said:


> Gillespie was echoing Trumps values and lost.


Yeah, he did a great job of being on board the Trump Train by having his website and social media not have any hints or references regarding his endorsement from Trump, as well as coming off as a pussy by failing to take Northam to task when it came to that fucked up ad about the minority kids.

:eyeroll

He deserved to lose for being a poser.



Cabanarama said:


> First of all, Northam had nothing to do with that ad, it was done by an independent outside group. Secondly, the ads Gillespie ran were much worse, falsely linking Northam to MS-13 and child pornography, not to mention in general trying to win by appealing to white supremacists....


No shit. However, the fact that Northam took a good minute to denounce such an abhorrent ad just goes to show that he's a shitty stooge like Gillespie.

And if Gillespie actually ran ads that brainless, then he deserved to lose for missing the mark so wildly.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> So hold on, the Trump crowd is quiet because of the "beatdown" on Tuesday, yet no one wants to mention how quiet it was around here when Ossoff lost and how the MSM had a melt down over it :lol . Arguing about that stuff is just dumb anyway


LOL yeah its dumb now that the GOP is losing but if they won these elections you would be saying how huge it is.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL yeah its dumb now that the GOP is losing but if they won these elections you would be saying how huge it is.


What are you talking about? I was referring to arguing over how "silent" the thread gets over wins and losses, not the elections themselves. Also, I didn't really say much of anything about Handel winning Georgia over Ossoff at the time. 




Cabanarama said:


> Ossoff barely lost in a deep red district. He came within percentage 3 points in a district in which no Democrat had come within 20 in decades, and Tom Price had won months earlier 23 points...
> A Republican winning a deep red seat isn't newsworthy...just the fact that it was so close is a bad omen for Republicans, considering how close he came, and the Democrats need to gain 24 seats, and that there are about 100 house seats held by Republicans that are more favorable for Democrats than GA-6...
> The same applies for all the special elections. Yes, the Republicans have been winning. But if you look at how the Democrats have fared in this special elections compared to how they fared in the same districts in 2016, and they continue to swing in that direction, it will be enough of a swing to easily take the house.
> Virginia on the other hand, has been a pretty split state. Prior to Tuesday, the Republicans had 2/3 of the House of Delegates, a slight majority in the state senate. While Hillary won Virginia last year and they already had a Democratic governor and senators, all were won in fairly close elections. Northam won in a landslide, and the Dems picked up at least 15 delegates (four are still too close to call), and have gone from 1/3 of the seats to what is most likely a 50/50 split...
> It's not just that the Democrats won, but how they won, not just in Virginia, but everywhere else. With the cities becoming increasingly blue and the rural areas becoming increasingly red, the suburbs are now the battlegrounds that will decide the elections for the foreseeable future, and the Republicans got clobbered badly among suburban voters. Factor in the unusually high voter turnout by younger voters and other Dem-leaning demographics, and that is a bad, bad sign for Republicans, considering they tend to rely heavily on their demographic base (older, white, christian, rural) having significantly higher vote turnouts than everyone else.
> Either way, the 2018 midterms are looking bleak for Republicans. The party that controls the white house always loses seats in the mid terms, unless the president has an approval rating in the high 60's. Trump is half that, and has unprecedented disapproval ratings for this point in the presidency. Since 25 of the 33 senate seats up for re-election are Democrats, with 6 of the Republican seats in deep red states, so it will be nearly impossible to take the senate, but otherwise it will be a bloodbath for Republicans.


Gillipse lost in a blue state. In fact, of the people polled who voted only 30% of the people identified as a Republican, Gillipse won 45% of the vote. 

The Democrats spent significantly more amount of money and lost in what was billed as a very "important" election. The voting numbers also look very similar percentage wise anyway,Trump won 51.1% to Clnton's 45.9% while Handel won 51.8% to Ossoff's 48.2%


As for the Midterm , I posted a link a while back but I'll repost it. Something interesting I had found


"First, partisan voting patterns have grown more consistent as Democrats and Republicans have grown increasingly polarized in recent decades. That diminishes ability of Democrats to attract dissident Republican voters.

Second, the combination of political gerrymandering with the residential concentration of Democrats in large metropolitan areas gives Republicans the ability to win a share of House seats far outpacing their share of the overall population. So the current Democratic lead in national "generic ballot" polls – a robust 9 percentage points in the current realclearpolitics.com average – exaggerates the potential for Democratic gains.

Third, today's Democratic Party has grown increasingly reliant on younger voters. They traditionally turn out for midterm elections at lower rates than their elders.

In the Senate, moreover, Republicans hold a huge advantage benefit in the profile of seats up for election next November. Of 34 senators on the ballot, only nine are Republicans; of the seven considered most vulnerable, only two are Republicans.

As a result, says fivethirtyeight.com analyst David Wasserman, "the Congressional map has a record-setting bias against Democrats."

Congressional Republicans need all the help they can get. Not only is Trump historically unpopular for a president in his first year, but the all-Republican government has failed to deliver on any of its major promises to voters."

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/08/gop...s-in-2018-despite-low-approval-for-trump.html


----------



## Draykorinee

krtgolfing said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support this woman's right to flip off the president, no one should lose their jobs over that. But she wants to work for PETA, she's clearly accepting of violent thugs.
> 
> 
> 
> Go flip off your boss and let me know why happens!
Click to expand...

I'd happily flip off Jeremy Hunt. I wouldn't get fired for it, neither did this woman, she got fired because she used it on social media. Try again. Don't bother dredging up posts unless it's to offer anything meaningful.

Would I flip of my immediate boss? No, but Trump is as much her boss as hunt is my boss. A tenuous link indeed.


----------



## MrMister

It'll definitely be interesting to see what happens in 2018. The deck is already very much stacked against the Dems when it comes to Congress. Can anti-Trump sentiment override gerrymandering? We shall see.

I can see Dems getting overconfident like they often do. All too often that think they're on high ground and it's all too often just an illusion they created.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> It'll definitely be interesting to see what happens in 2018. The deck is already very much stacked against the Dems when it comes to Congress. Can anti-Trump sentiment override gerrymandering? We shall see.
> 
> *I can see Dems getting overconfident like they often do. All too often that think they're on high ground and it's all too often just an illusion they created*.


This is why most of the establishment Democrats are getting primaried by justice democrats

At least you admit gerrymandering stacks the deck against dems. 

There is a lawsuit in the court system about gerrymandering, it will be interesting to see what happens with that.


----------



## Cabanarama

Stinger Fan said:


> Gillipse lost in a blue state. In fact, of the people polled who voted only 30% of the people identified as a Republican, Gillipse won 45% of the vote.


ANd what percentage were Democrats? Genuinely asking, as I didn't see these polls, but considering that surveys in recent years have shown that nearly half the country doesn't identify with either party and that only a quarter of the country identify as Republican, 



> The Democrats spent significantly more amount of money and lost in what was billed as a very "important" election. The voting numbers also look very similar percentage wise anyway,Trump won 51.1% to Clnton's 45.9% while Handel won 51.8% to Ossoff's 48.2%


The Democrats didn't spend more money, Ossoff's campaign spent more money than Handel's. But if you factor the money spent by outside right wing PACs to defeat Ossoff as well as the RCCC and RNC, more money was spent overall against him than in favor of him. 





> "First, partisan voting patterns have grown more consistent as Democrats and Republicans have grown increasingly polarized in recent decades. That diminishes ability of Democrats to attract dissident Republican voters.


Thing is, Democrats don't need to attract dissident Republicans voters. They just need a more enthused base. The Democrats problem is those on the left, or those demographics that swing left, tend to have far lower voter turnouts than those on the right, or demographics that swing right. They need a reason to be enthused to vote, otherwise they generally don't bother. Trump is that reason.




> Second, the combination of political gerrymandering with the residential concentration of Democrats in large metropolitan areas gives Republicans the ability to win a share of House seats far outpacing their share of the overall population. So the current Democratic lead in national "generic ballot" polls – a robust 9 percentage points in the current realclearpolitics.com average – exaggerates the potential for Democratic gains.


Yes, the gerrymandering is a big issue. If the Democrats fall short of taking the house, this will be the reason why. 



> Third, today's Democratic Party has grown increasingly reliant on younger voters. They traditionally turn out for midterm elections at lower rates than their elders.


yes, and I pointed that out in my post. I also pointed out is that there was signficantly higher than usual turnout for the younger voters on Tuesday, and if that holds true in 2018, Republicans are screwed. 



> In the Senate, moreover, Republicans hold a huge advantage benefit in the profile of seats up for election next November. Of 34 senators on the ballot, only nine are Republicans; of the seven considered most vulnerable, only two are Republicans.


As I also mentioned in my post as to why it would be nearly impossible for the Democrats to take the senate. But at this point, the Dems are likely looking at a net loss of maybe one or two seats, which would put them in good position to reclaim the senate in 2020. On a side note, this is definitely a big upside for Hillary losing, if she had won, the Republicans would have gained at least 10 seats for a supermajority.... 



> As a result, says fivethirtyeight.com analyst David Wasserman, "the Congressional map has a record-setting bias against Democrats."
> 
> Congressional Republicans need all the help they can get. Not only is Trump historically unpopular for a president in his first year, but the all-Republican government has failed to deliver on any of its major promises to voters."


Yes, the deck is stacked against the Democrats thanks to gerrymandering, voter suppression, ideological purists, and general indifference to voting from left leaning demographics. But as I said, midterms are always hell for the party that runs the white house, even if the president has a good approval rating. There's only been three times in the past century where the president's party gained seats in the midterms, and they all had approval ratings in the high 60's or better at the time, and Trump is barely above half that...The Democrats would have to screw up pretty badly (and I wouldn't put it past them) not to take the House...


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Woman says Roy Moore initiated sexual encounter when she was 14, he was 32*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...f60b5a6c4a0_story.html?utm_term=.15bf92e54c1a

Leigh Corfman says she was 14 years old when an older man approached her outside a courtroom in Etowah County, Ala. She was sitting on a wooden bench with her mother, they both recall, when the man introduced himself as Roy Moore.

It was early 1979 and Moore — now the Republican nominee in Alabama for a U.S. Senate seat — was a 32-year-old assistant district attorney. He struck up a conversation, Corfman and her mother say, and offered to watch the girl while her mother went inside for a child custody hearing.

“He said, ‘Oh, you don’t want her to go in there and hear all that. I’ll stay out here with her,’ ” says Corfman’s mother, Nancy Wells, 71. “I thought, how nice for him to want to take care of my little girl.”

Alone with Corfman, Moore chatted with her and asked for her phone number, she says. Days later, she says, he picked her up around the corner from her house in Gadsden, drove her about 30 minutes to his home in the woods, told her how pretty she was and kissed her. On a second visit, she says, he took off her shirt and pants and removed his clothes. He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear.

“I wanted it over with — I wanted out,” she remembers thinking. “Please just get this over with. Whatever this is, just get it over.” Corfman says she asked Moore to take her home, and he did.

Two of Corfman’s childhood friends say she told them at the time that she was seeing an older man, and one says Corfman identified the man as Moore. Wells says her daughter told her about the encounter more than a decade later, as Moore was becoming more prominent as a local judge.

Aside from Corfman, three other women interviewed by The Washington Post in recent weeks say Moore pursued them when they were between the ages of 16 and 18 and he was in his early 30s, episodes they say they found flattering at the time, but troubling as they got older. None of the three women say that Moore forced them into any sort of relationship or sexual contact.

Wendy Miller says she was 14 and working as a Santa’s helper at the Gadsden Mall when Moore first approached her, and 16 when he asked her on dates, which her mother forbade. Debbie Wesson Gibson says she was 17 when Moore spoke to her high school civics class and asked her out on the first of several dates that did not progress beyond kissing. Gloria Thacker Deason says she was an 18-year-old cheerleader when Moore began taking her on dates that included bottles of Mateus Rosé wine. The legal drinking age in Alabama was 19. 

Of the four women, the youngest at the time was Corfman, who is the only one who says she had sexual contact with Moore that went beyond kissing. She says they did not have intercourse.

In a written statement, Moore denied the allegations.

“These allegations are completely false and are a desperate political attack by the National Democrat Party and the Washington Post on this campaign,” Moore, now 70, said.

The campaign said in a subsequent statement that if the allegations were true they would have surfaced during his previous campaigns, adding “this garbage is the very definition of fake news.”

After The Post published this story Thursday afternoon, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and a handful of other GOP senators said Moore must step aside if Corfman’s account is true.

According to campaign reports, none of the women has donated to or worked for Moore’s Democratic opponent, Doug Jones, or his rivals in the Republican primary, including Sen. Luther Strange, whom he defeated this fall in a runoff election.

Corfman, 53, who works as a customer service representative at a payday loan business, says she has voted for Republicans in the past three presidential elections, including for Donald Trump in 2016. She says she thought of confronting Moore personally for years, and almost came forward publicly during his first campaign for state Supreme Court in 2000, but decided against it. Her two children were still in school then and she worried about how it would affect them. She also was concerned that her background — three divorces and a messy financial history — might undermine her credibility.

“There is no one here that doesn’t know that I’m not an angel,” Corfman says, referring to her home town of Gadsden.

Corfman described her story consistently in six interviews with The Post. The Post confirmed that her mother attended a hearing at the courthouse in February 1979 through divorce records. Moore’s office was down the hall from the courtroom.

Neither Corfman nor any of the other women sought out The Post. While reporting a story in Alabama about supporters of Moore’s Senate campaign, a Post reporter heard that Moore allegedly had sought relationships with teenage girls. Over the ensuing three weeks, two Post reporters contacted and interviewed the four women. All were initially reluctant to speak publicly but chose to do so after multiple interviews, saying they thought it was important for people to know about their interactions with Moore. The women say they don’t know one another.

“I have prayed over this,” Corfman says, explaining why she decided to tell her story now. “All I know is that I can’t sit back and let this continue, let him continue without the mask being removed.”

This account is based on interviews with more than 30 people who said they knew Moore between 1977 and 1982, when he served as an assistant district attorney for Etowah County in northern Alabama, where he grew up.

****

Moore was 30 and single when he joined the district attorney’s office, his first government job after attending the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, serving in Vietnam, graduating from law school and working briefly as a lawyer in private practice in Gadsden, the county seat.

By his account, chronicled in his book “So Help Me God,” Moore spent his time as a prosecutor convicting “murderers, rapists, thieves and drug pushers.” He writes that it was “around this time that I fashioned a plaque of The Ten Commandments on two redwood tablets.”

“I believed that many of the young criminals whom I had to prosecute would not have committed criminal acts if they had been taught these rules as children,” Moore writes.

Outside work, Moore writes that he spent his free time building rooms onto a mobile home in Gallant, a rural area about 25 miles west of Gadsden.

According to colleagues and others who knew him at the time, Moore was rarely seen socializing outside work. He spent one season coaching the Gallant Girls, a softball team that his teenage sister had joined, said several women who played on the team. He spent time working out at the Gadsden YMCA, according to people who encountered him there. And he often walked, usually alone, around the newly opened Gadsden Mall — 6 feet tall and well-dressed in slacks and a button-down shirt, say several women who worked there at the time.

Corfman describes herself as a little lost — “a typical 14-year-old kid of a divorced family” — when she says she first met Moore that day in 1979 outside the courtroom. She says she felt flattered that a grown man was paying attention to her.

“He was charming and smiley,” she says.

After her mother went into the courtroom, Corfman says, Moore asked her where she went to school, what she liked to do and whether he could call her sometime. She remembers giving him her number and says he called not long after. She says she talked to Moore on her phone in her bedroom, and they made plans for him to pick her up at Alcott Road and Riley Street, around the corner from her house.

“I was kind of giddy, excited, you know? An older guy, you know?” Corfman says, adding that her only sexual experience at that point had been kissing boys her age.

She says that it was dark and cold when he picked her up, and that she thought they were going out to eat. Instead, she says, he drove her to his house, which seemed “far, far away.”

“I remember the further I got from my house, the more nervous I got,” Corfman says.

She remembers an unpaved driveway. She remembers going inside and him giving her alcohol on this visit or the next, and that at some point she told him she was 14. She says they sat and talked. She remembers that Moore told her she was pretty, put his arm around her and kissed her, and that she began to feel nervous and asked him to take her home, which she says he did.

Soon after, she says, he called again, and picked her up again at the same spot.

“This was a new experience, and it was exciting and fun and scary,” Corfman says, explaining why she went back. “It was just like this roller-coaster ride you’ve not been on.”

She says that Moore drove her back to the same house after dark, and that before long she was lying on a blanket on the floor. She remembers Moore disappearing into another room and coming out with nothing on but “tight white” underwear.

She remembers that Moore kissed her, that he took off her pants and shirt, and that he touched her through her bra and underpants. She says that he guided her hand to his underwear and that she yanked her hand back.

“I wasn’t ready for that — I had never put my hand on a man’s penis, much less an erect one,” Corfman says.

She remembers thinking, “I don’t want to do this” and “I need to get out of here.” She says that she got dressed and asked Moore to take her home, and that he did.

The legal age of consent in Alabama, then and now, is 16. Under Alabama law in 1979, and today, a person who is at least 19 years old who has sexual contact with someone between 12 and 16 years old has committed sexual abuse in the second degree. Sexual contact is defined as touching of sexual or intimate parts. The crime is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

The law then and now also includes a section on enticing a child younger than 16 to enter a home with the purpose of proposing sexual intercourse or fondling of sexual and genital parts. That is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

In Alabama, the statute of limitations for bringing felony charges involving sexual abuse of a minor in 1979 would have run out three years later, and the time frame for filing a civil complaint would have ended when the alleged victim turned 21, according to Child USA, a nonprofit research and advocacy group at the University of Pennsylvania.

Corfman never filed a police report or a civil suit.

She says that after their last encounter, Moore called again, but that she found an excuse to avoid seeing him. She says that at some point during or soon after her meetings with Moore, she told two friends in vague terms that she was seeing an older man.

Betsy Davis, who remains friendly with Corfman and now lives in Los Angeles, says she clearly remembers Corfman talking about seeing an older man named Roy Moore when they were teenagers. She says Corfman described an encounter in which the older man wore nothing but tight white underwear. She says she was firm with Corfman that seeing someone as old as Moore was out of bounds.

“I remember talking to her and telling her it’s not a good idea,” Davis says. “Because we were so young.”

A second friend, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing her job, has a similar memory of a teenage Corfman telling her about seeing an older man.

After talking to her friends, Corfman says, she began to feel that she had done something wrong and kept it a secret for years.

“I felt responsible,” she says. “I felt like I had done something bad. And it kind of set the course for me doing other things that were bad.”

She says that her teenage life became increasingly reckless with drinking, drugs, boyfriends, and a suicide attempt when she was 16.

As the years went on, Corfman says, she did not share her story about Moore partly because of the trouble in her life. She has had three divorces and financial problems. While living in Arizona, she and her second husband started a screen-printing business that fell into debt. They filed for bankruptcy protection three times, once in 1991 with $139,689 in unpaid claims brought by the Internal Revenue Service and other creditors, according to court records.

In 2005, Corfman paid a fine for driving a boat without lights. In 2010, she was working at a convenience store when she was charged with a misdemeanor for selling beer to a minor. The charge was dismissed, court records show.

he three other women who spoke to The Post say that Moore asked them on dates when they were between 16 and 18 and he was in his early 30s.

Gloria Thacker Deason says she was 18 and Moore was 32 when they met in 1979 at the Gadsden Mall, where she worked at the jewelry counter of a department store called Pizitz. She says she was attending Gadsden State Community College and still living at home.

“My mom was really, really strict and my curfew was 10:30 but she would let me stay out later with Roy,” says Deason, who is now 57 and lives in North Carolina. “She just felt like I would be safe with him. . . . She thought he was good husband material.”

Deason says that they dated off and on for several months and that he took her to his house at least two times. She says their physical relationship did not go further than kissing and hugging.

“He liked Eddie Rabbitt and I liked Freddie Mercury,” Deason says, referring to the country singer and the British rocker.

She says that Moore would pick her up for dates at the mall or at college basketball games, where she was a cheerleader. She remembers changing out of her uniform before they went out for dinners at a pizzeria called Mater’s, where she says Moore would order bottles of Mateus Rosé, or at a Chinese restaurant, where she says he would order her tropical cocktails at a time when she believes she was younger than 19, the legal drinking age.

“If Mother had known that, she would have had a hissy fit,” says Deason, who says she turned 19 in May 1979, after she and Moore started dating.

Around the same time that Deason says she met Moore at the jewelry counter, Wendy Miller says that Moore approached her at the mall, where she would spend time with her mom, who worked at a photo booth there. Miller says this was in 1979, when she was 16.

She says that Moore’s face was familiar because she had first met him two years before, when she was dressed as an elf and working as a Santa’s helper at the mall. She says that Moore told her she looked pretty, and that two years later, he began asking her out on dates in the presence of her mother at the photo booth. She says she had a boyfriend at the time, and declined.

Her mother, Martha Brackett, says she refused to grant Moore permission to date her 16-year-old daughter.

“I’d say, ‘You’re too old for her . . . let’s not rob the cradle,’ ” Brackett recalls telling Moore.

Miller, who is now 54 and still lives in Alabama, says she was “flattered by the attention.”

“Now that I’ve gotten older,” she says, “the idea that a grown man would want to take out a teenager, that’s disgusting to me.” 

This undated family photo shows Debbie Wesson Gibson when she was about 17. (Family photo)

Debbie Wesson Gibson says that she was 17 in the spring of 1981 when Moore spoke to her Etowah High School civics class about serving as the assistant district attorney. She says that when he asked her out, she asked her mother what she would say if she wanted to date a 34-year-old man. Gibson says her mother asked her who the man was, and when Gibson said “Roy Moore,” her mother said, “I’d say you were the luckiest girl in the world.”

Among locals in Gadsden, a town of about 47,000 back then, Moore “had this godlike, almost deity status — he was a hometown boy made good,” Gibson says, “West Point and so forth.”

Gibson says that they dated for two to three months, and that he took her to his house, read her poetry and played his guitar. She says he kissed her once in his bedroom and once by the pool at a local country club.

“Looking back, I’m glad nothing bad happened,” says Gibson, who now lives in Florida. “As a mother of daughters, I realize that our age difference at that time made our dating inappropriate.”

****

By 1982, Moore was by his own account in his book causing a stir in the district attorney’s office for his willingness to criticize the workings of the local legal system. He convened a grand jury to look into what he alleged were funding problems in the sheriff’s office. In response, Moore writes, the state bar association investigated him for going against the advice of the district attorney, an inquiry that was dismissed.

Soon after, Moore quit and began his first political campaign for the county’s circuit court judge position. He lost overwhelmingly, and left Alabama shortly thereafter, heading to Texas, where he says in his book that he trained as a kickboxer, and to Australia, where he says he lived on a ranch for a year wrangling cattle.

He returned to Gadsden in 1984 and went into private law practice. In 1985, at age 38, he married Kayla Kisor, who was 24. The two are still married.

A few years later, Moore began his rise in Alabama politics and into the national spotlight.

In 1992, he became a circuit court judge and hung his wooden Ten Commandments plaque in his courtroom.

In 2000, he was elected chief justice of Alabama’s Supreme Court, and he soon installed a 5,280-pound granite Ten Commandments monument in the judicial building.

In 2003, he was dismissed from the bench for ignoring a federal court order to remove the monument, and became known nationally as “The Ten Commandments Judge.”

Moore was again elected chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court in 2012, and was again dismissed for ignoring a judicial order, this time for instructing probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

All of this has made Moore a hero to many Alabama voters, who consider him a stalwart Christian willing to stand up for their values. In a September Republican primary for the seat vacated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Moore defeated the appointed sitting senator, Luther Strange, who was backed by President Trump and other party leaders in Washington. Moore faces the Democratic nominee, Doug Jones, in a special election scheduled for Dec. 12.

On a visit home in the mid-1990s to see her mother and stepfather in Alabama, Corfman says, she saw Moore’s photo in the Gadsden Times.

“ ‘Mother, do you remember this guy?’ ” Wells says Corfman said at the time.

That’s when Corfman told her, Wells recalls. Her daughter said that not long after the court hearing in 1979, Moore took her to his house. Wells says that her daughter conveyed to her that Moore had behaved inappropriately.

“I was horrified,” Wells says.

Years later, Corfman says, she saw a segment about Moore on ABC News’s “Good Morning America.” She says she threw up.

There were times, Corfman says, she thought about confronting Moore. At one point during the late 1990s, she says, she became so angry that she drove to the parking lot outside Moore’s office at the county courthouse in Gadsden. She sat there for a while, she says, rehearsing what she might say to him.

“ ‘Remember me?’ ” she imagined herself saying.


----------



## FriedTofu

stevefox1200 said:


> Whats awkward is the democrats ran really shitty campaigns and most of those places and still won
> 
> seems to becoming a trend at this point


Judging by recent voting history, I think American voters are simply contrarians and voting against whichever party they feel has more power at the moment.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

In Midterms and special elections being a protest vote against Trump will be enough to bring out marginal Democrats who didn't come out when Obama was President in 2010 and 2014 , but in 2020 though you need to strongly have a platform and candidate people want to vote "for" and not just against Trump because that is what get's the elastic voters who did not stay with a party. In 2020 I hope the establishment stay's the hell away from the primary and you get a ton of people runninng.


----------



## virus21




----------



## yeahbaby!

virus21 said:


>


I think the take away message there was 'keep it simple', like wrapping yourself in as many stars and stripes as you can find and spamming a simple slogan like 'Make America Great Again!'


----------



## Beatles123

yeahbaby! said:


> I think the take away message there was 'keep it simple', like wrapping yourself in as many stars and stripes as you can find and spamming a simple slogan like 'Make America Great Again!'


Certainly wish more people didn't see country as a bad thing.


----------



## Cabanarama

Beatles123 said:


> Certainly wish more people didn't see country as a bad thing.


It's not..False patriotism, flag waving, wrapping yourself in the flag to hide ulterior motives is... claiming to love this country while you contradict everything this country actually values is...


----------



## Miss Sally

Cabanarama said:


> It's not..False patriotism, flag waving, wrapping yourself in the flag to hide ulterior motives is... claiming to love this country while you contradict everything this country actually values is...


So many from both sides do this a lot, makes me sick.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> So many from both sides do this a lot, makes me sick.


Yet people keep voting for them, that is the sad part.

Its like some voters never learn.


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> Yet people keep voting for them, that is the sad part.
> 
> Its like some voters never learn.


It vexes me to no end.

Get behind someone who is decent and vote out people who are corporate owned and things will get better. 

Disney recently backed down from their boycott of the L.A Times because other outlets and people threatened to no talk about them or give them reviews on their movies. So Disney backed off which shows that even massive billion dollar companies aren't invincible.

Apply this to Politicians and they'll fall into line if they realize they won't hold office for very long.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Disney recently backed down from their boycott of the L.A Times because other outlets and people threatened to no talk about them or give them reviews on their movies. So Disney backed off which shows that even massive billion dollar companies aren't invincible.


Disney are idiots if they think that there could ever be a boycott for their products :lmao

I think it's more a case of not rocking the boat. They have the business sense to understand that the MSM has less of a share of eyeballs now than independent social media and youtube.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Really? this is the best defense this guy could come up with for Moore?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alabama-state-auditor-defends-roy-moore-against-sexual-allegations-invokes-mary-and-joseph/article/2640217



> *Alabama state auditor defends Roy Moore against sexual allegations, invokes Mary and Joseph*
> 
> Judge Roy Moore, the Republican candidate for Alabama's upcoming special Senate election, denies allegations that he romantically pursued teenagers as young as 14 when he was in his 30s. Even if the allegations are true, one statewide elected official in Alabama said it's "much ado about nothing."
> 
> *“There is nothing to see here,” Alabama State Auditor Jim Ziegler told the Washington Examiner. “The allegations are that a man in his early 30s dated teenage girls. Even the Washington Post report says that he never had sexual intercourse with any of the girls and never attempted sexual intercourse.”*
> 
> After interviews with more than 30 people, the Washington Post reported Thursday that Moore engaged in sexual contact with a 14-year-old girl when he was 32 years old and a powerful attorney in a small Alabama town.
> 
> The young girl, Leigh Corfman, said Moore touched her over her bra and underpants, guiding her hand to his shorts. “I wanted it over with — I wanted out,” she recalled. “Please just get this over with. Whatever this is, just get it over.”
> 
> *Ziegler seemed unconcerned about that allegation and told the Washington Examiner that any political concern would be mitigated by three things. Moore never had “sexual intercourse” with the girl. Their relationship “happened almost 40 years ago.” And finally, “Roy Moore fell in love with one of the younger women.”*
> 
> Moore began dating his wife Kayla around this time, according to Ziegler. “He dated her. He married her, and they’ve been married about 35 years. They’re blessed with a wonderful marriage and his wife Kayla is 14 years younger than Moore.”
> 
> Asked whether or not the report would upend Moore’s campaign, Ziegler predicted that Alabama voters would be angrier at the Washington Post for “desperately trying to get something negative” than Moore for his dalliances with teenage girls decades ago.
> 
> “He’s clean as a hound’s tooth,” Ziegler claimed, before relying on Scripture to defend Moore.
> 
> *“Take the Bible. Zachariah and Elizabeth for instance. Zachariah was extremely old to marry Elizabeth and they became the parents of John the Baptist,” Ziegler said choosing his words carefully before invoking Christ. “Also take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus.”
> 
> “There’s just nothing immoral or illegal here,” Ziegler concluded. “Maybe just a little bit unusual.”*


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> Really? this is the best defense this guy could come up with for Moore?
> 
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alabama-state-auditor-defends-roy-moore-against-sexual-allegations-invokes-mary-and-joseph/article/2640217


Using Mary and Joesph is a stupid analogy since they never had sex because Jesus was not born the natural way lol


----------



## deepelemblues

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-of-dossier-firms-work-sources-idUSKBN1D937W

The Side o Beef campaign and the DNC conspired with their intermediary Fusion GPS to collude with the Russians to try to entrap the :trump campaign into colluding with the Russians, it can't be denied in even the slightest anymore

What a sick attempt to subvert democracy by the "Democratic" party


----------



## stevefox1200

2 Ton 21 said:


> Really? this is the best defense this guy could come up with for Moore?
> 
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alabama-state-auditor-defends-roy-moore-against-sexual-allegations-invokes-mary-and-joseph/article/2640217


I like this new BOLD stance Moore is taking 

Instead of denial its "Its ok to have sex with children, its in the bible and technically she was a teen so he is not a pedo. I mean who among use would not lust after the virgin Mary?"



deepelemblues said:


> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-of-dossier-firms-work-sources-idUSKBN1D937W
> 
> The Side o Beef campaign and the DNC conspired with their intermediary Fusion GPS to collude with the Russians to try to entrap the :trump campaign into colluding with the Russians, it can't be denied in even the slightest anymore
> 
> What a sick attempt to subvert democracy by the "Democratic" party


That's not what the article says at all, it says that the company that was HIRED to investigate Trump's Russian connection was also HIRED by a Russian party to investigate Hillary 

I could hire them to investigate my mom, that dosn't mean its a connection to their other clients


----------



## RavishingRickRules

stevefox1200 said:


> I like this new BOLD stance Moore is taking
> 
> Instead of denial its "Its ok to have sex with children, its in the bible and technically she was a teen so he is not a pedo. I mean who among use would not lust after the virgin Mary?"


So basically, Christians are just as bad as Muslims in terms of paedophilia? Just further proof of the toxicity of religion.


----------



## stevefox1200

RavishingRickRules said:


> So basically, Christians are just as bad as Muslims in terms of paedophilia? Just further proof of the toxicity of religion.


I'm a big fan if this "political pedo party" trend that has been popping up where the parties and ideoglgies race to find out who is the who "Really supports pedophilia" 

"Democrats and liberals support pedophiles, they see it as a mental illness like being gay"

"Republicans and conservatives support pedophiles, they see as executable due to "traditional values" where older men married extremely young girls"

"every religious book ever where someone had underage sex"

"Libertarians support pedophiles, they want "big government and laws reduced" so they prey on children with impunity" 

"Socialists support pedophiles, they don't care about morals and don't give people the choice of who they hire or associate with, they are fine with pedo becoming teachers as its "for the greater good""

Both sides of the "anarchy" coin also say the other side is only doing what they do to have access to more children

Personally I think that to be a successful politician you need to be charismatic and charming and to be a successful predator you need to be charismatic and charming so I think its natural there will be some overlap


----------



## RavishingRickRules

stevefox1200 said:


> I'm a big fan if this "political pedo party" trend that has been popping up where the parties and ideoglgies race to find out who is the who "Really supports pedophilia"
> 
> "Democrats and liberals support pedophiles, they see it as a mental illness like being gay"
> 
> "Republicans and conservatives support pedophiles, they see as executable due to "traditional values" where older men married extremely young girls"
> 
> "every religious book ever where someone had underage sex"
> 
> "Libertarians support pedophiles, they want "big government and laws reduced" so they prey on children with impunity"
> 
> "Socialists support pedophiles, they don't care about morals and don't give people the choice of who they hire or associate with, they are fine with pedo becoming teachers as its "for the greater good""
> 
> Both sides of the "anarchy" coin also say the other side is only doing what they do to have access to more children
> 
> Personally I think that to be a successful politician you need to be charismatic and charming and to be a successful predator you need to be charismatic and charming so I think its natural there will be some overlap


Never heard of that before, seems a bit far fetched to me. I have friends who are paedo hunters here in the UK (they have online decoys and then confront the paedos with the chat logs when they place them under citizen's arrest before the cops show up) and the sheer number of paedo's out there is actually insane. For me that's the worst of all evils, knocks me sick to my stomach.


----------



## stevefox1200

RavishingRickRules said:


> Never heard of that before, seems a bit far fetched to me. I have friends who are paedo hunters here in the UK (they have online decoys and then confront the paedos with the chat logs when they place them under citizen's arrest before the cops show up) and the sheer number of paedo's out there is actually insane. For me that's the worst of all evils, knocks me sick to my stomach.


Go to any ideologically driven internet site and you will see them launch massive investigations to "prove" that their ideological rivals are pedophiles

Because being a pedophile is so universally condemned its the "holy grail" to stamp it on your enemies to prove you are right 

it never goes anywhere buts its funny as fuck


----------



## deepelemblues

stevefox1200 said:


> That's not what the article says at all, it says that the company that was HIRED to investigate Trump's Russian connection was also HIRED by a Russian party to investigate Hillary
> 
> I could hire them to investigate my mom, that dosn't mean its a connection to their other clients


Fusion GPS gave information about Side o Beef and other Democrats that it "dug up" in "another investigation" (no details about this 'other investigation' of course. Who hired Fusion GPS to do this investigation?) to Veselnitskaya and that is what she presented to :trump Jr. 

Fusion GPS was hired by the DNC through the intermediary of Marc Elias in April. Veselnitskaya met with :trump Jr. in June. 

At no point did the :trump campaign or anyone trying to help :trump hire Fusion GPS, so far as we know. So far as we know, Fusion GPS was hired by:

1. Anti-Trump Republicans
2. The DNC and the Side o Beef campaign

There was no reason for Fusion GPS to be giving information about Side o Beef and other Democrats to Veselnitskaya to present to :trump Jr. None. Fusion GPS was not in the employ of anybody to do opposition research on Side o Beef and other Democrats for the benefit of :trump. 

Why would Fusion GPS, of its own volition, through an intermediary, offer the :trump campaign dirt on the other side? For free? No one at Fusion GPS liked or likes :trump. 

There's only one explanation: Fusion GPS was trying to entrap the :trump campaign as part of the Side o Beef's efforts to demonstrate collusion between the :trump campaign and MUH RUSSIA. 

The Washington Post reported on June 4, 2016, that the DNC had been hacked, and the prime suspect was MUH RUSSIA. On June 9, 2016, Veselnitskaya meets with :trump Jr. to offer dirt on Side o Beef and other Democrats provided to her by Fusion GPS. Christopher Steele is hired by Fusion GPS *in June 2016* to investigate the hacking, and that same month starts providing regular two-to-three page memos to Fusion GPS, lasting through December, that were eventually combined into the fake pee dossier, and have less to do with the hacking itself than with alleged contacts, ties, and collusion between the :trump campaign and MUH RUSSIA.

Connect the dots.


----------



## Vic Capri

Asians overseas love Trump. :mark:

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

Vic Capri said:


> Asians overseas love Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


Says who?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

> *Trump judge nominee, 36, who has never tried a case, wins approval of Senate panel*
> 
> Brett J. Talley, President Trump’s nominee to be a federal judge in Alabama, has never tried a case, was unanimously rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Assn.’s judicial rating committee, has practiced law for only three years and, as a blogger last year, displayed a degree of partisanship unusual for a judicial nominee, denouncing “Hillary Rotten Clinton” and pledging support for the National Rifle Assn.
> 
> On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee, on a party-line vote, approved him for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.
> 
> Talley, 36, is part of what Trump has called the “untold story” of his success in filling the courts with young conservatives.
> 
> “The judge story is an untold story. Nobody wants to talk about it,” Trump said last month, standing alongside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in the White House Rose Garden. “But when you think of it, Mitch and I were saying, that has consequences 40 years out, depending on the age of the judge — but 40 years out.”
> 
> Civil rights groups and liberal advocates see the matter differently. They denounced Thursday’s vote, calling it “laughable” that none of the committee Republicans objected to confirming a lawyer with as little experience as Talley to preside over federal trials.
> 
> *“He’s practiced law for less than three years and never argued a motion, let alone brought a case. This is the least amount of experience I’ve seen in a judicial nominee,” said Kristine Lucius, executive vice president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.*
> 
> The group was one of several on the left that urged the Judiciary Committee to reject Talley because of his lack of qualifications and because of doubts over whether he had the “temperament and ability to approach cases with the fairness and open-mindedness necessary to serve as a federal judge.”
> 
> Some conservatives discount the ABA’s rating. “The ABA is a liberal interest group. They have a long history of giving lower ratings to Republican nominees,” said Carrie Severino, counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network, which supports Trump’s nominees. She said past liberal nominees have been rated as qualified even if they had little or no courtroom experience.
> 
> Talley does have some other qualifications, some traditional, others less so. He grew up in Alabama and earned degrees from the University of Alabama and Harvard Law School. He clerked for two federal judges and worked as a speech writer on the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. And, like many people who eventually became federal judges, he became the protege of someone who became a senator.
> 
> In Talley’s case, the mentor was Republican Sen. Luther Strange, the former Alabama state attorney general who was appointed to the Senate in January to replace Jeff Sessions, who left the Senate to become U.S. attorney general. Talley worked for Strange as a deputy.
> 
> Typically, senators play the lead role in recommending nominees for the federal district judgeships in their state. Talley also had something of an inside track. This year, when Sessions moved to the attorney general’s post, Talley took a job in the Justice Department’s office that selects judicial nominees.
> 
> Trump and McConnell have succeeded in pushing judicial nominees through the Senate because the Republicans have voted in lockstep since taking control of the chamber in 2014.
> 
> When Trump took office in January, there were more than 100 vacant seats on the federal courts, thanks to an unprecedented slowdown engineered by McConnell during the final two years of President Obama’s term. The Senate under GOP control approved only 22 judges in that two-year period, the lowest total since 1951-52 in the last year of President Truman’s term. By contrast, the Senate under Democratic control approved 68 judges in the last two years of George W. Bush’s presidency.
> 
> The best known vacancy was on the Supreme Court. After Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, McConnell refused to permit a hearing for Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee. Trump filled the seat earlier this year with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.
> 
> The Alliance for Justice, which tracks judicial nominees, said Trump’s team is off to a fast start, particularly when compared with Obama’s first year. By November 2009, Obama had made 27 judicial nominations, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Trump has nominated 59 people to the federal courts, including Justice Gorsuch. That’s also a contrast with Trump’s pace in filling executive branch jobs, where he has lagged far behind the pace of previous administrations.
> 
> Liberal advocates are dismayed that Republicans have voted in unison on Trump’s judges.
> 
> “So far, no one from his party has been willing to stand up against him on the agenda of packing the courts,” said Marge Baker, vice president of People for the American Way.
> 
> Last month, when the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on several other nominations, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked Talley about his fervent advocacy of gun rights. In a blog post titled a “Call to Arms,” he wrote that “the President and his democratic allies in Congress are about to launch the greatest attack on our constitutional freedoms in our lifetime,” referring to Obama’s proposal for background checks and limits on rapid-fire weapons following the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
> 
> “The object of that war is to make guns illegal, in all forms,” Talley wrote. The NRA “stands for all of us now, and I pray that in the coming battle for our rights, they will be victorious,” he added.
> 
> A month later, he reprinted a “thoughtful response” from a reader who wrote: “We will have to resort to arms when our other rights — of speech, press, assembly, representative government — fail to yield the desired results.” To that, he wrote: “I agree completely with this.”
> 
> When pressed, he told the senators he was “trying to generate discussion. I wanted people to be able to use my blog to discuss issues, to come together and find common ground.”
> 
> In a follow-up written question, Feinstein asked him how many times he had appeared in a federal district court.
> 
> “To my recollection, during my time as Alabama’s deputy solicitor general, I participated as part of the legal team in one hearing in federal district court in the Middle District of Alabama,” he replied.
> 
> On Thursday, the Judiciary Committee approved White House lawyer Greg Katsas on a 11-9 vote to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and then approved Talley on another 11-9 vote. The nominations now move to the Senate floor, where a similar party-line result is expected.


I don't get it. There are plenty of conservative judges/lawyers out there with a lot of experience. Why appoint a guy that's never even argued a motion in court?


----------



## Reaper

2 Ton 21 said:


> I don't get it. There are plenty of conservative judges/lawyers out there with a lot of experience. Why appoint a guy that's never even argued a motion in court?


As I've consistently pointed out in your own threads about failed bureaucracy, this is exactly why bureaucracy leads to the collapse of society but we replace bureaucracy with more bureaucracy and believe that there is no other solution.


----------



## stevefox1200

2 Ton 21 said:


> I don't get it. There are plenty of conservative judges/lawyers out there with a lot of experience. Why appoint a guy that's never even argued a motion in court?


This kind of stuff is common in the dictatorships

The person has no history so it won't look weird when they back you 100%, no connections so they have no-one to protect them and no experience so it becomes an easy career advancement

as for the US, my guess is some of the same reasons


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Reaper said:


> As I've consistently pointed out in your own threads about failed bureaucracy, this is exactly why bureaucracy leads to the collapse of society but we replace bureaucracy with more bureaucracy and believe that there is no other solution.


Just want a little clarity. Are you saying that he's being approved because of the failed bureaucracy or his nomination is a result of it, or both?


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> Just want a little clarity. Are you saying that he's being approved because of the failed bureaucracy or his nomination is a result of it, or both?


Trump is incompetent so of course, he will put incompetent, unqualified people in positions of power


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> This kind of stuff is common in the dictatorships
> 
> The person has no history so it won't look weird when they back you 100%, no connections so they have no-one to protect them and no experience so it becomes an easy career advancement
> 
> as for the US, my guess is some of the same reasons


So the entire Senate of the US is now a dictatorship according to you since he was approved by a party line vote. 

Have you filed for asylum yet for a country that's not run by a dictator??


2 Ton 21 said:


> Just want a little clarity. Are you saying that he's being approved because of the failed bureaucracy or his nomination is a result of it, or both?


Bureaucracy sets up systems where there is no separation of powers so this stuff happens.

If the political / federal government has any role in appointing judges at all, the system is already broken. 

I've been criticizing the U.S. judiciary and how it's appointed for nearly a couple of years. 

The system is broken. Sometimes the system can give you a decent guy but that's rare. This is why you have politically motivated quackery all over the place at all levels.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Reaper said:


> So the entire Senate of the US is now a dictatorship according to you since he was approved by a party line vote.
> 
> Have you filed for asylum yet for a country that's not run by a dictator??Bureaucracy sets up systems where there is no separation of powers so this stuff happens.
> 
> If the political / federal government has any role in appointing judges at all, the system is already broken.
> 
> I've been criticizing the U.S. judiciary and how it's appointed for nearly a couple of years.
> 
> The system is broken. Sometimes the system can give you a decent guy but that's rare. This is why you have politically motivated quackery all over the place at all levels.


I agree political appointments of the judiciary has big problems. Who would you prefer be in charge of choosing/approving judges?


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is incompetent so of course, he will put incompetent, unqualified people in positions of power


Obama made people with no experience diplomats simply because they were large donors. It's an issue with Politics at large, putting people into positions they don't have experience for and letting corporations buy their way into Politics. This didn't start with Trump, it won't end with him either.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> Obama made people with no experience diplomats simply because they were large donors. It's an issue with Politics at large, putting people into positions they don't have experience for and letting corporations buy their way into Politics. This didn't start with Trump, it won't end with him either.


And when he did that he was wrong too. What makes Trump worse is Trump is putting incompetent people in power, like Devos, Pruitt, and sleepyhead.


----------



## virus21




----------



## stevefox1200

Reaper said:


> So the entire Senate of the US is now a dictatorship according to you since he was approved by a party line vote.
> 
> Have you filed for asylum yet for a country that's not run by a dictator??Bureaucracy sets up systems where there is no separation of powers so this stuff happens.
> 
> If the political / federal government has any role in appointing judges at all, the system is already broken.
> 
> I've been criticizing the U.S. judiciary and how it's appointed for nearly a couple of years.
> 
> The system is broken. Sometimes the system can give you a decent guy but that's rare. This is why you have politically motivated quackery all over the place at all levels.


I said its common in dictatorships and that others would likely do it for some of the same reasons

quit your damn meltdown


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> I said its common in dictatorships and that others would likely do it for some of the same reasons
> 
> quit your damn meltdown


Meltdown? That's a projection considering you said this happens in dictatorships ... bringing in a point that is obviously not applicable here, but what you did is called framing an argument to create perception. It's a tainted persuasion strategy that leads the listener towards forming a picture. But also not actually making the claim. It's a very common tactic in conversations but not a very effective one. 

I just pointed out that that's what you're doing. 

Replying that "oh muh gerd dictatoriship" is spinning a narrative that is not applicable to the local situation. Get over it. You don't live in a dictatorship. You don't know what it means to live in a dictatorship (based on all your posts that I've read) and you have no clue what real intrigue within a political system is. Phobics tend to exaggerate the political implications of everything. It's why Alex Jones exists. 



2 Ton 21 said:


> I agree political appointments of the judiciary has big problems. Who would you prefer be in charge of choosing/approving judges?


Internal advancement through a system that rewards merit. Total autonomous hiring, promotion and appraisal system of candidates that know and understand the constitution - that's it. They're lawyers. They should have nothing to do at all with government.

The only reason why Pakistan escaped Musharraf's rule in 2007 was because of the Judiciary and free media revolution ... Since I was a part of it, I know something about how important it is to have both a free media as well as a free and independent judiciary.


----------



## CamillePunk

I'm glad President Trump's critics aren't in charge of dealing with Putin given their brain-dead criticisms of President Trump for actually building a good relationship with Russia in order to tackle major world issues rather than engaging in their Cold War hysteria because they're mad that the side of beef lost the election. :trump2










:trump2


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> I'm glad President Trump's critics aren't in charge of dealing with Putin given their brain-dead criticisms of President Trump for actually building a good relationship with Russia in order to tackle major world issues rather than engaging in their Cold War hysteria because they're mad that the side of beef lost the election. :trump2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :trump2


Trump does need to product his business ties to Russia after all
It will be time to pay up soon.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/929509950811881472
THAT CHEMISTRY :trump :mark: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/929511061954297857
THIS IS SERIOUSLY THE BEST TIMELINE/HOW IS TWITTER FREE


----------



## Arya Dark

:maisielol :maisielol :maisielol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/929511061954297857


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/929509950811881472
> THAT CHEMISTRY :trump :mark:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/929511061954297857
> THIS IS SERIOUSLY THE BEST TIMELINE/HOW IS TWITTER FREE


Seriously question? You really think Trump sounds good and like a president making childish tweets like that?

How can you not be embarrassed by supporting someone like that?


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> Seriously question? You really think Trump sounds good and like a president making childish tweets like that?
> 
> How can you not be embarrassed by supporting someone like that?


You and I have very different views about the legitimacy of the government and the sanctity of the presidency. 

He's doing mostly good work for me and the world and entertaining me greatly in the process. I have few complaints.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> You and I have very different views about the legitimacy of the government and the sanctity of the presidency.
> 
> He's doing mostly good work for me and the world and entertaining me greatly in the process. I have few complaints.


The world thinks he is a joke. How can you not see that? If you think Trump is legit, then I am really at a loss. Trump supporters are even more clueless than I thought.


----------



## Arya Dark

*You would think this is a parody account.... :lmao


As much as I hate Trump, and that number is incalculable btw* I will always owe him a debt of gratitude for not allowing Hillary to be President and for showing up the GOP for what they are. Even though I hate him I fucking LOVE that.*


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> The world thinks he is a joke. How can you not see that? If you think Trump is legit, then I am really at a loss. Trump supporters are even more clueless than I thought.


Apparently more clued in than most of the left and the media though given we expected Trump to win the election and they had it at 98% that Hillary would win.  I'm personally fine being considered clueless by people who are currently trapped inside of a mass hysteria bubble triggered by Trump's glorious and (in their clued-in view) impossible victory.

:trump


----------



## Eric Fleischer

birthday_massacre said:


> Seriously question? You really think Trump sounds good and like a president making childish tweets like that?
> 
> How can you not be embarrassed by supporting someone like that?


Dude, why do you even bother anymore? Trump For Da Lulz fans will literally cheer getting nuked just for the "liberal tears".


----------



## CamillePunk

Eric Fleischer said:


> Dude, why do you even bother anymore? Trump For Da Lulz fans will literally cheer getting nuked just for the "liberal tears".


Actually, under President Trump our relationships with the only countries that pose any threat to us - China and Russia - have greatly improved.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Literally the only good thing about Trump's racist regime is that he'll get every elected Republican official the fuck up outta here with his stupidity. His flagrant racism got a TURBANED SIKH DEMOCRAT elected as Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...wins-mayoral-election/?utm_term=.0459e873cfdb
*


> Days before the New Jersey elections, someone distributed anonymous fliers around Hoboken. “Don’t let TERRORISM take over our town,” the fliers said, while featuring a photo of Ravinder Bhalla, wearing the turban that he always wears as a hallmark of his faith.
> 
> On Tuesday night, Bhalla was beaming in that turban, waving his arm in the air to celebrate his election as one of the first Sikh mayors of a U.S. city.
> 
> Bhalla, a Democrat who has served two terms on the Hoboken City Council, inspired enthusiasm not just in Hoboken but in the nationwide Sikh community of about 200,000 people, which has suffered frequent racist slurs and acts of violence since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People tend to mix up Sikhs — members of a 500-year-old monotheistic Indian religion that is not related to either Islam or Hinduism — with Muslims.
> 
> The community celebrated Bhalla’s election on Tuesday night.


*So please, keep this stupid racist shit up and get ready to get WRECKED in the mid term elections.*


----------



## AlternateDemise

AryaDark said:


> :maisielol :maisielol :maisielol
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/929511061954297857


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/929511061954297857


:ha


----------



## CamillePunk

Legit BOSS said:


> *Literally the only good thing about Trump's racist regime is that he'll get every elected Republican official the fuck up outta here with his stupidity. His flagrant racism got a TURBANED SIKH DEMOCRAT elected as Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...wins-mayoral-election/?utm_term=.0459e873cfdb
> *
> 
> 
> *So please, keep this stupid racist shit up and get ready to get WRECKED in the mid term elections.*


Uh, Hoboken has had a Democrat mayor for a very long time and I don't think we need to explain a "TURBANED SIKH DEMOCRAT"s election victory by giving credit to a white dude. :no:


----------



## RavishingRickRules

AryaDark said:


> :maisielol :maisielol :maisielol
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/929511061954297857


Does this mean Trump finally learned what the word "dotard" means? lol


----------



## Steve Black Man

CamillePunk said:


> Uh, Hoboken has had a Democrat mayor for a very long time and *I don't think we need to explain a "TURBANED SIKH DEMOCRAT"s election victory by giving credit to a white dude*. :no:


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

CamillePunk said:


> Uh, Hoboken has had a Democrat mayor for a very long time and I don't think we need to explain a "TURBANED SIKH DEMOCRAT"s election victory by giving credit to a white dude. :no:


*
But we do, because he himself stated the racist backlash from this toxic Trump climate is what helped to increase his support, so thank you and the awful rhetoric you regurgitate for helping to make this happen* ositivity https://www.thenation.com/article/im-everything-trump-hates-says-the-new-mayor-of-hoboken/


> f there is an American elected official who is the opposite of Donald Trump, it could well be Ravinder Bhalla. A Sikh-American lawyer with a record of fighting discrimination, Bhalla says, “I’m everything that Trump hates. A brown man wearing a turban, and a proud American with the know-how to stop his assaults on our country’s values.”
> 
> And while Trump is losing, Bhalla is winning. On Tuesday, when voters across the country rejected the president’s Republican allies in what political analysts referred to as “nothing less than a stinging repudiation of Trump on the first anniversary of his election,” Ravi Bhalla was elected mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey. The win in the city of 55,000, located just across the Hudson River from Manhattan, was celebrated by the Sikh community in the United States, which has frequently been targeted by racists who know little about the 500-year-old religion that has produced many political leaders in India and Canada.
> 
> *Bhalla’s victory came on a night of breakthrough victories for women, people of color, members of the LGBTQ community, democratic socialists, and others who have been the targets of Trump’s crude slurs and discriminatory policies.* Like many of the candidates who ran on the state and local levels, in partisan and nonpartisan contests, Bhalla was blunt about his disagreements with the president, telling interviewers, *“I am the son of two Indian immigrants and I’m willing to stand up against President Donald Trump whenever his policies are not in line with the U.S. Constitution, and in this case the New Jersey State Constitution.” *
> 
> The voters agreed. Ravi Bhalla won with relative ease—beating his closest rival by more than 600 votes. On Tuesday night, as the nation was recording an electoral repudiation of a cruel and divisive presidency, *the man whose campaign acknowledged that he was “everything that Trump hates” claimed his victory with a message of reconciliation and hope*. “Thank you for having faith in me, for having faith in our community, faith in our state, and faith in our country; this is what America is all about,” he told cheering supporters. “We’ve been through a bruising campaign…but now is the time we come together and see who we can work with to bring this city forward.”


*
I can and will also thank Trump for his anti-LBGT views enabling their community to elect 6 trans officials. Here are more receipts in case you try to deflect all blame from him:* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-let-the-voters-know/?utm_term=.0011e566951f @Sol Katti



> Tuesday was a historic night for the nation’s transgender community, which watched as at least six transgender people won elections and paved the way for others to join them in leadership positions in the coming years.
> 
> Danica Roem became the first openly transgender person elected and seated in a state legislature, defeating 13-term incumbent Del. Robert G. Marshall, who called himself Virginia’s “chief homophobe” and who introduced a “bathroom bill” that would have restricted the bathrooms Roem could use. The Minneapolis City Council will have two transgender members: Andrea Jenkins and Phillipe Cunningham, who gender advocates say are the first openly transgender black people elected to public office in the United States.
> 
> More transgender people began running for office during President Barack Obama’s administration, beginning in 2008, as the transgender community appeared to receive more positive attention in the public sphere, Stryker said. *She said last year’s election of Donald Trump — who in February rescinded rules on bathrooms for transgender students and in July proposed a transgender military ban — further encouraged transgender people to run for office, convinced that, as Stryker put it: “I have nothing to lose by running. This is war.”*


*So yes, the racist, sexist, homophobic, and overall bigoted rhetoric of your dear leader is getting the entire Republican party ousted from their positions. Bless you for perpetuating the cycle of toxicity and raising awareness so we can speed up the process :drose.*


----------



## Reaper

A democrat won in New Jersey. Wow. What a major upset. Probably the biggest political upset of the century.

If that's what they're celebrating now, the dems must really be shaken at their core.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

:lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

Legit BOSS said:


> *So yes, the racist, sexist, homophobic, and overall bigoted rhetoric of your dear leader is getting the entire Republican party ousted from their positions. Bless you for perpetuating the cycle of toxicity and raising awareness so we can speed up the process :drose.*


weird that didn't happen a year ago 

then again like barely anyone follows presidential elections, it's all about them midterms 

JUSTICE DEMOCRATS


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Bhalla is "everything that Trump hates"...and yet:

- His parents came here legally
- He and his family integrated well with American society
- He adheres to Sikhism

Honestly, how does he fall under anything that Trump hates? :hmm


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Reaper said:


> A democrat won in New Jersey. Wow. What a major upset. Probably the biggest political upset of the century.
> 
> If that's what they're celebrating now, the dems must really be shaken at their core.





CamillePunk said:


> weird that didn't happen a year ago
> 
> then again like barely anyone follows presidential elections, it's all about them midterms
> 
> JUSTICE DEMOCRATS


*Way to downplay Republicans and Republican policies getting wrecked in multiple states :lol http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-essential-politics-20171110-story.html*



> *Democrat Ralph Northam swept to victory in the race for Virginia governor on Tuesday in a night of political retaliation against President Trump that also saw a Democratic gubernatorial win in New Jersey.*
> 
> Northam’s victory sketched out a path that Democratic strategists hope other candidates can follow in next year’s contest for control of Congress.
> 
> He piled up big margins in the suburbs of northern Virginia, the most populous and voter-rich area of the state, where animosity toward the president runs deep. At the same time, Northam, the lieutenant governor, also fared better than many Democrats have in more rural areas, preventing the Republican candidate, Ed Gillespie, from running up the score in the southern and western areas of the state, where Trump trounced Hillary Clinton one year ago.
> 
> *Democrats also picked up more than a dozen seats in the Virginia House of Delegates, putting them close to a majority in the lower house with several races undecided — a result that few political analysts or state Democrats had thought likely.*
> 
> The Democratic nominee in New Jersey, Phil Murphy, had been expected to win, but the Virginia race appeared closer in preelection polls. The results generated joy among Democrats who saw victories in both states as critical heading into the 2018 midterm elections.
> *
> Also drawing attention on Tuesday were races for mayor of New York and Boston. In the mayoral races, incumbent Democrats Bill de Blasio and Martin Walsh were easily reelected. Democrat Danica Roem unseats Republican incumbent to become Virginia's first openly transgender House member*
> 
> *In Washington state, Democrat Manka Dhingra, a King County prosecutor, led her Republican opponent in early returns in a hotly contested state Senate race that could flip the upper house to Democrats, creating an unbroken line of blue in West Coast legislatures and governors’ offices. *Washington conducts elections entirely by mail, so it may be several days before a winner is confirmed. *(She won btw: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...-race-sends-message-to-trump-gov-inslee-says/)*
> 
> *And in Maine, a referendum victory for a measure to expand Medicaid could point to a way forward on healthcare for liberal activists in states with Republican governors.*


----------



## Reaper

Legit BOSS said:


> *Way to downplay Republicans and Republican policies getting wrecked in multiple states [emoji38] http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-essential-politics-20171110-story.html*


Oh no. Keep exaggerating the value and worth of wins that should already be wins and everyone knows are guaranteed wins. 

It works in everyone's favor in the end because whichever side overstates their political influence underestimates their opponent and underestimation is a great strategy for an overall defeat. 

Btw, Florida is a republican state. You live and work in a state where you pay 0 state taxes. Do you want to pay more taxes since that's a democrat policy? 

Thank you very much for working and therefore being more financially well off than the majority of Americans in a state that runs annual surpluses in the billions of dollars on very, very conservative politics :trump



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Bhalla is "everything that Trump hates"...and yet:
> 
> - His parents came here legally
> - He and his family integrated well with American society
> - He adheres to Sikhism
> 
> Honestly, how does he fall under anything that Trump hates? :hmm


I dunno. With a senate, house and executive office majority, including the power to appoint unknown judges into power, the "racist, homophobic, transphobic, women-hating dictatorship" of Trump really should have resulted in multiple gulags by now. Every day I scour the news sites looking for job opportunities at these gulags, but I can't seem to find any. :Shrug


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Reaper said:


> Oh no. Keep exaggerating the value and worth of wind that should already be wind and everyone knows are guaranteed wins.
> 
> It works in everyone's favor in the end because whichever side overstates their political influence underestimates their opponent and underestimation is a great strategy for an overall defeat.


*
Yes, you keep thinking that Democrats didn't learn their lesson from the Presidential election in spite of multiple examples of them turning outrage into votes last week. We're coming in full force in the mid term elections to take out all of the trash in the GOP.*



> Btw, Florida is a republican state. You live and work in a state where you pay 0 state taxes. Do you want to pay more taxes since that's a democrat policy?
> 
> Thank you very much for working and therefore being more financially well off than the majority of Americans in a state that runs annual surpluses in the billions of dollars on very, very conservative politics :trump


*I've stated multiple times that I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. This isn't a secret. Don't try to deflect from racist and bigoted policies because I take advantage of something that has no effect on basic civil rights.*


----------



## Reaper

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> Yes, you keep thinking that Democrats didn't learn their lesson from the Presidential election in spite of multiple examples of them turning outrage into votes last week. We're coming in full force in the mid term elections to take out all of the trash in the GOP.*


Go ahead. It's not happening. In any case, voting for democrats which are run by whites in the background even if they put a non-white face up front is still voting against your interests. You want to be truly independent, embrace black nationalism (the positive kind). Abandon the democrats. Establish your own party. 

I'm not a republican either and I think America needs more parties where more people are represented. (In truth, America would do better without a federal government anyways). 

Also, my comment stands. You guys are celebrating what should be wins. Drive for upsets. Those are not happening. 



> *I've stated multiple times that I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. This isn't a secret. Don't try to deflect from racist and bigoted policies because I take advantage of something that has no effect on basic civil rights.*


Nah. I'm not obsessed with race politics like you are. I'm a brown-skin too who's waiting for his immigration to come in and not once have I faced discrimination nor once has this administration tried to prevent me from access to any resource (government or private) on the basis of my skin. It just isn't happening. There's no basis for it. There is no law or bill in motion that would discriminate against me and my ilk. That sikh guy is just playing the race card for votes. 

I don't buy into race hysteria.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Reaper said:


> I dunno. With a senate, house and executive office majority, the "racist, homophobic, transphobic, women-hating dictatorship" of Trump really should have resulted in multiple gulags by now. Every day I scour the news sites looking for job opportunities at these gulags, but I can't seem to find any. :Shrug


I wanted to see the enactment of institutional exterminations of people based on their race, creed and gender! Not a steady stream of dank memes, laying down the law toward a rogue regime, looking to mend fences with Russia, and helping to bring about an improving and more confident economy! :cuss:

4 more years? More like NO MORE YEARS! :tripsscust



































































Then again, maybe he'll get it right if he gets 4 more years. :troll


----------



## stevefox1200

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/929356123588710400
McCain has started doing the whole "Say something (insert emotion)" thing that Trump has made popular

surprised it took Washington and the media to catch on to it


----------



## Reaper

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> I wanted to see the enactment of institutional exterminations of people based on their race, creed and gender! Not a steady stream of dank memes, laying down the law toward a rogue regime, looking to mend fences with Russia, and helping to bring about an improving and more confident economy! :cuss:
> 
> 4 more years? More like NO MORE YEARS! :tripsscust


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Apparently more clued in than most of the left and the media though given we expected Trump to win the election and they had it at 98% that Hillary would win.  I'm personally fine being considered clueless by people who are currently trapped inside of a mass hysteria bubble triggered by Trump's glorious and (in their clued-in view) impossible victory.
> 
> :trump


Hillary still won by over 3 million votes, the polls were not wrong.

Also nice deflection when we are not talking about his victory, but I expect nothing less from Trump supporters who can't deal with facts.

I also love how Trump supporters love to throw the word triggered around, when no one gets more triggered than Trump on a daily basis, be that on Twitter, making a fool of himself on camera in speeches or behind closed doors in the white house

Trump is the poster child for being triggered.

Trump gets soo triggered just at the mear mentioning that he has small hands, so much so, he was sending a journalist, pics of his hands and circling them saying see not small, for over ten years


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Reaper said:


>












However, if Trump makes anime real, then he'll win another 4 years, without question. 8*D


----------



## RavishingRickRules

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump gets soo triggered just at the mear mentioning that he has small hands, so much so, he was sending a journalist, pics of his hands and circling them saying see not small, for over ten years


Is that really true? I mean don't get me wrong, I think the guy's a total asshat, but that sounds truly ridiculous.


----------



## Reaper

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> However, if Trump makes anime real, then he'll win another 4 years, without question. 8*D


That's why he went to Japan.

Though rumor has it, it was really because Japan and Russia both have A and since Japan has 2 A's, therefore Trump wants to collude with Japan twice as much as he does with Russia and that made Russia jealous which is why he met with Putin in China.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reaper said:


> That's why he went to Japan.
> 
> Though rumor has it, it was really because Japan and Russia both have A and since Japan has 2 A's, therefore Trump wants to collude with Japan twice as much as he does with Russia and that made Russia jealous which is why he met with Putin in China.


But with Russia you can break it up into "R is USA" that's gotta count for something?


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> But with Russia you can break it up into "R is USA" that's gotta count for something?


USA exists within rUSiA. That's all the evidence you need for collusion.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reaper said:


> USA exists within rUSiA. That's all the evidence you need for collusion.


:lmao


----------



## Arya Dark

birthday_massacre said:


> Hillary still won by over 3 million votes, the polls were not wrong.
> 
> Also nice deflection when we are not talking about his victory, but I expect nothing less from Trump supporters who can't deal with facts.
> 
> I also love how Trump supporters love to throw the word triggered around, when no one gets more triggered than Trump on a daily basis, be that on Twitter, making a fool of himself on camera in speeches or behind closed doors in the white house
> 
> Trump is the poster child for being triggered.
> 
> Trump gets soo triggered just at the mear mentioning that he has small hands, so much so, he was sending a journalist, pics of his hands and circling them saying see not small, for over ten years



*Hillary didn't win though. That's like an NFL team saying, yeah you scored more points than us but we got more rushing yards than you so we win. 


Scoreboard.*


----------



## birthday_massacre

AryaDark said:


> *Hillary didn't win though. That's like an NFL team saying, yeah you scored more points than us but we got more rushing yards than you so we win.
> 
> 
> Scoreboard.*


Actually its nothing like that. You want to do a sports analogy ok lets do that and baseball is the perfect analogy.

The EC is like scoring runs in more innings and claiming you won, even though the other team scored more total runs.

The polls don't take into account the EC just total votes, which Hillary got 3 million more, so the polls were correct Hillary would get more votes.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RavishingRickRules said:


> Is that really true? I mean don't get me wrong, I think the guy's a total asshat, but that sounds truly ridiculous.


Yes its true, and actually its 25 years not 10 LOL


----------



## RavishingRickRules

birthday_massacre said:


> Yes its true, and actually its 25 years not 10 LOL


Is there a source? I have to read this :lmao


----------



## stevefox1200

RavishingRickRules said:


> Is that really true? I mean don't get me wrong, I think the guy's a total asshat, but that sounds truly ridiculous.


I looked it up and it appears to be true 

He has been regularly sending a journalist pictures of his hands talking about how THEY ARE NOT SMALL!!!!! and following him from job to job for about 30 years 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/history-donald-trump-small-hands-insult/story?id=37395515 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/04/media/donald-trump-fingers-hands/index.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-small-hands-2016-3

Trump also takes the time to tell people who make fun of his hands about how often he is praised for his hands


----------



## birthday_massacre

stevefox1200 said:


> I looked it up and it appears to be true
> 
> He has been regularly sending a journalist pictures of his hands talking about how THEY ARE NOT SMALL!!!!! and following him from job to job for about 30 years
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/history-donald-trump-small-hands-insult/story?id=37395515
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/04/media/donald-trump-fingers-hands/index.html
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-small-hands-2016-3
> 
> Trump also takes the time to tell people who make fun of his hands about how often he is praised for his hands


Oh you beat me to it. Yes its legit, and the best part is some of the pics he circles his hands it was in gold sharpie lol


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Uh, Hoboken has had a Democrat mayor for a very long time and I don't think we need to explain a "TURBANED SIKH DEMOCRAT"s election victory by giving credit to a white dude. :no:


There must be something to this "***********", only reason non-whites are getting elected is because of whites and only people who can fix racism is whites. It doesn't seem to matter which side it is either, whites are the key to all wins and all losses.

:bjpenn


----------



## stevefox1200

Miss Sally said:


> There must be something to this "***********", only reason non-whites are getting elected is because of whites and only people who can fix racism is whites. It doesn't seem to matter which side it is either, whites are the key to all wins and all losses.
> 
> :bjpenn


Being the majority has its social advantages but also its weaknesses

You get to set the norms but at the same time you are the first to catch hell and be blamed when those norms are challenged

yee double edged sword


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> Actually its nothing like that. You want to do a sports analogy ok lets do that and baseball is the perfect analogy.
> 
> The EC is like scoring runs in more innings and claiming you won, even though the other team scored more total runs.
> 
> The polls don't take into account the EC just total votes, which Hillary got 3 million more, so the polls were correct Hillary would get more votes.


When guys _mansplain_ and are incorrect. :banderas


----------



## RavishingRickRules

stevefox1200 said:


> I looked it up and it appears to be true
> 
> He has been regularly sending a journalist pictures of his hands talking about how THEY ARE NOT SMALL!!!!! and following him from job to job for about 30 years
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/history-donald-trump-small-hands-insult/story?id=37395515
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/04/media/donald-trump-fingers-hands/index.html
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-small-hands-2016-3
> 
> Trump also takes the time to tell people who make fun of his hands about how often he is praised for his hands


It's so silly, how is this real life? :lmao


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

That tweet and the reaction that's followed has made my day. Thank you God Emperor Trump!

:rusevyes



CamillePunk said:


> When guys _mansplain_ and are incorrect. :banderas


Ya, but you don't matter. Only SJW/Progressive/Feminists matter. You're privileged, so you just shut up and let the man tell you what's what. :x


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Reaper said:


> That's why he went to Japan.
> 
> Though rumor has it, it was really because Japan and Russia both have A and since Japan has 2 A's, therefore Trump wants to collude with Japan twice as much as he does with Russia and that made Russia jealous which is why he met with Putin in China.


Trump x Putin is one of the GOAT OTPs and I'll be damned if I allow Nintendo Land to sink that divinely-inspired battleship. :armfold


----------



## Arya Dark

birthday_massacre said:


> Actually its nothing like that. You want to do a sports analogy ok lets do that and baseball is the perfect analogy.
> 
> The EC is like scoring runs in more innings and claiming you won, even though the other team scored more total runs.
> 
> The polls don't take into account the EC just total votes, which Hillary got 3 million more, so the polls were correct Hillary would get more votes.


:confused

*Wow


You really don't get it do you? The ONLY score that matters in a presidential election is Electoral College. That's it. Any and all other statistics like total vote count means nothing. The WINNER is decided by the Electoral College. So I was correct in my sports analogy. You're simply bragging about a secondary statistic. Sure Hillary won the most rushing yards but she lost on the scoreboard. The scoreboard is the ONLY statistic that matters. *


----------



## birthday_massacre

AryaDark said:


> :confused
> 
> *Wow
> 
> 
> You really don't get it do you? The ONLY score that matters in a presidential election is Electoral College. That's it. Any and all other statistics like total vote count means nothing. The WINNER is decided by the Electoral College. So I was correct in my sports analogy. You're simply bragging about a secondary statistic. Sure Hillary won the most rushing yards but she lost on the scoreboard. The scoreboard is the ONLY statistic that matters. *


I don't think you get it.

We are talking about the polls predicting Hillary would get the most votes, which she did, the polls count who people are voting vote, which is the populate vote. The polls don't take into consideration the EC. 

I am not bragging about a secondary statistic, we are talking about you claiming the polls were wrong which they were not. The polls were right based on the popular vote. 

Not sure how many times we need to go over this. The polls usually don't need to take into consideration the EC since most times whoever wins the popular vote also wins the EC but of course that was not true two times in the past 16 years because of the fuckery with the votes. With Fl fucking over Gore and with the whole crosscheck BS in this election.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> I don't think you get it.
> 
> We are talking about the polls predicting Hillary would get the most votes


Except nobody but you mentioned polls. :banderas I said the media had her at 98%+ to *win the election* which is true. I'm pretty sure they didn't mean the popular vote unless they too are unaware of how presidents are elected in the United States. :lol

In any case, clearly polls in Wisconsin and Michigan were indeed quite wrong, and well, that seems important. :mj


----------



## Banez

Wait, it's been almost a year, and you guys are still debating who actually won? :wow


----------



## CamillePunk

Banez said:


> Wait, it's been almost a year, and you guys are still debating who actually won? :wow


To be fair I think it's only BM who contends that "Hillary still won". :lol 

Meanwhile I'm sure Bernie still has a chance if we just keep PHONE BANKING. :lmao

The 2016 presidential election seriously provided enough jokes and memes to last a lifetime. We have it way too good to actually get Trump as president for at least 4 years on top of that shit.


----------



## Banez

There only was bad choices out of the top two candidates. You guys and gals essentially had to vote for lesser of two evils. I'm not sure if you picked right or wrong one. We still got 3 years to find out :lol

But on a side note: Think it this way, if your country can survive 4 years of Trump, it can survive anything.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

RavishingRickRules said:


> It's so silly, how is this real life? :lmao


Don't question the beauty of the bizarre, brah. Simply do the following:










:trump2


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

CamillePunk said:


> We have it way too good to actually get Trump as president for at least 4 years on top of that shit.


*:mj4 Did you forget that he's in danger of being impeached for treason and collusion? Also, good luck getting any of those racist policies and awful healthcare plans passed in a majority Democrat Senate after next year.*


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/929240125724180481
Rational minded migrants world over recognize the sheer absurdity of that sikh guy's absolutely retarded comments. Sikhs, Indians have far greater "privilege" in North America and their wealth and uniform success is only matched by far east Asians. 

Also: https://www.waynedupree.com/connecticut-elects-two-20-year-old-black-republicans-office/



> *Connecticut Elects Two 20-Year-Old Black Republicans Into Office*
> 
> They are believed to be the youngest black Republicans to ever win political office in deep blue Connecticut.
> 
> This is a story that you can feel good about if you are part of the Republican Party.
> 
> Ed Ford Jr and Tyrell Brown served as President and Vice-President during their senior year in high school and have been friends since middle school. Their convictions of republican principles ring deep which is why they both ran and won their political races in the liberal state of Connecticut.
> 
> The Republican Party has a rich heritage when it came to helping to free the slaves from decades of Democrat-led plantations and auction blocks. Liberals have worked over the years to hide their sinful past by rewriting history and changing the narrative through our educational system which includes television shows and movies.
> 
> These two young gentleman from the north are unique and something about the platform of the Republican Party resonated with their core and convictions as it has done to many black Americans over the past few years that started an exodus from the Democrat party. Nobody can take that away from them not even Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama.
> 
> Ed Ford Jr. and Tyrell Brown have been best friends since middle school. They each developed a passion for politics at a young age. During their senior year in high school they served as president and Vice President of student government.
> 
> “I met him playing two hand touch football,” said Ford, referring to Brown.
> 
> Now, they’re 20-year-old juniors in college, who possibly just made history following Tuesday’s election. They are believed to be the youngest black Republicans to ever win political office in deep blue Connecticut.
> Ford won a seat on the Middletown school board, the same district where he attended public schools. “When the results came in I was absolutely euphoric,” he remarked.
> 
> Brown was elected to the Middletown Planning and Zoning Commission. “When I found out I won I said okay, time to get to work.”
> 
> The media hasn’t covered this because they are still in the history rewriting phase. If the black community would learn to research both sides to make an informed decision, I believe things would be so different. The party platforms are night and day as the Republican platform reminds what we were taught as kids.
> 
> What gives me hope are these two young men. The Republican leadership is bad, really bad. They do not fight back against Democrats as they compromise too quickly giving up their advantage to be loved by the media. As for me, I want to share this everywhere because it’s a great story.
> 
> This news doesn’t happen regularly within the black community, but because it did, it definitely can happen more often. I am very proud of these two, and I admire their fight and spirit. I pray they stay true to their convictions and do not get caught up on Twitter or Facebook groups. That can be deadly.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Wait, it's been almost a year, and you guys are still debating who actually won?


The other side can't let it go. It took them 16 years to get over Gore.

- Vic


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Sean Hannity Fans Call for Boycott as 3 Sponsors Pull Ads

#BoycottKeurig trends after coffee company announces it will stop advertising on Fox News show after host’s defense of Alabama senate candidate Roy Moore*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/929785078275805185
Keurig already has your money. You paid for the coffee maker you just shot. fpalm


----------



## Cabanarama

Legit BOSS said:


> *:mj4 Did you forget that he's in danger of being impeached for treason and collusion? Also, good luck getting any of those racist policies and awful healthcare plans passed in a majority Democrat Senate after next year.*


You're clearly arguing with someone who doesn't care about issues, or policies, accomplishments, or the actual job Trump is doing as president. They just like Trump for the lolz...


----------



## CamillePunk

Legit BOSS said:


> *:mj4 Did you forget that he's in danger of being impeached for treason and collusion? Also, good luck getting any of those racist policies and awful healthcare plans passed in a majority Democrat Senate after next year.*


Are the people in your movie that confident impeachment is going to happen? I wonder where I can bet money against it. I'm still kicking myself for not doing so on the election last year.


Cabanarama said:


> You're clearly arguing with someone who doesn't care about issues, or policies, accomplishments, or the actual job Trump is doing as president. They just like Trump for the lolz...


False. The lolz are just an amazing bonus.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

2 Ton 21 said:


> *Sean Hannity Fans Call for Boycott as 3 Sponsors Pull Ads
> 
> #BoycottKeurig trends after coffee company announces it will stop advertising on Fox News show after host’s defense of Alabama senate candidate Roy Moore*
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/929785078275805185
> Keurig already has your money. You paid for the coffee maker you just shot. fpalm


*That's wonderful news. I'm glad that Fox News is so stupid that they'll defend a child molester just because he's a Republican. This will make the turnover that much easier in the coming elections.*


----------



## CamillePunk

Damn, the betting markets are so sure Trump won't be impeached you can't make any money on betting that way. :sad: 

They must be in my movie.


----------



## Cabanarama

Legit BOSS said:


> *That's wonderful news. I'm glad that Fox News is so stupid that they'll defend a child molester just because he's a Republican. This will make the turnover that much easier in the coming elections.*


Shit, if Dennis Hastert tried to make a comeback and was supportive of Trump's agenda, Fox News and all the Trump supporters would back him up 100%...


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Cabanarama said:


> Shit, if Dennis Hastert tried to make a comeback and was supportive of Trump's agenda, Fox News and all the Trump supporters would back him up 100%...


*
Right. They only got rid of Bill O' Reily because they were FORCED to do it by massive nationwide outrage. They silenced his sexual assaults by paying off victims for so long.*


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/929240125724180481
> Rational minded migrants world over recognize the sheer absurdity of that sikh guy's absolutely retarded comments. Sikhs, Indians have far greater "privilege" in North America and their wealth and uniform success is only matched by far east Asians.
> 
> Also: https://www.waynedupree.com/connecticut-elects-two-20-year-old-black-republicans-office/


Two black Republicans got elected into office in a blue state?

When they seen they were running as Republicans I can only assume the white Democrats figured they were black, therefore so disadvantaged they had no idea what Democrats/Republicans were and voted for them out of pity.



CamillePunk said:


> Are the people in your movie that confident impeachment is going to happen? I wonder where I can bet money against it. I'm still kicking myself for not doing so on the election last year.False. The lolz are just an amazing bonus.


I was in Vegas when betting was going on but left a few days before the election. I had forgot to put down a bet, was going to bet 2k on Trump winning and I was livid I didn't because I would have made a killing!


----------



## virus21




----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/929240125724180481
> Rational minded migrants world over recognize the sheer absurdity of that sikh guy's absolutely retarded comments. Sikhs, Indians have far greater "privilege" in North America and their wealth and uniform success is only matched by far east Asians.


*What you're failing to acknowledge is that he's being treated as a Muslim by Trump's ignorant and racist constituency, thus the success of his actual heritage is invalid to his message of racial and religious equality.*


----------



## CamillePunk

Legit BOSS said:


> *What you're failing to acknowledge is that he's being treated as a Muslim by Trump's ignorant and racist constituency, thus the success of his actual heritage is invalid to his message of racial and religious equality.*


That's assuming the signs weren't a hoax. :mj Considering they put that it was paid for by one of his opponents' campaigns on the sign itself, the sheer stupidity of the signs, and recent history with supposedly racist messages, I wouldn't be at all surprised. :lol


----------



## Reaper

It's the Russians.





Legit BOSS said:


> *What you're failing to acknowledge is that he's being treated as a Muslim by Trump's ignorant and racist constituency, thus the success of his actual heritage is invalid to his message of racial and religious equality.*



He's appropriating the perceived oppression of another group for his personal gain. 

That makes him a scumbag with a victim complex or a scumbag that's racebaiting. 

As I said don't let these scumbags minimize the actual oppression of various communities by inserting their privileged group into the perceived oppressed group to market off of for themselves.

Sikhs in America are one of the most privileged groups in the country. Financial wealth (or lack of) is seen as one of the primary indicators of institutionalized racism in America - therefore the reverse is also true that if someone is wealthy therefore it's an indicator of the lack of an oppressive system since it couldn't throttle an entire community.


----------



## Miss Sally

Legit BOSS said:


> *What you're failing to acknowledge is that he's being treated as a Muslim by Trump's ignorant and racist constituency, thus the success of his actual heritage is invalid to his message of racial and religious equality.*


Well the one good thing about the Left and the Right when it comes to Sikhs is they both think they're Muslims. Considering the fact Sikhs were giving free cab rides and offering up their Temples to victims after the terror attacks in the U.K and people were trying to give credit to Muslims - Who are in no way related to Sikhs.

I'm quite sure if it wasn't mentioned the man was Sikh, the same rhetoric would be used in this case. :smile2:




Reaper said:


> It's the Russians.


Everything he's said bad about Trump, the Russia stuff and the Sexual stuff is coming back on him and he's twisting in the wind over it all. Someone should start telling these people about stones and glass houses.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Everything he's said bad about Trump, the Russia stuff and the Sexual stuff is coming back on him and he's twisting in the wind over it all. Someone should start telling these people about stones and glass houses.


The Russian boogeyman is fascinating especially considering it's a boogeyman for the group that constantly whines about how conservatives consider "all muslims" boogeymen :lmao

Love the modern political discourse for all its rampant hypocrisy.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> The Russian boogeyman is fascinating especially considering it's a boogeyman for the group that constantly whines about how conservatives consider "all muslims" boogeymen :lmao
> 
> Love the modern political discourse for all its rampant hypocrisy.


Aren't these the same people who also talk about racism and xenophobia yet spreading anti-russian sentiment and stirring up xenophobia? I find it rather ironic.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Aren't these the same people who also talk about racism and xenophobia yet spreading anti-russian sentiment and stirring up xenophobia? I find it rather ironic.


Well, from what I've noticed, it's about gotcha moments and being able to frame the other side as racist/bigot/xenophobe. They don't have to even really believe any of that as long as they can continue to push that propaganda. 

IMO, it comes from a deeply personalized relationship with the appearance of good. If you can make someone else appear evil, and believe that they are evil, then you can go back to the mirror and praise yourself for being a hero and feel better about your own life. 

Remember that Lauren Southern video about millennials and the hero worship? Yeah. That.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Miss Sally said:


> Aren't these the same people who also talk about racism and xenophobia yet spreading anti-russian sentiment and stirring up xenophobia? I find it rather ironic.


Ya, but they're white, so that makes it okay.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Reaper said:


> He's appropriating the perceived oppression of another group for his personal gain.


*
No, he isn't. Who are you to say he faces no oppression from ignorant people? I have to put emphasis on ignorant because you're working under the assumption that everyone is educated, let alone racist Trump supporters. They see a turban and they think Muslim Terrorist.*



> As I said don't let these scumbags minimize the actual oppression of various communities by inserting their privileged group into the perceived oppressed group to market off of for themselves.


*Are you seriously denying that mistaken race mishaps happen?*





Miss Sally said:


> Well the one good thing about the Left and the Right when it comes to Sikhs is they both think they're Muslims. Considering the fact Sikhs were giving free cab rides and offering up their Temples to victims after the terror attacks in the U.K and people were trying to give credit to Muslims - Who are in no way related to Sikhs.
> 
> I'm quite sure if it wasn't mentioned the man was Sikh, the same rhetoric would be used in this case. :smile2:


*At least you acknowledge that wrongful race assumptions happen.*


----------



## Miss Sally

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Ya, but they're white, so that makes it okay.


Not exclusively, there are many Asian Russians and Turkic in the more rural and eastern parts of Russia. Though facts and stuff, boring! These people don't have time for facts, only action!



Legit BOSS said:


> *At least you acknowledge that wrongful race assumptions happen.*


Sadly far more often than it should.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Miss Sally said:


> Not exclusively, there are many Asian Russians and Turkic in the more rural and eastern parts of Russia. Though facts and stuff, boring! These people don't have time for facts, only action!


Do you really think the every day leftist thinks those Russians exist?

:nah2

To them, Russians all look like this...


----------



## Reaper

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> No, he isn't. Who are you to say he faces no oppression from ignorant people? I have to put emphasis on ignorant because you're working under the assumption that everyone is educated, let alone racist Trump supporters. They see a turban and they think Muslim Terrorist.*


Persecution for me is not a random racially charged comment. Persecution is led by the state with racist policies designed specifically to disadvantage a large group of people. The MUSLIM ban if it was actually just a Muslim ban would have gotten opposition to me. This guy is a sikh. The state has made no statements about sikhs. The president has made no statements about sikhs. You are pushing a narrative that he is a victim because muslims are a victim because some people think sikhs are muslims therefore this sikh is a victim. 

That's a very understandable train of thought, but that doesn't make this something that's worth taking seriously at all because it's not a very convincing example of race victimization at all. 

If someone walks up to me and calls me a sand ...... because I'm not a pink-skin, by reacting to that by being hurt, I'm giving him power over me. As a brown-skin my reaction to the other person is to laugh at his face and refuse to fear him because by fearing him or by being offended by him I'm giving him power over me. 

No one but myself has power over me. 



> *Are you seriously denying that mistaken race mishaps happen?*


Sure it happens. I don't care if it happened to a guy who got voted in and became an elected official. He's playing a victim where he's not even a victim. I consider him a scumbag for doing so. 



> *At least you acknowledge that wrongful race assumptions happen.*


That's the same as acknowledging that racism exists. No one has ever denied that. 

But at the same time, race-baiting and the persecution complex based exploiation industry exists as well. Do you acknowledge its existence?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

"Doing what is right, does not mean you will be loved for it."

Hhhmmmm, sounds like she might be talking about someone in particular.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Reaper said:


> Persecution for me is not a random racially charged comment. Persecution is led by the state with racist policies designed specifically to disadvantage a large group of people.


*If some *******'s 'policy' is to threaten to pull out a shotgun on you and kill you because you're a Middle Eastern person, then yes, that is persecution.*



> If someone walks up to me and calls me a sand ...... because I'm not a pink-skin, by reacting to that by being hurt, I'm giving him power over me. As a brown-skin my reaction to the other person is to laugh at his face and refuse to fear him because by fearing him or by being offended by him I'm giving him power over me. No one but myself has power over me.


*
That doesn't invalidate the action though. You can't say oppression doesn't exist because you shrug it off. You're just choosing to ignore it. He just said "Fuck them, I'm running for office and shoving their toxic rhetoric in their faces." I respect that.*




> They're not persecution. It's also not discrimination. He got elected as a government official and you're claiming that he's oppressed in some way.
> 
> That's not oppressive to me. He's riling about the President hating him. A President that has made no attempts to officially oppress his kind.


*That's ridiculous. Are you now claiming that Obama faced no persecution because he was elected president? Do you know how much racist shit was hurled his way literally every day?*



> That's the same as acknowledging that racism exists. No one has ever denied that.


*It sounds to me like you're denying it because you think it should be ignored *:toomanykobes.



> But at the same time, race-baiting and the persecution complex based financial industry exists as well. Do you acknowledge its existence?


*
If you're asking if race baiting exists, the answer is yes. If you're asking if I think this man is manufacturing claims of racism for the sake of his campaign, the answer is hell no.*


----------



## Reaper

Legit BOSS said:


> *If some *******'s 'policy' is to threaten to pull out a shotgun on you and kill you because you're a Middle Eastern person, then yes, that is persecution.*


This is completely irrelevant to the context of the conversation I'm trying to have with you. 



> *
> That doesn't invalidate the action though. You can't say oppression doesn't exist because you shrug it off. You're just choosing to ignore it. He just said "Fuck them, I'm running for office and shoving their toxic rhetoric in their faces." I respect that.*


Oppression and racism have to have a practical and tangible negative impact on the life of the person for it to convert the person into a victim. 

I can get my feelings hurt by anything. Having my feelings hurt does not mean that I was the victim of a racist attack. 

The arbitrary nature with which we define victims now is essentially making it impossible to differentiate between real victims and those who only scream about being victims. As I said before, conflations of non-victims to the status of victimhood denies real victims their power. 



> *That's ridiculous. Are you now claiming that Obama faced no persecution because he was elected president? Do you know how much racist shit was hurled his way literally every day?*


What were the _impacts _of racism on Obama's life that made Obama a _victim _of racism? 



> *It sounds to me like you're denying it because you think it should be ignored *:toomanykobes.


Lol. You know what you're doing here. I know it too. This sort of shit might work on other people you talk to, but I'm pretty much immune to such claims at this point. 

I have a clear picture of what is a victim or racism and what isn't. 



> *
> If you're asking if race baiting exists, the answer is yes. If you're asking if I think this man is manufacturing claims of racism for the sake of his campaign, the answer is hell no.*


You have not provided any evidence of the racism this man has faced so till you do he's not a victim but a race-baiting exploiter.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Reaper said:


> This is completely irrelevant to the context of the conversation I'm trying to have with you.


*No, it isn't. He claimed to face racism. It doesn't have to be from someone with a position of power. It can be any idiot wielding a confederate flag making violent, hateful threats or committing vandalism.*



> No. I'm defining it as it ought to be rationally defined because oppression and racism have to have a practical and tangible negative impact on the life of the person for it to convert the person into a victim.


*Which is straight up wrong. There's no way around it. *




> I have a clear picture of what is a victim or racism and what isn't.


*
No, you don't. You minimalized LeBron James getting his house spray painted with the N word because he's rich. You have a warped concept of what should be considered racism. To you, someone has to be physically harmed before they can be considered a victim of racism.*



> What were the impacts of racism on Obama's life that made Obama a victim of racism?


*Case in point. There are hundreds, possibly thousands of published examples of racism towards Obama in the last 10 years, but you ignore it because he wasn't physically harmed or prevented from becoming president.*



> You have not provided any evidence of the racism this man has faced so till you do he's not a victim but a race-baiting exploiter.


*Guilty til proven innocent isn't how this works. The burden of proof is on the accuser. Prove he's a fraud. It shouldn't be hard to do since he's a public figure.*


----------



## Reaper

Since we fundamentally disagree on the definition of what is racism and what is a victim, I think we are at an impasse and there's no point in continuing the discussion further. We're into the territory of perceptions and beliefs and at this point no further value can be gained from the back and forth. For me, it's no longer about right or wrong. 

But I will address one thing. 



Legit BOSS said:


> *No, it isn't. He claimed to face racism. It doesn't have to be from someone with a position of power. It can be any idiot wielding a confederate flag making violent, hateful threats or committing vandalism.*





> *Guilty til proven innocent isn't how this works. The burden of proof is on the accuser. Prove he's a fraud. It shouldn't be hard to do since he's a public figure.*


This isn't me putting the burden of proof on the "victim" since _his _claim is the one on trail, hence _he _needs to provide the proof. He made the claim about racism he faced. He does need to provide proof of it. The accuser provides proof. 

For example, if I say that you were racist towards me 5 years ago, I have to be the one to provide proof of that and not you who has to prove that you weren't racist.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

I'm not gonna go there.


----------



## Art Vandaley

"racism
noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
"a programme to combat racism"
synonyms:	racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice/bigotry, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, bias, intolerance;"

You'd have to be blind, deaf or living under a rock for the past decade to believe Obama never faced antagonism based on his race.

Requiring proof of that is like requiring proof there is a moon.

Btw you can't disagree on what a word in the dictionary means anymore than you can argue 2 plus 2 equals 5 in your maths system.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Btw you can't disagree on what a word in the dictionary means anymore than you can argue 2 plus 2 equals 5 in your maths system.


You don't understand the difference between a subjective definition and an objective truth and creating an equivalency between the definition of racism vs a mathematical law. 

Here's some help: http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/

---
@2 Ton 21 










http://gotnews.com/busted-judge-fus...ip-john-podesta-teaches-class-georgetown-law/

Apparently, the timeline is confusing, but it seems like they booted one for a conflict of interest, but then got another and there's still a conflict of interest, but a less blatant one. 

There's no such thing as an independent judiciary in the United States. 

They're all connected. Just as the Hawaii Judge that ruled against the Trump "muslim" ban was Obama's classmate. 

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/03/16/hawaii-news/judge-who-issued-travel-ban-ruling-is-obama-law-classmate/

Separation of Powers in America is a myth. 

It does not exist. The system of government allows for corruption all the way from the top to the bottom at all levels. And there is no system of accountability in place because those who can hold the corrupt accountable were put into power by the corrupt. It's all about who has the power and since America has been a two party system for a long ass time, there's plenty of room for collusion between both parties as well as a very simple means of always appointing judges that are favorable to your party. 

https://www.theburningplatform.com/...e-fusion-gps-case-has-ties-with-john-podesta/

Read this whole article. It's too lengthy and requires a lot of editing so I won't do that here. ^^^


----------



## Vic Capri

November 4th was a fail and so was Screaming At The Sky.

Haters getting mad because Trump is improving relations with Russia. That whole diplomacy thing you know?

Trump's love for China paid off. He is the only President to have dined inside the Forbidden City. Not even Richard Nixon had that honor!

- Vic


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Republicans are making it too easy out here:*

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/929915636431679489
*Keep defending pedophiles bra. Fight that good fight:honoraryblack*


----------



## Stephen90

Legit BOSS said:


> *Republicans are making it too easy out here:*
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/929915636431679489
> *Keep defending pedophiles bra. Fight that good fight:honoraryblack*


LOL attacking a dead man.


----------



## CamillePunk

So Joe Biden says Trump is doing well so far but doesn't like the _way_ he does things. :lol  Then when pressed on what Trump has done well he brings up Trump's wife. 

2020 is going to be hilarious if Biden is the anointed candidate. Watching liberals twist themselves into knots to defend the sexism and general physical creepiness towards women (and very young girls) of this guy would be amazing. :lol Totally antithetical to the Democratic Party's brand.


----------



## samizayn

Can someone explain to me where the controversy actually lies in this Roy Moore thing? Is there actually a disagreement or is that made up?


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> Can someone explain to me where the controversy actually lies in this Roy Moore thing? Is there actually a disagreement or is that made up?


If you're talking about the sexual allegations, well, the first one came from a Democrat aide that was very close to Clinton as well as Biden which made the accusation _very _questionable and possibly false.

Some digging will be done on the second accuser as well and then it'll have to be judged on the merits and connections of the accuser. Political motivations need to be taken into account here. 

With hollywood, things were different ... and at the moment (and my mind might change) it seems like they are trying to use the current climate where people are believing the accusers in order to potentially sneak in a false accusation. With the sheer level of corruption involving the democrats now out in the open with riggings, Fusion GPS, Podesta scandal, bribery etc etc it's impossible to not consider the very high possibility that this is a political setup. 

Will have to wait and see.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> If you're talking about the sexual allegations, well, the first one came from a Democrat aide that was very close to Clinton as well as Biden which made the accusation _very _questionable and possibly false.
> 
> Some digging will be done on the second accuser as well and then it'll have to be judged on the merits and connections of the accuser. Political motivations need to be taken into account here.
> 
> With hollywood, things were different ... and at the moment (and my mind might change) it seems like they are trying to use the current climate where people are believing the accusers in order to potentially sneak in a false accusation. With the sheer level of corruption involving the democrats now out in the open with riggings, Fusion GPS, Podesta scandal, bribery etc etc it's impossible to not consider the very high possibility that this is a political setup.
> 
> Will have to wait and see.


One of the accusers is a Trump supporter.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> One of the accusers is a Trump supporter.


Everybody lies and everyone has a price. In a high stakes situation like this no stone should be left unturned. 

That said, I don't have any political capital invested in Roy Moore. Couldn't care less if he gets brought down or not.

However, the timing of this is obviously questionable and will remain questionable for a long time. If it isn't, then it's terrible for American politics overall since it just continues to reaffirm the idea in everyone's head that the Democrats are a rotten party at its core and will resort to anything in order to retain their power. 

If Roy Moore loses now, it's obviously bad for America - even if he wasn't such a great candidate himself - since the next option gets in on a scandal. Slippery slope for future candidates.


----------



## MrMister

Scandals and political hits are nothing new though. Let's say Roy Moore has been targeted by a political hit. He's not the first and won't be the last.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Everybody lies and everyone has a price. In a high stakes situation like this no stone should be left unturned.
> 
> That said, I don't have any political capital invested in Roy Moore. Couldn't care less if he gets brought down or not.
> 
> However, the timing of this is obviously questionable and will remain questionable for a long time. If it isn't, then it's terrible for American politics overall since it just continues to reaffirm the idea in everyone's head that the Democrats are a rotten party at its core and will resort to anything in order to retain their power.
> 
> If Roy Moore loses now, it's obviously bad for America - even if he wasn't such a great candidate himself - since the next option gets in on a scandal. Slippery slope for future candidates.


Its only bad if he loses and didn't do it. If he did do it, then how is it a bad thing?

that being said, we are talking about Alabama, doubt he will lose even if he admitted to doing it.


----------



## stevefox1200

Moore's spokespersons hasn't really denied shit and mostly tried to justify sexual assault and pedophilia using the bible

There is very little denial but tons of attempts at justification

I HEAVILY doubt this is a political hit


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Its only bad if he loses and didn't do it. If he did do it, then how is it a bad thing?
> 
> that being said, we are talking about Alabama, doubt he will lose even if he admitted to doing it.


With Doug Jones's extremely close ties to Clinton (he was appointed by Bill Clinton personally) it's unlikely that he's got a chance to win. He's the ultimate clintonese / Pelosi establishment democrat so my guess is that even the democrats will think twice about voting him. He doesn't have a personalized platform for Alabama and all his talking points are the same as Clinton. 

Alabama is one of those states where even if he admits to sexual assault, people will forgive him imo.

Should they or not is not my argument. He wasn't endorsed by Trump so maybe there are some other skeletons in his closet.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> With Doug Jones's extremely close ties to Clinton (he was appointed by Bill Clinton personally) it's unlikely that he's got a chance to win. He's the ultimate clintonese / Pelosi establishment democrat so my guess is that even the democrats will think twice about voting him.
> 
> A*labama is one of those states where even if he admits to sexual assault, people will forgive him imo.*


That is my point about it being Alabama and it wont even matter even if he admits it


----------



## MrMister

If Roy Moore had sex with young women aged 18-19 even if he was 50, it's not pedophilia.


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> Moore's spokespersons hasn't really denied shit and mostly tried to justify sexual assault and pedophilia using the bible
> 
> There is very little denial but tons of attempts at justification
> 
> I HEAVILY doubt this is a political hit


What are you talking about? He's outright denied it:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/video/roy-moore-denies-sexual-misconduct-allegations/vp-BBEVdY4

--

Meanwhile NEWSWEEK! Once again :ha 










Damn, this is sad. My dad had a newsweek subscription for over 10 years when I was a kid. It was one of my go to mags for world news in the 90's.

Russkiphobes must really be having some amazing jack off sessions these days given their fantasies are coming true :mj


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> If Roy Moore had sex with young women aged 18-19 even if he was 50, it's not pedophilia.


One of the girls was 14. But sure deflect.


----------



## Reaper

Joe Biden everybody .... 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/929937864736911360
The little girl knows what the creepy bastard is doing. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/929938899379437568
This post is not related to the Roy Moore stuff btw.


----------



## MrMister

birthday_massacre said:


> One of the girls was 14. But sure deflect.


I'm not defending Roy Moore. I think he's scum.

Consensual sex with an 18 year old isn't pedophilia. If it wasn't consensual then it's a massive deal because it's rape.


----------



## Reaper

Wait. The new accuser had a full on press conference with Gloria Allred. Allred represented a bunch of fake accusers against Trump too :lmao 

How can anyone not think that this is a total political hit at this point.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> I'm not defending Roy Moore. I think he's scum.
> 
> Consensual sex with an 18 year old isn't pedophilia. If it wasn't consensual then it's a massive deal because it's rape.


Did someone call him a pedphile for sleeping with an 18 year old?


----------



## MrMister

birthday_massacre said:


> Did someone call him a pedphile for sleeping with an 18 year old?


Some are implying this yes, lumping the two together. It's certainly taboo for a man to have sex with someone that could be his daughter, but this is a different issue that isn't pedophilia.

If the 14 year old encounter is true then obviously that is bad as well as illegal.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> Some are implying this yes, lumping the two together. It's certainly taboo for a man to have sex with someone that could be his daughter, but this is a different issue that isn't pedophilia.
> 
> If the 14 year old encounter is true then obviously that is bad as well as illegal.


Do you have examples of the people implying this?



Reaper said:


> Wait. The new accuser had a full on press conference with Gloria Allred. Allred represented a bunch of fake accusers against Trump too :lmao
> 
> How can anyone not think that this is a total political hit at this point.


Because every accusation should be based on its own merits.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> So Joe Biden says Trump is doing well so far but doesn't like the _way_ he does things. :lol  Then when pressed on what Trump has done well he brings up Trump's wife.
> 
> 2020 is going to be hilarious if Biden is the anointed candidate. Watching liberals twist themselves into knots to *defend the sexism and general physical creepiness towards women (and very young girls) of this guy* would be amazing. :lol Totally antithetical to the Democratic Party's brand.












Ironing = Delicious


----------



## Beatles123

yeahbaby! said:


> Ironing = Delicious


He owned the pageant, how is taking a photo creepy in that context?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> He owned the pageant, how is taking a photo creepy in that context?


Trump would just walk into the dressing rooms whilel they were getting changed. Do you think that is ok?


----------



## yeahbaby!

Beatles123 said:


> He owned the pageant, how is taking a photo creepy in that context?


Beatles! Great to hear from you.

The picture is a symbolic of Trump as a creepy weirdo towards women. 

We've been through all this - Do you really want me to bring up the confirmed activities of Mr Pussy Grabbing > I just start kissing beautiful women I can't help myself > They let you do it when you're powerful > Walks into the contestant's change room unannounced > I'd probably go out with Ivanka if she wasn't my daughter > etc etc etc etc

Ask yourself this, if the above things (which are undeniable) were not about Trump, instead about the latest liberal, maybe even LEFTIST, Hollywood actor, how would you react?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reaper said:


> Joe Biden everybody ....
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/929937864736911360
> The little girl knows what the creepy bastard is doing.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/929938899379437568
> This post is not related to the Roy Moore stuff btw.


Yeah I just saw a whole grip of videos like this. This guy needs investigating seriously tbh, nothing I saw in those videos is ok or normal. (Obviously, friends in high places he'll get off scott free like the majority of paedophiles in politics on both sides of the spectrum.)


----------



## Arya Dark

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/930217511588716544


----------



## Reaper

Amazing to see him back already. 

After the attack there was some fluid build up in his lungs and it could have been dicey.


----------



## stevefox1200

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/545738/

Wikileaks went back in forth with Jr. asking for inside information and "softballs" they could "leak" on Trump they could frame as "impartiality" in exchange for dumping everything had on Hillary at strategic times as well as making Julian a diplomat with international immunity. They went as far as offering a hypnotically "approach" on how sell the appointment.

Wiki leaks also offered phrases that would please its user base and sources for Clinton dirt which Trump used and officially cited. They also recommended pushing the narrative that the Democrats cheated if he lost and they would officially back him up.

Julian's official response is its all lies and that wikileaks doesn't keep records so he can't prove it

Jr. immediately cracked and posted the DMs

Here is a quick version in film with Assange being portrayed by Piven 






(smokin aces, very unrated)


----------



## Reaper

Allred getting involved just tossed Roy Moore a huge lifeline. If there was anyone less credible in the universe that the Dems could have gotten it was her. 

Republican voter base now galvanizing behind Roy Moore. 

Dems are their own worst enemy.


----------



## Pratchett

CamillePunk said:


> 2020 is going to be hilarious if Biden is the anointed candidate.


I seriously doubt it will be Biden. Right now I am thinking it will be John Kasich after he switches parties.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Reaper said:


> You don't understand the difference between a subjective definition and an objective truth and creating an equivalency between the definition of racism vs a mathematical


The idea that words mean whatever you feel like they mean at any given moment is the worst of post modernism.

You don't get to redefine a word with a widely accepted definition. 

If you have a new definition you need a new word.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> The idea that words mean whatever you feel like they mean at any given moment is the worst of post modernism.
> 
> You don't get to redefine a word with a widely accepted definition.
> 
> If you have a new definition you need a new word.


And which authority in the world decided that the definition you're clinging to is objectively true and cannot be argued against just because that particular definition suits your agenda. 

You're on thin ice here. Perception and fact are two separate things and you're trying to claim that there is no subjectivity when it comes to "definitions". That's an absolutely ridiculous assertion.


----------



## Cabanarama

Pratchett said:


> I seriously doubt it will be Biden. Right now I am thinking it will be John Kasich after he switches parties.


Why would Kasich switch parties? Yes, he's anti-Trump, but on the issues, he is against the Democrats on nearly all of them. 
And if he did, do you expect Democratic primary voters to vote for someone that is on the right on almost every issue? (The fact that Kasich is considered a "moderate" shows how extremely far right the Republican party has gone).
Assuming Trump is still president in 2020, he's more likely to start his own third party after he loses the primaries than anything else.


----------



## Pratchett

Cabanarama said:


> Why would Kasich switch parties? Yes, he's anti-Trump, but on the issues, he is against the Democrats on nearly all of them.
> And if he did, do you expect Democratic primary voters to vote for someone that is on the right on almost every issue? (The fact that Kasich is considered a "moderate" shows how extremely far right the Republican party has gone).
> Assuming Trump is still president in 2020, he's more likely to start his own third party after he loses the primaries than anything else.


Politics makes for strange bedfellows. :draper2


----------



## Cabanarama

Pratchett said:


> Politics makes for strange bedfellows. :draper2


As far as that goes, we'd be far, far more likely to see something like the Kasich/ Hickenlooper independent ticket idea that was thrown around earlier this year than anything else.
But either way, it's ridiculous to talk about the next presidential election until we get to next year's midterms...


----------



## Art Vandaley

Reaper said:


> And which authority in the world decided that the definition you're clinging to is objectively true and cannot be argued against


Dictionary editors. 

Literally all of them.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Allred getting involved just tossed Roy Moore a huge lifeline. If there was anyone less credible in the universe that the Dems could have gotten it was her.
> 
> Republican voter base now galvanizing behind Roy Moore.
> 
> Dems are their own worst enemy.


Too bad teh GOP is starting to turn against him and a few of them are backing the women.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Too bad teh GOP is starting to turn against him and a few of them are backing the women.


Yeah. The GOP voter base and the anti-Moore republicans are at odds with one another. The people voting Moore already dislike the GOP establishment which dislikes Moore so apparently the more the GOP establishment speaks up against Moore the more his constituents rally. 

It is very fascinating to see where this is heading.


----------



## stevefox1200

This election has taught me that the "establishment" doesn't hate the "outsiders" because they are corrupt and desperate to maintain their power 

they hate the "outsiders" because they are dangers to themselves and others and have no problem burning down other people's carrer's when they get caught

Most "outsiders" have no problem becoming "establishment" when they show they have at least some idea what their doing


----------



## Laughable Chimp

Alkomesh2 said:


> Dictionary editors.
> 
> Literally all of them.


This is BS. Different words can have different definitions and meanings in different context and not all of those contexts are covered in all the dictionaries.

Just 2 weeks ago I was arguing the definition of a monopoly with someone who was quoting a dictionary. When the law, financial and economics definition of a monopoly is clearly different than what the dictionary and what the general usage of the word usually means.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Laughable Chimp said:


> Alkomesh2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dictionary editors.
> 
> Literally all of them.
> 
> 
> 
> This is BS. Different words can have different definitions and meanings in different context and not all of those contexts are covered in all the dictionaries.
> 
> Just 2 weeks ago I was arguing the definition of a monopoly with someone who was quoting a dictionary. When the law, financial and economics definition of a monopoly is clearly different than what the dictionary and what the general usage of the word usually means.
Click to expand...

Your monopoly example is completely different from that being argued.

You would presumably find definitions of monopoly you're suggesting in legal dictionaries etc. 

Very different to making your own definition not found in any dictionary and not in common usage and insisting you're right in an argument because you're right using your definition.


----------



## Laughable Chimp

Alkomesh2 said:


> Your monopoly example is completely different from that being argued.
> 
> You would presumably find definitions of monopoly you're suggesting in legal dictionaries etc.
> 
> Very different to making your own definition not found in any dictionary and not in common usage and insisting you're right in an argument because you're right using your definition.


To be honest, I don't even know what word you guys are even referring to. I just know that you said or implied that if the definition of the word isn't the same as the dictionary then it must be wrong and another word must be used for that which I found to be wrong since words can sometimes mean many different things than what the dictionary just says depending on the context.

Anyway, what was the word or term were you talking about?


----------



## Art Vandaley

Laughable Chimp said:


> To be honest, I don't even know what word you guys are even referring to. I just know that you said or implied that if the definition of the word isn't the same as the dictionary then it must be wrong and another word must be used for that which I found to be wrong since words can sometimes mean many different things than what the dictionary just says depending on the context.
> 
> Anyway, what was the word or term were you talking about?


Discussing Reapers argument that Obama never suffered from racism because "to him" racism means you must have been somehow affected.


----------



## Laughable Chimp

Alkomesh2 said:


> Discussing Reapers argument that Obama never suffered from racism because "to him" racism means you must have been somehow affected.


Regardless of the definition of racism, how would any of us even know whether Obama was actually affected by any acts of racism or not considering you can be affected by racism in so many ways, whether its intentional or unintentional, aware or unaware, minor or major.


----------



## Beatles123

yeahbaby! said:


> Beatles! Great to hear from you.
> 
> The picture is a symbolic of Trump as a creepy weirdo towards women.
> 
> We've been through all this - Do you really want me to bring up the confirmed activities of Mr Pussy Grabbing > I just start kissing beautiful women I can't help myself > They let you do it when you're powerful > Walks into the contestant's change room unannounced > I'd probably go out with Ivanka if she wasn't my daughter > etc etc etc etc
> 
> Ask yourself this, if the above things (which are undeniable) were not about Trump, instead about the latest liberal, maybe even LEFTIST, Hollywood actor, how would you react?


Im talking about the picture. He's not doing anything creepy taking a photo at a pageant he owns. Though since you were using it to highlight a bigger talking point, fair enough. If you by into the "Trump is a nasty rapist" thing, sure. That's up to you.

How would I react? Well, I don't think he's non consensually did anything to anyone, so yeah. :shrug: Im not being biased either. I think that narrative is as unlikely to be true as the "Obama is a secret terrorist" narrative. They're both stupid attempts to paint the other side as evil and are neither as true or false as either side claims. That said, if he ever is factually outed as a real rapist (Which is unlikely, even if he were) Yeah, I'd have a problem the same as anyone.

I know you were hoping for something juicier, but that's all I got. Yall have fun. :justsayin


----------



## birthday_massacre

Alkomesh2 said:


> Discussing Reapers argument that Obama never suffered from racism because "to him" racism means you must have been somehow affected.


If a white person calls a black person the N word, that is racism, the black person does not have to be affected by it to be racism.

Also a white person can think his race is superior to blacks, but a black person can be like yeah ok whatever and laugh in his face, its still racism.


----------



## Reaper

Laughable Chimp said:


> Regardless of the definition of racism, how would any of us even know whether Obama was actually affected by any acts of racism or not considering you can be affected by racism in so many ways, whether its intentional or unintentional, aware or unaware, minor or major.


They think that the president of the United States faced racism because a bunch of people said mean things. 

Of course dictionary definitions have evolved to include many non racist things as racism because they want to define everybody as a victim. Note how in a conversation between two visible minorities trying to navigate life in a world where we are not a majority, while we both decided when it was the right time to stop having this conversation since our experiences and understanding differ (which is fine - because experiences and knowledge of minorities are different and accepting that is to our mutual benefit), the conversation was not allowed to die *because I have to submit to white people's definition of racism even though I have navigated through 16+ years of life as a minority in a white world.* That sort of superiority complex comes from a deeply indoctrinated idea that the white man not only gets to define what racism is, but also to make sure that a minority only accepts their version of what it is and how they should feel about it. 

I even faced ethnic discrimination (to a very small extent) in my own home country because there I was seen as a "Canadian" and therefore consistently ridiculed. 

Of course, I didn't feel that way because a long time ago when I faced my first racist attack by some PoS when i was 15, I decided that if I gave him the power and satisfaction of knowing that I'm hurt, he would only gain more power over me. 

My experience as a minority in this world is not worth an iota because I believe that I am smart enough to develop my own understanding. I have to submit to some white man's definition. 

For example, The SJW definition of racism is different as well because that one claims that you can only be racist if you have power and therefore only white people can be racist. This idea is also propagated by white people the most and many minorities just lap it up even though it is not the experience of all of us. It is the experience of some of us, but the people who came up with this definition have no idea what life's like as a minority and so they generalize and push an idea as though it does and should be applicable to all of us. In my life, I have never felt powerless. Many minorities don't. But we're told we should because many white people simply cannot exist without being able to tell minorities how we should be feeling. That's also a form of racism, but no one talks about it. 

It's identity politics and lefties have been changing goal posts for decades. I wouldn't take them seriously. It's the reverse kkk effect where they are unaware of their own racism of low expectations and putting themselves as the directors of how every minority should and must believe. It's the new form of white superiority where they not only get to define what racism is but also tell minorities how they should feel about racism. 

I use the word Paki to endearingly refer to my own people ... and the only people who have ever told me to stop are non-Pakistanis because they love to tell us how to think because to them we're innately inferior and they don't even realize it. I don't turn around and tell blacks to stop using the N-word for each other because that's not my place because I don't have the depth of experience required to understand everything about them. 

We're living in hyper sensitive world. I acknowledge that but at the same time I don't play along with the hyper sensitive bullshit especially if it comes from whites with savior complexes because their motivations are suspect. 

It's a silly game they like to play where they pick and choose what they think is racist based on their personal fee fees whenever it suits their needs. You can't take people like that seriously.

Some minorities love to lap this shit up ... most don't. And they object when we say no because we're still inferior to them as they are the saviors and how dare we reject them. One thing I learned from changing my politics on this site is that many liberal white people will love you and everything you say as long as you think like they want you to think. 

Then if you don't, they start acting like you rejected them personally and lash out at you. It is quite fascinating how this works. Far left whites especially only take you seriously when you basically submit to their politics and repeat their words like a parrot. They need you as a foot soldier and a tool in order to push their politics. To me that indicates that such people have not given up on their racist ideas because we're dumb/stupid/self-hating if we reject the great utopia liberals are trying to build for us. 

I don't think that it's all racist or from racist intentions, but who's to argue against me that at least some of it isn't racially motivated.


----------



## Miss Sally

stevefox1200 said:


> This election has taught me that the "establishment" doesn't hate the "outsiders" because they are corrupt and desperate to maintain their power
> 
> they hate the "outsiders" because they are dangers to themselves and others and have no problem burning down other people's carrer's when they get caught
> 
> Most "outsiders" have no problem becoming "establishment" when they show they have at least some idea what their doing


Interesting sig! I believe that's a painting done for Teutonic Knight victory in some battle in Lithuania isn't it? A lot of people know who the Templars are or even Hospitaller/Santiago but Teutonic and Montesa are usually not talked about much!


----------



## Vic Capri

Moore is being disavowed in case he's guilty. Its an interesting situation. 



> 2020 is going to be hilarious if Biden is the anointed candidate.


I hope he runs. He has the charisma of a block of wood.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

Vic Capri said:


> Moore is being disavowed in case he's guilty. Its an interesting situation.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope he runs. He has the charisma of a block of wood.
> 
> - Vic


It's unlikely that a white man will be the front runner for the democrats in 2020. I think they'll try to replicate Obama's success by having a minority as a front-runner. 

If they do that, I'm guessing that it won't be as easy as Obama because no matter what his politics, Obama was an incredibly likeable person.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reaper said:


> It's unlikely that a white man will be the front runner for the democrats in 2020. I think they'll try to replicate Obama's success by having a minority as a front-runner.
> 
> If they do that, I'm guessing that it won't be as easy as Obama because no matter what his politics, Obama was an incredibly likeable person.


His charisma is the only reason why he's not labeled a complete fuck up like his brother Bush is. :laugh:


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> His charisma is the only reason why he's not labeled a complete fuck up like his brother _*Bush *_is. :laugh:


You mean the guy progressives used to think was a Nazi for 8 years of _his _presidential term :lol


----------



## Cabanarama

Reaper said:


> You mean the guy progressives used to think was a Nazi for 8 years of _his _presidential term :lol


I think you're confusing that with all the right wingers comparing Obama to Hitler...


----------



## Reaper

Cabanarama said:


> I think you're confusing that with all the right wingers comparing Obama to Hitler...


You must be in your early 20's. I've been on the Internet since 1996. 





































I could go on. 

Also, ultranationalist conservatives bitch about Obama being a Muslim, not Hitler. If you're going to try to do the whole punch counter punch thing, at least be accurate.


----------



## Miss Sally

Cabanarama said:


> I think you're confusing that with all the right wingers comparing Obama to Hitler...


Both of the Brothers were considered literally Hitler. There now we don't have listen to dick measuring over which was "demonized" most even though looking back at how the media covered both of them it would make for a fairly easy comparison.


----------



## Reaper

Ironically, Progressives actually share more of their politics with Hitler (minus the jew killing part) than conservatives. Part of The Big Lie is that they accuse others of being what they secretly are themselves :mj


----------



## Cabanarama

Reaper said:


> You must be in your early 20's. I've been on the Internet since 1996.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could go on.
> 
> Also, ultranationalist conservatives bitch about Obama being a Muslim, not Hitler. If you're going to try to do the whole punch counter punch thing, at least be accurate.


----------



## Reaper

Fair enough :lol 

As long as you don't use that as a justification to go about arguing that Trump = Hitler as though saying mean things about Obama justifies them being said about other presidents. 

*No politician* in American history was/is/or likely ever will be anywhere _close _to a Nazi. And if you think so even remotely, then you're deluded.


----------



## Draykorinee

The only political figure I know in the UK who isn't literally Hitler at some point is Corbyn, but that's because he's literally Stalin instead.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reaper said:


> You must be in your early 20's. I've been on the Internet since 1996.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could go on.
> 
> Also, ultranationalist conservatives bitch about Obama being a Muslim, not Hitler. If you're going to try to do the whole punch counter punch thing, at least be accurate.


You can see that stuff thrown at "right wingers" since at least the 90s . Watching some shows today as a 28 year old I found myself catching things that I didn't when I was younger. I recently started re-watching Frasier and one episode it was all about politics. While they never explicitly mentioned Democrat or Republican, you can clearly tell who each candidate's party is. Frasier and Niles support the clearly obvious Democrat who "cares about the little people" and was called a "bleeding heart" by their father Martin. He was the only one who supported the pretty obvious Republican who called in and insulted Frasier, was labelled a fear monger for wanting to fight crime and Fraiser flat out calls him fascist and Himmler :lol I couldn't believe it when I heard it


----------



## deepelemblues

Hey it's another political test! A little bit different from the others, it asks you to rank your discomfort/disgust with certain scenarios. "Democratic brains" show less discomfort/disgust, "Republican brains" show more. 

I got a (barely) Democratic brain apparently (54%) which is of course silly nonsense. I think the assumptions of the test are way off but it was still interesting.

http://chartsme.com/


----------



## birthday_massacre

http://www.businessinsider.com/roy-moore-yearbook-sexual-assault-beverly-young-nelson-2017-11

Roy Moore allegedly signed a high-school student's yearbook before sexually assaulting her










Roy Moore, a Republican candidate for US Senate from Alabama, allegedly signed a high-school student's yearbook before he sexually assaulted her.

In a press conference on Monday, Beverly Young Nelson said Moore became a regular at a restaurant called the Old Hickory House when he was the District Attorney of Etowah County and she was a waitress.

She said that one night when she was 16 years old, he offered her a ride home when her shift ended, then drove around to the back of the restaurant sexually assaulted her in his car in the parking lot.

As evidence of their relationship, Nelson presented a page of her yearbook that Moore asked to sign during one of his earlier visits to the restaurant.

Moore's message read, "To a sweeter more beautiful girl I could not say, 'Merry Christmas.' Love, Roy Moore DA, 12-22-77, Olde Hickory House."

As Business Insider's Josh Barro pointed out, Moore's signature in the yearbook matches his signature on his US term limits pledge this year.

Nelson was one of several women who have come forward in recent days accusing Moore of sexual misconduct when they were teenagers and he was an adult.

Last week, The Washington Post reported that Moore dated several teenagers and committed sexual misconduct with a 14-year-old when he was in his 30's.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/930089374187950081

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/930471538985455616
Dynamic duo.


----------



## deepelemblues

Fake News Media: RAND PAUL MAY BE OUTTA THE SENATE FOR SOME TIME.

Rand Paul: Hold my beer. Bitches.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> Hey it's another political test! A little bit different from the others, it asks you to rank your discomfort/disgust with certain scenarios. "Democratic brains" show less discomfort/disgust, "Republican brains" show more.
> 
> I got a (barely) Democratic brain apparently (54%) which is of course silly nonsense. I think the assumptions of the test are way off but it was still interesting.
> 
> http://chartsme.com/


55% conservative. 

I had a feeling you were a filthy liberal :tripsscust


----------



## yeahbaby!

Beatles123 said:


> Im talking about the picture. He's not doing anything creepy taking a photo at a pageant he owns. Though since you were using it to highlight a bigger talking point, fair enough. If you by into the "Trump is a nasty rapist" thing, sure. That's up to you.
> 
> How would I react? Well, I don't think he's non consensually did anything to anyone, so yeah. :shrug: Im not being biased either. I think that narrative is as unlikely to be true as the "Obama is a secret terrorist" narrative. They're both stupid attempts to paint the other side as evil and are neither as true or false as either side claims. That said, if he ever is factually outed as a real rapist (Which is unlikely, even if he were) Yeah, I'd have a problem the same as anyone.
> 
> I know you were hoping for something juicier, but that's all I got. Yall have fun. :justsayin


If you'd been paying attention, or even just read between the lines, the picture of Trump was a reminder of all his creepyness stories with women, which was a response to CamillePunk. So keep up, and maybe google how to construct your strawmen in a less obvious way.

Just trying to help! :justsayin


----------



## deepelemblues

Reaper said:


> 55% conservative.
> 
> I had a feeling you were a filthy liberal :tripsscust


Time for me to PM Tater and get my re-education on socialism started


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> Hey it's another political test! A little bit different from the others, it asks you to rank your discomfort/disgust with certain scenarios. "Democratic brains" show less discomfort/disgust, "Republican brains" show more.
> 
> I got a (barely) Democratic brain apparently (54%) which is of course silly nonsense. I think the assumptions of the test are way off but it was still interesting.
> 
> http://chartsme.com/


Your brain is a Democrat

Liberal (64%)

Lord knows how many psychology graduates spent how much time on those questions.


----------



## Beatles123

yeahbaby! said:


> If you'd been paying attention, or even just read between the lines, the picture of Trump was a reminder of all his creepyness stories with women, which was a response to CamillePunk. So keep up, and maybe google how to construct your strawmen in a less obvious way.
> 
> Just trying to help! :justsayin


that wasn't attempting to be a strawman. just saying the picture wasn't the best example of the point you were making.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

deepelemblues said:


> Hey it's another political test! A little bit different from the others, it asks you to rank your discomfort/disgust with certain scenarios. "Democratic brains" show less discomfort/disgust, "Republican brains" show more.
> 
> I got a (barely) Democratic brain apparently (54%) which is of course silly nonsense. I think the assumptions of the test are way off but it was still interesting.
> 
> http://chartsme.com/


I got 51% Conservative. Seems about right, I always considered myself fairly centrist.


----------



## Arya Dark

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/930545785435054082

*btw I took the test and got 74 percent liberal. I think that number is slightly high.*


----------



## Cabanarama

AryaDark said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/930545785435054082


The lone credible journalist on Fox News, and the only person on that network with any sort of integrity, honor, or honesty...


----------



## Reservoir Angel

deepelemblues said:


> Hey it's another political test! A little bit different from the others, it asks you to rank your discomfort/disgust with certain scenarios. "Democratic brains" show less discomfort/disgust, "Republican brains" show more.
> 
> I got a (barely) Democratic brain apparently (54%) which is of course silly nonsense. I think the assumptions of the test are way off but it was still interesting.
> 
> http://chartsme.com/


76% liberal.

Honestly thought it'd be higher, but oh well.



AryaDark said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/930545785435054082


This new random focus on 'But Hillary and Uranium' is the most pathetically shallow attempt at diverting attention I've ever seen. This shit was debunked during the goddamn campaign but apparently they have nothing else to offer so the Trump people are trying to spin it as the biggest deal... even after Trump's former campaign manager got indicted for conspiracy against the United States.

It'd be adorably fucking hilarious if I didn't know so many arseholes were falling for it hook, line and sinker.


----------



## FriedTofu

deepelemblues said:


> Hey it's another political test! A little bit different from the others, it asks you to rank your discomfort/disgust with certain scenarios. "Democratic brains" show less discomfort/disgust, "Republican brains" show more.
> 
> I got a (barely) Democratic brain apparently (54%) which is of course silly nonsense. I think the assumptions of the test are way off but it was still interesting.
> 
> http://chartsme.com/


Your brain is a Perfect Moderate

50-50 results.

I think I broke the test. :O


----------



## DOPA

I took that new test concerning political brain and got 64% Conservative.....not sure how accurate it is to be honest but it was pretty interesting :lol.




draykorinee said:


> I agree with what you wrote, even this. I think its unfair to attribute changes after a year when it comes to crime. The problem was he did campaign on a promise of making America safer, so at some point he has to do that.
> 
> The issue of crime is multifaceted which is why troll posts like Camillepunks where he attacks democrats and the most violent cities but neglects to mention 8/10 of the most violent states are Republican. Its an asinine comment and just furthers the idea of Red Vs Blue instead of the bipartisan issue it is and shows that people really don't understand causation V Correlation.


I can't disagree with the first part of your response. I think the main problem is that Trump put forward a very lofty promise which is very hard to measure in terms of how much impact Federal Government policy has had on crime rates due to state and local governments having autonomy over their police budgets, resources and policies.

Let's take an example we both know which is the UK, which has a much more centralized government and where Westminster has far more control over police spending, resources and policy. In this case, we can bare far more responsibility to the government because they have much more direct control over the direction of policing in the country. This simply isn't the case in the US federal system.

Let's say after 4 years of Trump, crime rates overall do drop. How much can we seriously attribute it to the Trump administration? If we are being honest with ourselves here, I don't think you could attribute much to the federal government at all because there are many complexities which contribute to the crime rate, many of which doesn't apply to a much more centralized political system. Of course in this case, Trump would take credit for it and I don't particularly blame him from a position of self interest and I think most if not all politicians in the same position would do the same thing. But realistically, I don't think we could give the Trump administration much credit in this case.

I do agree however that because Trump has made it a priority and has set out this goal that his detractors are going to hold him to account and if the rates don't drop and either stagnate or increase, that they are going to use what he said against him. I think objectively taking Trump's comments out of the equation that it is a pretty unfair thing to do, but this is one of those situations where Trump has shot himself in the foot with lofty promises.

In this situation also, if Trump were to abstain himself from any responsibility for a potential crime rate increase after the 4 years are up, then it would look bad on his part simply because of the political promise he has made.

As far as the second part concerning the Republican states and crime is concerned, I honestly know very little about crime rates in terms of state comparison. I know a little about the homicide rate but that's about it.

So if you could provide me where you found the statistics that support that statement then that would be cool .


-----------------------------------------

It's amazing to see Rand back at the Senate so soon. The guy has had 6 broken ribs and a pleural effusion yet he's already back out there fighting for tax reform. I don't think anyone would blame him for taking some more time off to recover but it shows how much he cares. When you have guys like him and McCain who has brain cancer continue to serve when they could easily stay at home, it does show they aren't just there for the pay check. Respect the hell out of them for that.


----------



## Vic Capri

Media Matters. :lol



> No politician in American history was/is/or likely ever will be anywhere close to a Nazi.


Ironically, FDR.

- Vic


----------



## Cabanarama

I got 52-48 Liberal...


----------



## yeahbaby!

FriedTofu said:


> Your brain is a Perfect Moderate
> 
> 50-50 results.
> 
> I think I broke the test. :O


You don't really care one way or the other, possibly because you're under such heavy sedation all the time.


----------



## samizayn

deepelemblues said:


> Hey it's another political test! A little bit different from the others, it asks you to rank your discomfort/disgust with certain scenarios. "Democratic brains" show less discomfort/disgust, "Republican brains" show more.
> 
> I got a (barely) Democratic brain apparently (54%) which is of course silly nonsense. I think the assumptions of the test are way off but it was still interesting.
> 
> http://chartsme.com/


The assumptions come from some sort of psychology I believe.

I got 60/40. NEEDS MORE LEFT.


L-DOPA said:


> Let's say after 4 years of Trump, crime rates overall do drop. How much can we seriously attribute it to the Trump administration?


Would assume that's for the statisticians to decide.


----------



## Reaper

Vic Capri said:


> Media Matters. :lol
> 
> 
> 
> Ironically, FDR.
> 
> - Vic


Still think it's a false equivalency for obvious reasons.

---


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/930071642784514048
Biden is a confirmed pedophile. This is beyond disgusting.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/930065838387863552
This entire thread ... There are no mistaken / accidental touches. 

There are nothing but creepy crawly fingers molesting one girl after another after another.


----------



## FriedTofu

yeahbaby! said:


> You don't really care one way or the other, possibly because you're under such heavy sedation all the time.


I like to think I am equally disgusted by some things and disgusted at people that are disgusted by some other things.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Gotta love the Trump supporters who defended Trump for all the creepy shit he said to the children at his pagents and are now bashing Biden for all the creepy things he did. If Trump did these things that Biden is doing in his videos, all Trump supporters would be defending it.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Still think it's a false equivalency for obvious reasons.


Socialist? Ruled like a king? Put people in concentration camps?

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

Vic Capri said:


> Socialist? Ruled like a king? Put people in concentration camps?
> 
> - Vic


Not a socialist. Was no where near as authoritarian as hitler. America's Jap concentration camps were bad conceptually and should never have happened, but the treatment of Jews at their camps and the treatment of Japs at theirs was HUGELY different. 

Hence why it's a false equivalence. BTW, I'm not defending FDR. I think a lot of what he did was bad and the repercussions of that are still being felt by today's generation. But he was not Hitler.


----------



## Cabanarama

Reaper said:


> Not a socialist. Was no where near as authoritarian as hitler. America's Jap concentration camps were bad conceptually and should never have happened, but the treatment of Jews at their camps and the treatment of Japs at theirs was HUGELY different.
> 
> Hence why it's a false equivalence. BTW, I'm not defending FDR. I think a lot of what he did was bad and the repercussions of that are still being felt by today's generation. But he was not Hitler.


You do know Jap is a slur right?


----------



## Reaper

Cabanarama said:


> You do know Jap is a slur right?


Context matters.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Gotta love the Trump supporters who defended Trump for all the creepy shit he said to the children at his pagents and are now bashing Biden for all the creepy things he did. If Trump did these things that Biden is doing in his videos, all Trump supporters would be defending it.


Stop deflecting from the fact that there's video evidence of Joe Biden touching little kids who were uncomfortable with him doing so. You've managed to completely ignore what Joe Biden is doing just so you can complain about Trump and his supporters. You are being hypocritical


----------



## Cabanarama

Stinger Fan said:


> Stop deflecting from the fact that there's video evidence of Joe Biden touching little kids who were uncomfortable with him doing so. You've managed to completely ignore what Joe Biden is doing just so you can complain about Trump and his supporters. You are being hypocritical


No, the issue at hand is Roy Moore. The straw grasping rehashing of the creepy Joe memes from a few years ago is the deflection by the scumbag Moore apologists


----------



## nyelator

Reaper said:


> Context matters.


Never forget this.


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> Hey it's another political test! A little bit different from the others, it asks you to rank your discomfort/disgust with certain scenarios. "Democratic brains" show less discomfort/disgust, "Republican brains" show more.
> 
> I got a (barely) Democratic brain apparently (54%) which is of course silly nonsense. I think the assumptions of the test are way off but it was still interesting.
> 
> http://chartsme.com/


70% liberal, think that's pretty spot on.



Reaper said:


> Cabanarama said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know Jap is a slur right?
> 
> 
> 
> Context matters.
Click to expand...

Agreed


----------



## Stinger Fan

Cabanarama said:


> No, the issue at hand is Roy Moore. The straw grasping rehashing of the creepy Joe memes from a few years ago is the deflection by the scumbag Moore apologists


You're deflecting


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> 70% liberal, think that's pretty spot on


Didn't you say you were a nurse? 

I think all that test does is affirm how your occupation has impacted how you feel about things :lol


----------



## Kabraxal

Reaper said:


> Didn't you say you were a nurse?
> 
> I think all that test does is affirm how your occupation has impacted how you feel about things :lol


And people just weird quirks. Not sure what that test can actually be used to determine...


----------



## Reaper

Kabraxal said:


> And people just weird quirks. Not sure what that test can actually be used to determine...


As an armchair psychologist I can guess that they've somehow assumed that conservatives are more likely to be disgusted by things and progressives aren't. 

I'm guessing this has something to do with the fact that since the presumption is that progressives are more open minded therefore they would be more open to extreme stimuli. 

It's clear that that test doesn't work. 

I actually cheated on the test because as a person who has been exposed to extreme violence and violent imagery all his life I am not disgusted by anything. I picked things that I thought I _should _be disgusted by if i hadn't seen all the violence and gore to get the result I got :lol

Frankly speaking, if they're associating accepting a woman's dirty underwear and therefore lack of hygiene with liberalism, then the test has some serious problems :kobelol

Also says a lot about the warped minds of the individuals making the test. Like why would they even think about women's dirty underwear when making a test. :tripsscust

Why not add Freud to the mix and make people think about their MOM or DAD's dirty underwear :mj


----------



## Kabraxal

Reaper said:


> As an armchair psychologist I can guess that they've somehow assumed that conservatives are more likely to be disgusted by things and progressives aren't.
> 
> I'm guessing this has something to do with the fact that since the presumption is that progressives are more open minded therefore they would be more open to extreme stimuli.
> 
> It's clear that that test doesn't work.
> 
> I actually cheated on the test because as a person who has been exposed to extreme violence and violent imagery all his life I am not disgusted by anything. I picked things that I thought I _should _be disgusted by if i hadn't seen all the violence and gore to get the result I got :lol
> 
> Frankly speaking, if they're associating accepting a woman's dirty underwear and therefore lack of hygiene with liberalism, then the test has some serious problems :kobelol


And what’s really strange is the mixing of stimuli... gore is different from hygeine is different from “death ritual/belief”. Someone that never blinks an eye at gore might freak out if someone doesn’t wash their hands.

Talk about creating a test to fulfill confirmation bias.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 70% liberal, think that's pretty spot on
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you say you were a nurse?
> 
> I think all that test does is affirm how your occupation has impacted how you feel about things
Click to expand...

Too true, I felt like saying something along the lines of, but if half those questions disgusted me I'd suck as a nurse.

It's 100% nonsense of course but it did give a number I would be happy with


----------



## stevefox1200

Lets say Biden is a pedo, what the FUCK does that have to with anything?

Unless you think Washington is going after Moore to "hide" their pedos than it has nothing to do with any and IS deflection

If you think Moore is innocent that post why you think he is innocent, going "WHAT ABOUT JOE??!!!!" dosn't say a fucking thing Moore and makes it look like you just want people you dislike punished 

This is conversation 101, we should be pass the "WAHAT ABOUT [email protected]#[email protected]#$" after you reach three years old and learn that other peoples action don't justify yours

Of yeah, Moore's lawyer went on MSNBC and said that the Muslim anchor (who is from Canada) should understand the idea of asking parents for permission to have sex with their daughters


----------



## Reaper

I already said me bringing up Biden has nothing to do with Moore. This isn't a conspiracy theory thread. I've already said that allegations against Moore ould be true but it's unlikey

We discuss multiple stories at the same time that aren't related. 

The relationship between the two stories is because your brains are in conspiracy mode.

------. 

https://joeforamerica.com/2017/11/b...forging-roy-moores-signature-false-accusers-/

Some people are claiming that the signature is a forgery. 

More on this story as it develops. Allred being involved makes this pretty much guaranteed to be a political hit.

---

Oh and Biden looks and acts like a fucking pedo on video. But it has nothing to do with Moore not being one. Moore could be one but he's likely not. 

It's very simple to compartmentalize two different threads based on facts and evidence.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Reaper said:


> I already said me bringing up Biden has nothing to do with Moore.


And no one believed you.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> I already said me bringing up Biden has nothing to do with Moore. This isn't a conspiracy theory thread. I've already said that allegations against Moore ould be true but it's unlikey
> 
> We discuss multiple stories at the same time that aren't related.
> 
> The relationship between the two stories is because your brains are in conspiracy mode.
> 
> ------.
> 
> https://joeforamerica.com/2017/11/b...forging-roy-moores-signature-false-accusers-/
> 
> Some people are claiming that the signature is a forgery.
> 
> More on this story as it develops. Allred being involved makes this pretty much guaranteed to be a political hit.
> 
> ---
> 
> Oh and Biden looks and acts like a fucking pedo on video. But it has nothing to do with Moore not being one. Moore could be one but he's likely not.
> 
> It's very simple to compartmentalize two different threads based on facts and evidence.



keep lying bringing up Biden has nothing to do with Moore.

also, how is it unlikely that these things are not true about Moore?

Just listen to his lawyer trying to defend him FFS. Its clear as day Moore did these things.

Moore was banned from a mall and the YMCA for being a predator. 






Watch that interview, its laughable at the defense they are trying to use for Moore.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tbh I didn't even make the connection between Moore/Biden until I re-read the thread. It just popped up on my timeline and I saw him being creepy as fuck so I commented. Fuck both of them, there's nothing I hate more in this world than a paedophile. If the Moore accusations are true he can go fuck himself in prison and Biden needs fucking investigating because in no way is the behaviour I saw fucking normal tbh. Not everyone is Republican or Democrat, some of us thing they're all a worthless collective of scumbags.


----------



## Reaper

People who can only think in terms of black and white are the only ones currently capable of discussing one pedophile at a time. It's their problem. They want the world to conform to only what they want to discuss. 

Both cases and individuals can be discussed at the same time. It's called compartmentalization. 

Not in a single post have I ignored the possibility of Moore being a pedophile. I just don't think that he is given the spurious claims and involvement of career liar Allred. I've said like 6 times already that I don't give a shot about Moore getting destroyed. He's not endorsed by trump. I have no interest in him becoming governor. 

Biden's actions however are more than obvious.


----------



## samizayn

Reaper said:


> As an armchair psychologist I can guess that they've somehow assumed that conservatives are more likely to be disgusted by things and progressives aren't.
> 
> I'm guessing this has something to do with the fact that since the presumption is that progressives are more open minded therefore they would be more open to extreme stimuli.
> 
> It's clear that that test doesn't work.
> 
> I actually cheated on the test because as a person who has been exposed to extreme violence and violent imagery all his life I am not disgusted by anything. I picked things that I thought I _should _be disgusted by if i hadn't seen all the violence and gore to get the result I got :lol
> 
> Frankly speaking, if they're associating accepting a woman's dirty underwear and therefore lack of hygiene with liberalism, then the test has some serious problems :kobelol
> 
> Also says a lot about the warped minds of the individuals making the test. Like why would they even think about women's dirty underwear when making a test. :tripsscust
> 
> Why not add Freud to the mix and make people think about their MOM or DAD's dirty underwear :mj


So apparently it's a randomised quiz taken from a bank. I didn't get any underwear question!

The psychology is more along the lines of different things disgust different political minds. I haven't read the literature so I'm not exactly sure which ones are attributed to who, but it would be like, if eating the meat of a strange animal disgusts you but smelling BO on someone doesn't, you're a conservative. One aspect is something tied to new experiences, that much I know.



draykorinee said:


> Too true, I felt like saying something along the lines of, but if half those questions disgusted me I'd suck as a nurse.
> 
> It's 100% nonsense of course but it did give a number I would be happy with


Well hey, the field has given us a lot of useful knowledge, perhaps it's not so fair to call it nonsense altogether.

This quiz has distracted far more than it should have. Let me edit in something political real quick.


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> So apparently it's a randomised quiz taken from a bank. I didn't get any underwear question!
> 
> The psychology is more along the lines of different things disgust different political minds. I haven't read the literature so I'm not exactly sure which ones are attributed to who, but it would be like, if eating the meat of a strange animal disgusts you but smelling BO on someone doesn't, you're a conservative. One aspect is something tied to new experiences, that much I know.


Which us stupid because despite being a conservative, I'm a drifter, a hippie, a hipster and not actually disgusted by anything. New experiences are my thing. I love for them. 

Except dirty underwear. Fuck that shit. The sight of it makes me want to puke.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

http://time.com/5026052/democrats-impeach-donald-trump/


----------



## Warlock

Only 5 articles? Psshh. Bush had 35 and never came close.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Cabanarama

Legit BOSS said:


> http://time.com/5026052/democrats-impeach-donald-trump/


Meh.... It's all political grandstanding at this point... I mean I guess it doesn't hurt and if it actually works to get more of the base to show up at the ballot box, great, but I'm still not a fan of these empty gestures by those in office just to gain support. It was awful when the Republicans did it all the time during the Obama administration, and I don't like the Democrats doing it either.


----------



## stevefox1200

The Democrat admitted that these impeachments won't likly go through

They just want them on books


----------



## Art Vandaley

Aye the impeachment is fun but until the 2018 mid terms it'd need both a Republican house and senate to vote for it and after 2018 most likely still a Republican senate.


----------



## Vic Capri

Funny how the Moore haters won't disavow George Takei.

- Vic


----------



## Cabanarama

Vic Capri said:


> Funny how the Moore haters won't disavow George Takei.
> 
> - Vic


What does some actor who hasn't done anything noteworthy or relevant since he was on Star Trek almost 50 years ago have to do with anything?
Some of these "whataboutisms" are really stretching now...


----------



## Reaper

"The Russians did this"


----------



## Draykorinee

But I thought Twitter was a left wing dominated medium...

These kind of things get hijacked all the time, it only takes one popular Trumpton to start the ball rolling and suddenly all trumpers are on it.

Snap Twitter polls are ridiculously bad. Kinda funny they self owned themselves and deleted it though. Losers.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> But I thought Twitter was a left wing dominated medium...


Propaganda. It's very even just like it is in society. However, the banhammer on conservatives is worse but that has nothing to do with this poll since it was obviously troll. 



> Kinda funny they self owned themselves and deleted it though. Losers.


That's all there is to it. "Trolling for Trump" online is very much a thing. The fun part is where there are people who are on the internet who don't understand the internet so they unironically blame the Russians.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/931061273806094336
Early Christmas present for Don Jr. and Eric? They haven't been able to legally bring one of these home since 2014.



Spoiler: Don Jr. holding severed tail of elephant he killed in 2011















Ingraham's not happy about it.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/931105124705021953


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> Funny how the Moore haters won't disavow George Takei.
> 
> - Vic


Because we're on the politics section not the entertainment section.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Stephen90 said:


> Because we're on the politics section not the entertainment section.


Don't bother with him he the closest thing on this board to a Trump supporting troll.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Cabanarama said:


> What does some actor who hasn't done anything noteworthy or relevant since he was on Star Trek almost 50 years ago have to do with anything?
> Some of these "whataboutisms" are really stretching now...


Its all about deflect deflect deflect because they know they can't defend Moore.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Honestly it seems like deflecting to other people is all that they can do to try and defend Moore now, failing to realise that no matter what anyone else has or has not done, nothing excuses the fact that Moore tried to sexually assault minors. Just because fucking George Takei may have done something inappropriate in the past doesn't make Moore any less of an utter scumbag who deserves jail time, not a seat in the United States fucking Senate.


----------



## Miss Sally

Vic Capri said:


> Funny how the Moore haters won't disavow George Takei.
> 
> - Vic


To be fair the person who brought up Takei here was Arya and she's liberal! He's been spoken out at here but if you mean in general, then the speaking out hasn't been huge but there are a lot of stories so it's overwhelming. It's only a matter of time before he is called out big time.

After all, he says we should always believe accusers!:grin2:


----------



## Arya Dark

*Fuck off Trump


 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/931208702207676416*


----------



## Reservoir Angel

AryaDark said:


> *Fuck off Trump
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/i/web/status/931208702207676416*


Shit like this basically proves that the only thing Trump really cares about is undoing everything Obama did, no matter how much sense it doesn't make to do so.

Because he's a petty jealous dickhead who didn't get enough hugs as a child and who is now driven solely by his own pathetic ego and can't tolerate that the guy he decided was somehow his enemy for the past 8 years will always be more popular and well-regarded than Trump himself is.

His entire political existence is justified by the phrases "now do you love me daddy?" and "let's all try and forget Obama ever existed."

It'd honestly be fascinating to watch (this guy is a psychiatrist's field day) if it wasn't simultaneously so terrifying to watch him engage his childish vendetta using the federal government of the United States as a prop and its citizens as playthings.


----------



## birthday_massacre

http://nbc4i.com/2017/11/15/ohio-state-house-rep-wes-goodman-resigns-after-inappropriate-behavior/

Ohio State House Rep. Wes Goodman resigns after ‘inappropriate behavior’

COLUMBUS (WCMH) — Ohio State Representative Wes Goodman (R-Cardington) has resigned after reported inappropriate behavior.

A release from Speaker of the Ohio House Clifford A. Rosenberger stated:

It is with deep regret that I have asked State Representative Wes Goodman to offer his resignation as a member of the Ohio House. I was alerted to details yesterday afternoon regarding his involvement in inappropriate behavior related to his state office. I met with him later in the day where he acknowledged and confirmed the allegations. It became clear that his resignation was the most appropriate course of action for him, his family, the constituents of the 87th House District and this institution.”
Following the announcement of his resignation Goodman released the following statement:

Serving as the state representative for the 87th Ohio House District has been one of the great honors of my life. We all bring our own struggles and our own trials into public life. That has been true for me, and I sincerely regret that my actions and choices have kept me from serving my constituents and our state in a way that reflects the best ideals of public service. For those whom I have let down, I’m sorry. As I move onto the next chapter of my life, I sincerely ask for privacy for myself, my family, and my friends.”
Speaker Rosenberger announced that a screening panel will be formed in the near future to select a new member for the vacant 87th House District seat.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reservoir Angel;71447025[B said:


> ]Shit like this basically proves that the only thing Trump really cares about is undoing everything Obama did, no matter how much sense it doesn't make to do so.[/B]
> 
> Because he's a petty jealous dickhead who didn't get enough hugs as a child and who is now driven solely by his own pathetic ego and can't tolerate that the guy he decided was somehow his enemy for the past 8 years will always be more popular and well-regarded than Trump himself is.
> 
> His entire political existence is justified by the phrases "now do you love me daddy?" and "let's all try and forget Obama ever existed."
> 
> It'd honestly be fascinating to watch (this guy is a psychiatrist's field day) if it wasn't simultaneously so terrifying to watch him engage his childish vendetta using the federal government of the United States as a prop and its citizens as playthings.


That is true but on this one his sons do love to hunt, so they could have played a role in undoing this one. Obama making the ban was just a bonus.


----------



## CamillePunk

Clearly a veiled threat at the GOP if they don't start playing ball.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Well played, sir, well played.


 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/930999631097470976*


----------



## stevefox1200

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-admi...ica/story?id=51178663&cid=social_twitter_abcn

So Trump's administration is pushing to remove restrictions on animal trophies for Safariing in Africa

Now I get why the law is in place (although I doubt it deters poaching) but of all the laws to push to get changed

I mean this effects like a few hundred people 

This kind of feels like cabinet members going "I like to big game hunt and want to legally have my trophies lets change a law" than an actual policy

I'm not pissed or anything, i am just confused



birthday_massacre said:


> That is true but on this one his sons do love to hunt, so they could have played a role in undoing this one. Obama making the ban was just a bonus.


Its a very blatant "I LIKE TO DO IT SO I WANT IT TO BE LEGAL" move that you don't really see in politics much any more 

I guess its up there with "the bible says I can rape kids, don't you love Jesus?" as a new approach


----------



## birthday_massacre

stevefox1200 said:


> http://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-admi...ica/story?id=51178663&cid=social_twitter_abcn
> 
> So Trump's administration is pushing to remove restrictions on animal trophies for Safariing in Africa
> 
> Now I get why the law is in place (although I doubt it deters poaching) but of all the laws to push to get changed
> 
> I mean this effects like a few hundred people
> 
> This kind of feels like cabinet members going "I like to big game hunt and want to legally have my trophies lets change a law" than an actual policy
> 
> I'm not pissed or anything, i am just confused
> 
> 
> 
> Its a very blatant "I LIKE TO DO IT SO I WANT IT TO BE LEGAL" move that you don't really see in politics much any more
> 
> *I guess its up there with "the bible says I can rape kids, don't you love Jesus?" as a new approach*


Well Moore's lawyer is using that type of argument to defend him for liking underage women. Moore's lawyer used Joesph dating an underage Mary to defend him.


----------



## stevefox1200

birthday_massacre said:


> Well Moore's lawyer is using that type of argument to defend him for liking underage women. Moore's lawyer used Joesph dating an underage Mary to defend him.


That's why it referenced it

It new and exciting age of politics

It used to be that politicians denied doing bad things, now they are argue its OK and try to legalize it 

(I just had a taught that a politician talking about how stupid laws are and trying to regulate things sends the message to their followers to disregard laws they don't like which is the opposite of their jobs)


----------



## Steve Black Man

stevefox1200 said:


> http://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-admi...ica/story?id=51178663&cid=social_twitter_abcn
> 
> So Trump's administration is pushing to remove restrictions on animal trophies for Safariing in Africa
> 
> Now I get why the law is in place (although I doubt it deters poaching) but of all the laws to push to get changed
> 
> I mean this effects like a few hundred people
> 
> This kind of feels like cabinet members going "I like to big game hunt and want to legally have my trophies lets change a law" than an actual policy
> 
> I'm not pissed or anything, i am just confused
> 
> 
> 
> Its a very blatant "I LIKE TO DO IT SO I WANT IT TO BE LEGAL" move that you don't really see in politics much any more
> 
> I guess its up there with "the bible says I can rape kids, don't you love Jesus?" as a new approach


When I saw this I was absolutely disgusted by it. Like, I try to be as objective as possible and have given Trump the benefit of the doubt before, but just.....why?

Well, I mean I know why, and it's disgusting.

That being said, I think game hunting in general is despicable. Like "Oh wow, you're so tough. You shot and killed an endangered animal from a safe distance. You've totally earned the right to display its dismembered corpse in your house."


----------



## virus21

Steve Black Man said:


> When I saw this I was absolutely disgusted by it. Like, I try to be as objective as possible and have given Trump the benefit of the doubt before, but just.....why?
> 
> Well, I mean I know why, and it's disgusting.
> 
> That being said, I think game hunting in general is despicable. Like "Oh wow, you're so tough. You shot and killed an endangered animal from a safe distance. You've totally earned the right to display its dismembered corpse in your house."


I agree. My family as a whole hates sports hunting. If you hunt, you hunt for food. And you bet that any trophy we got from a deer, that deer was eaten.

Why don't these tough guys take on an animal with a knife and nothing else. If you can kill a lion or a bear with just a hunting knife, then you can say you earn it.


----------



## stevefox1200

Steve Black Man said:


> When I saw this I was absolutely disgusted by it. Like, I try to be as objective as possible and have given Trump the benefit of the doubt before, but just.....why?
> 
> Well, I mean I know why, and it's disgusting.
> 
> That being said, I think game hunting in general is despicable. Like "Oh wow, you're so tough. You shot and killed an endangered animal from a safe distance. You've totally earned the right to display its dismembered corpse in your house."


Big game hunting is a MAJOR party of some central African nations economies so its kind of a necessary evil 

It does seem kinda immoral and very "I wanna do something so now its legal!!!"


----------



## birthday_massacre

virus21 said:


> I agree. My family as a whole hates sports hunting. If you hunt, you hunt for food. And you bet that any trophy we got from a deer, that deer was eaten.
> 
> Why don't these tough guys take on an animal with a knife and nothing else. If you can kill a lion or a bear with just a hunting knife, then you can say you earn it.


That is why I always cheer when one of these animals attack and or kill the hunter that was hunting them.


----------



## DOPA

Honestly.....out of all the things to focus on, why would Trump prioritize on reversing restrictions on animal trophies? It reminds me of when Theresa May wanted to offer a vote on reversing the fox hunting ban here. Not only are both examples so minor compared to other issues which need focusing on but they are issues which Trump is not going to get a lot of support on. I could even see some of the more moderate Trump supporters being turned off by this.

Bad move overall.


----------



## birthday_massacre

L-DOPA said:


> Honestly.....out of all the things to focus on, why would Trump prioritize on reversing restrictions on animal trophies? It reminds me of when Theresa May wanted to offer a vote on reversing the fox hunting ban here. Not only are both examples so minor compared to other issues which need focusing on but they are issues which Trump is not going to get a lot of support on. I could even see some of the more moderate Trump supporters being turned off by this.
> 
> Bad move overall.


Trump asked Don Dr what he wanted for xmas and he wanted the hunting restrictions lifted so Trump did it


----------



## Draykorinee

L-DOPA said:


> Honestly.....out of all the things to focus on, why would Trump prioritize on reversing restrictions on animal trophies? It reminds me of when Theresa May wanted to offer a vote on reversing the fox hunting ban here. Not only are both examples so minor compared to other issues which need focusing on but they are issues which Trump is not going to get a lot of support on. I could even see some of the more moderate Trump supporters being turned off by this.
> 
> Bad move overall.


Good comparison, that fox hunting thing was weird, it would likely never go through and all she's appealing to is farmers and toffs who pretty much vote Tory anyway, she turned those who were already against her even more.

He's pandering to the people who already support him while turning the ones he should focus on away. Was there a person outside of his family who pushed for this?


----------



## Draykorinee

stevefox1200 said:


> Steve Black Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I saw this I was absolutely disgusted by it. Like, I try to be as objective as possible and have given Trump the benefit of the doubt before, but just.....why?
> 
> Well, I mean I know why, and it's disgusting.
> 
> That being said, I think game hunting in general is despicable. Like "Oh wow, you're so tough. You shot and killed an endangered animal from a safe distance. You've totally earned the right to display its dismembered corpse in your house."
> 
> 
> 
> Big game hunting is a MAJOR party of some central African nations economies so its kind of a necessary evil
> 
> It does seem kinda immoral and very "I wanna do something so now its legal!!!"
Click to expand...

Can you provide evidence that it's a big part of their economy? I appreciate there's the potential myth that it is about conservation (plenty of data to suggest otherwise) but I've never heard it sold as an economical benefit.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Can you provide evidence that it's a big part of their economy? I appreciate there's the potential myth that it is about conservation (plenty of data to suggest otherwise) but I've never heard it sold as an economical benefit.


It's not. It's actually a very ethnocentric argument made by people who are still stuck in the 80's and haven't realized that the same parts of Africa where they used to rely on poaching and hunting are now economically diversifying and have been growing for the past 30 years. Even back then, it was obviously never a huge part of their economies. 

Poaching and big game hunting are two different things. Big game hunting draws literally no money and is a very small operation. For example, in SA out of an economy of about USD 500 billion, big game hunting contributes only 1 billion RAND of that if that ... Even calling it a fraction is an over-exaggeration. Overall, at most it contributes 200 million which even for poor nations is but a tiny fraction of their overall wealth. 

Central African nations have now diversified as well. They now rely primarily on agriculture and forestry. The claim that hunting is a BIG part of any african country is total and utter fantasy and complete fabrication.

---


----------



## DOPA

One thing that will be very amusing with tax reform is the progressive Democrats and liberals getting mad at a potential slashing of the corporation tax when all but Norway out of the Scandinavian countries that they love have their corporation tax at either at or just above 20% themselves.

They are only consistent when it suits their agenda .






Warren is a sell out bitch.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Fuck off Trump


This was a recommendation by the US fish and wildlife department to combat illegal poaching and promote local conservation efforts by controlling legal hunting.

If an American wants to go over and hunt an elephant LEGALLY, it isn't poaching. When they or any non-native peoples go to hunt elephants etc, the meat is actually donated to local villages, feeding hundreds of people from a single animal.

Be informed.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34116488

*#ConservationHunting*

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/931278604897542145
This is a story this year, why?


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/931278604897542145
> This is a story this year, why?


I feel like the better question is why did it take until this year to become a story?


----------



## stevefox1200

draykorinee said:


> Can you provide evidence that it's a big part of their economy? I appreciate there's the potential myth that it is about conservation (plenty of data to suggest otherwise) but I've never heard it sold as an economical benefit.


https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/10/travel/big-game-hunting-cecil-lion.html

Finding actual hard neutral proof is hard, I heard it some where but it seems to be more of a "self sustained industry" 

Most of the studies that praise its cash flow are done by groups like "Big game hunters of Texas" and the ones that say it makes nothing are forum environmentalists and animal protection groups


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

2 Ton 21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/931061273806094336
> Early Christmas present for Don Jr. and Eric? They haven't been able to legally bring one of these home since 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Don Jr. holding severed tail of elephant he killed in 2011
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ingraham's not happy about it.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/931105124705021953


Very disappointed in Trump for greenlighting this. :tripsscust



Stephen90 said:


> Because we're on the politics section not the entertainment section.


And yet Takei is very vocal when it comes to politics. Both he and Moore are disgusting fucksticks that show that degeneracy takes no sides.


----------



## BASEDBAYLEY

Dam I fuck with elephants. Donald Trump is an L


----------



## Steve Black Man

Looks like Trump backed off on the elephant trophy thing for now.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/931685146415255552
Translation: "_Reversing the elephant trophy laws so my sons could bring their dismembered elephant carcasses back home to mount on their walls resulted in more backlash than I was willing to deal with, so fuck it._"

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad, but this never should have fucking happened in the first place.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

No offense to anyone who's upset over this elephant deal, but to think a year ago the 2nd coming of Hitler was going to nuke the entire world, and now we're upset because he's fucking with the elephants. I mean, this is funny, right?


----------



## Reaper

Wait, so a FASCIST Nazi Hitler Re-incarnation of Stalin with Putin DNA backed down from an attempted policy change after simple public outcry! 

Fucking hell. If anything, Trump is terribly incompetent .... at being a fascist russian puppet :armfold


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Reaper said:


> Wait, so a FASCIST Nazi Hitler Re-incarnation of Stalin with Putin DNA backed down from an attempted policy change after simple public outcry!
> 
> Fucking hell. If anything, Trump is terribly incompetent .... at being a fascist russian puppet :armfold


In light of the recent landscape, sexual assault accusations will be the new nazi allegations. I expect a lot of it in 2018, and an all out assault in 2020.


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> In light of the recent landscape, sexual assault accusations will be the new nazi allegations. I expect a lot of it in 2018, and an all out assault in 2020.


My prediction is the opposite. 

The hysteria will tire itself out by then and fatigue will set in. People's attention spans about a particular issue doesn't even last 2 months let alone 3 years.

Most liberal and especially SJW causes these days die within 2 days. I'm surprised the outcry over sexual allegations has lasted this long.


----------



## Draykorinee

There's no surprise for me because there's constantly new scandals coming out, these sell papers, this drives interest.

SJW stuff goes on forever, Christ, people still go on about gamergate. The internet keeps them alive.


----------



## Vic Capri

Mitch McConnell rumored to be involvement in the political hit against Roy Moore. Makes sense since they wanted Luther Strange. 



> No offense to anyone who's upset over this elephant deal, but to think a year ago the 2nd coming of Hitler was going to nuke the entire world, and now we're upset because he's fucking with the elephants. I mean, this is funny, right?


The social media outrage from justice warriors was hilarious acting like he was going to be responsible for the future extinction of elephants. Meanwhile, most of them are busy eating meat and fish.

- Vic


----------



## themuel1

I have no problem with hunting if it's needed to keep a population down. That isn't the case here.

I have a HUGE problem with people that take pride in holding up the carcass of a Lion or the tusk of an Elephant, smiling whilst posing with it. There's something very sick about taking pride in it. There's something very sick in paying money to be able to kill one of these beautiful creatures too. As for the "trophies" ? As if shooting one of these animals is an achievement? A piece of Elephant tusk to look back fondly on it? Twisted, twisted people. 

If you're thinking about overturning a law that is a very sensitive to not only your country but has impacts on an entire continent and species of animals, why would you announce it BEFORE doing any sort of fucking research into the consequences? 



Lastly, how about a political spectrum where people actually think about policies and the concept of right and wrong rather than this archaic, tribal Liberals v Democrats absolute side taking nonsense? To lump everyone in to a "side", with an "us v them" mentality and no middle ground is crazy. When did people stop thinking rather than going with something simply because society in the States seems to have designated each individual a side? It's sad to see. The same is happening in the UK (not to the same extent though) and it's really hurting both nations.


----------



## Smarky Mark

Never knew so many people cared about elephants.

If you aren't a vegetarian, you have no ground to stand on. If you own anything that's leather, you have no ground to stand on.

Yes in a perfect world it would be great if people didn't kill other animals for sport but sorry I don't buy the outrage.


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *7 of 10 Richest Members of Congress Are Democrats*
> 
> Seven of the ten richest members of Congress are Democrats while only three are Republicans, according to a recently published analysis done by the Center for Responsive Politics.
> 
> The analysis was based on the financial disclosure forms that members of both the House and Senate filed in 2016 and cover their assets and liabilities through 2015.
> 
> Rep. Darrell Issa, a Republican from California, was the richest member of Congress, according to the CRS analysis. His estimated wealth was $330,050,015.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The other two Republicans in the Top 10 were Rep. Dave Trott of Michigan, who ranked No. 5 with an estimated wealth of $177,149,145 and Rep. Vernon Buchanan who ranked No. 6 with an estimated wealth of $115,534,558.
> 
> House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi ranked No. 7 with an estimated wealth of $100,643,521—and was also one of only seven members of Congress whose estimated wealth exceeded $100 million.
> 
> Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, with an estimated wealth of $238,816,630, was the richest member of the U.S. Senate and the third richest member of both houses of Congress.
> 
> The other five Democrats—in addition to Pelosi and Warner—who ranked among the ten richest members of Congress were: Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado ($313,556,221), Rep. John K. Delaney of Maryland ($232,816,089), Rep. Scott Peters of California ($95,569,028), Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut ($81,745,158), and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California ($79,067,057).
> 
> Four of the 10 richest members of Congress (Issa, Pelosi, Peters and Feinstein) are from California and two of those four are from the City of San Francisco (Pelosi and Feinstein).
> 
> Members of Congress list both their assets and liabilities (within a range of values rather than by a specific value) on their financial disclosure forms. The Center for Responsive Politics estimated the wealth of the members of Congress by the following method:
> 
> “Net worth was calculated by summing the filer's assets and then subtracting any listed liabilities. Filers report the amount of each of their assets, transactions and liabilities as falling within one of several ranges. The minimum possible values for each asset were added together as were the maximum possible values. Likewise, minimum and maximum liability amounts were summed. The maximum debt figure was then subtracted from the minimum asset figure and the minimum debt figure was subtracted from the maximum asset figure. The resulting range represents the extremes of how much a filer could be worth, and his or her actual net worth should fall somewhere within that range. The midpoint or average of the two limits was also calculated and used for purposes of ranking the filers by wealth.”


https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/7-10-richest-members-congress-are-democrats

Big money democrats .


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Steve Black Man said:


> Looks like Trump backed off on the elephant trophy thing for now.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/931685146415255552
> Translation: "_Reversing the elephant trophy laws so my sons could bring their dismembered elephant carcasses back home to mount on their walls resulted in more backlash than I was willing to deal with, so fuck it._"
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm glad, but this never should have fucking happened in the first place.


That was quick. :mj4

Seeing him backtrack on one of the very few policies that had virtually no benefit for America *and* was universally panned regardless of ideology made me go from SAD! to GLAD!

Thank You Based Don. :trump2


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Reaper said:


> My prediction is the opposite.
> 
> The hysteria will tire itself out by then and fatigue will set in. People's attention spans about a particular issue doesn't even last 2 months let alone 3 years.
> 
> Most liberal and especially SJW causes these days die within 2 days. I'm surprised the outcry over sexual allegations has lasted this long.


I will say that in light of everything that's been going on, fatigue is a possibility. It used to be every 4 years a Republican candidate would show up, and whoever won the primary was then labeled a Nazi, by Democrats; and it would get pub, and people on the left would be "outraged". Now this whole Nazi trope is tired and people are tuning out. My contention is that Democrats see this and they know they're gonna have to pivot to something else. Calling a Republican a Nazi just doesn't work anymore. There are only so many things that will get a large chunk of the population to automatically dismiss a candidate. Right now, sexual assault is exactly that thing. While you may be right that they'll over-do it and by 2018, or 2020, people will tune it out, but all it takes is the accusations to die down, and then when they come back, the accusations will be big again. That being said, you could very well be right. Either way, the Dems have to pivot away from calling Republicans Nazis. What do you think they'll pivot to, if not sexual assault allegations?


----------



## Warlock

Policy?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Smarky Mark

I can't stand it when liberals deflect criticism away from Hillary by urging "She's not the president!"

Meanwhile every chance they get they're always going on about how stupid everyone is for voting in Trump instead of Hillary.


----------



## Vic Capri

Joe Biden's chances for a 2020 Presidential run have been dashed away. He's been exposed as a creep and even liberal news outlets turned on him. What really disturbed me was him sniffing women's and children's hair. *WTF?!!*

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

Smarky Mark said:


> I can't stand it when liberals deflect criticism away from Hillary by urging "She's not the president!"
> 
> Meanwhile every chance they get they're always going on about how stupid everyone is for voting in Trump instead of Hillary.


Is that worse than deflecting criticism from Trump on to Hillary?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

http://fortune.com/2017/11/08/graduate-students-say-gop-tax-plan-could-increase-their-taxes-by-nearly-300/



> *Graduate Students Say GOP Tax Plan Could Increase Their Taxes by Nearly 300%*
> 
> Graduate students say the Republican tax reform plan could raise their taxes by nearly 300%.
> 
> *The tax plan would consolidate and eliminate several tax credits for higher education expenses. Many graduate students are given free tuition, as well as a stipend, in exchange for teaching classes or doing research for their professors. The proposed GOP tax plan — unveiled by House Republicans last week — would count those tuition waivers as taxable income.
> 
> Currently, graduate students only pay income tax on their stipends.*
> 
> In documents circulated at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of California, Berkeley — and published by Wired — graduate students warned that such a policy would significantly increase what they owe in federal income taxes and dramatically slash how much of their stipend they take home.
> 
> “This provision would specifically target these students and increase their tax burdens,” Berkeley Ph.D. student Vetri Velan wrote in a memo circulating at the university. Velan estimated that the GOP plan would cause taxes to rise from $3,600 to $4,700 for a Berkley research assistant who receives an in-state tuition waiver and a $33,000 annual stipend.
> 
> The change would be dramatically higher for students at private universities or those receiving waivers for out-of-state tuition, according to the estimates made by Velan. An MIT research assistant, who receives a $37,000 annual stipend and has about $49,000 in tuition waived, would see an estimated 240% increase in federal income taxes, to $13,577.
> 
> At Carnegie Mellon’s college of science, a graduate student’s annual taxes could rise from $2,384 under current tax law to $9,459 under the proposed tax plan — an increase of 297%. After-tax income would fall from $27,000 to less than $20,000.
> 
> Critics have voiced concern that the policy will make higher education unaffordable for too many people and could deter people from pursuing careers in research or academia.
> 
> “This legislation, taken in its entirety, would discourage participation in postsecondary education, make college more expensive for those who do enroll, and undermine the financial stability of public and private, two-year and four-year colleges and universities,” the American Council on Education and several other advocacy groups wrote Monday in a letter to the House Ways and Means Committee. “This is not in America’s national interest.”


----------



## Cabanarama

Smarky Mark said:


> I can't stand it when liberals deflect criticism away from Hillary by urging "She's not the president!"
> 
> Meanwhile every chance they get they're always going on about how stupid everyone is for voting in Trump instead of Hillary.


Except the real deflection is bringing up Hillary in a discussion which has nothing to do with her. Not pointing out that she is irrelevant to this discussion at hand...

How often did you hear Obama supporters criticize Mitt Romney in 2013?
How often did you heard them criticizing John McCain specifically in 2009 (not counting general criticisms of the congressional Republicans as a whole that he was apart of)?
How often did you hear Bush supporters criticize John Kerry in 2005, or Al Gore in 2001?

Has there ever been a presidency where the president and his supporters spent the entire first year continuing to go after the opponent they had beaten as if the campaign was still going on? It's pretty pathetic at this point.
Saying that someone is stupid for voting for Trump doesn't contradict the fact that Hillary is irrelevant at this point.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> I can't stand it when liberals deflect criticism away from Hillary by urging "She's not the president!"
> 
> Meanwhile every chance they get they're always going on about how stupid everyone is for voting in Trump instead of Hillary.


So you can't stand it when a topic is about Trump and the Trump supporters deflect to what about Hillary and they tell you to stop deflecting since she is not president lol


----------



## Cabanarama

birthday_massacre said:


> So you can't stand it when a topic is about Trump and the Trump supporters deflect to what about Hillary and they tell you to stop deflecting since she is not president lol


Don't you know that bringing something up that has nothing to do with the topic at hand is not a deflection, but pointing out it has nothing to do with the topic at hand is a deflection?

#trumptardlogic


----------



## Stinger Fan

Bernie Sanders on Al Franken 


> “My understanding is that Al is a very poplar senator. People in Minnesota think that he is doing a good job and his political future will rest with the people of Minnesota.”


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...over-sexual-misconduct-report/article/2641184

Bernie with that dodging :lol The same guy who holds religious litmus tests(which is unconstitutional) and sees it as a reason not to be in public office but he seems to have no issue with sexual assault as long as that person is a Democrat apparently


----------



## Arya Dark

birthday_massacre said:


> So you can't stand it when a topic is about Trump and the Trump supporters deflect to what about Hillary and they tell you to stop deflecting since she is not president lol


*To stop that defelection all you have to say is, "yeah fuck her too" because well... fuck her too.*


----------



## stevefox1200

Stinger Fan said:


> Bernie Sanders on Al Franken
> 
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...over-sexual-misconduct-report/article/2641184
> 
> Bernie with that dodging :lol The same guy who holds religious litmus tests(which is unconstitutional) and sees it as a reason not to be in public office but he seems to have no issue with sexual assault as long as that person is a Democrat apparently


Bernie is very nice

As such he tends to be afraid to start fights and is easily run over

being a good person and good public figure can be two different things

Its kind of like the Jimmy Carter syndrome


----------



## Stephen90

AryaDark said:


> *To stop that defelection all you have to say is, "yeah fuck her too" because well... fuck her too.*


Yeah I could give two shits about Hillary it's just Trump voters trying to avoid talking about Trump's mistakes.


----------



## stevefox1200

Trump said on twitter that Jeff Flake won't be getting a tax break for insulting him

Can the president do that and dose that praising Trump gets you tax breaks?


----------



## yeahbaby!

Stinger Fan said:


> https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/7-10-richest-members-congress-are-democrats
> 
> Big money democrats .


----------



## CamillePunk

stevefox1200 said:


> Trump said on twitter that Jeff Flake won't be getting a tax break for insulting him


this didn't happen


----------



## stevefox1200

CamillePunk said:


> this didn't happen


Misread the tweet

I redact


----------



## samizayn

2 Ton 21 said:


> http://fortune.com/2017/11/08/graduate-students-say-gop-tax-plan-could-increase-their-taxes-by-nearly-300/


Honestly this is so FUCKED.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Kellyanne with a de facto endorsement of Moore. FFS, have some courage and just say "Vote Roy Moore" instead of dancing around it.


----------



## Smarky Mark

Cabanarama said:


> Has there ever been a presidency where the president and his supporters spent the entire first year continuing to go after the opponent they had beaten as if the campaign was still going on? It's pretty pathetic at this point.


This goes both ways doesn't it?

Has there ever been a presidency where the losing candidate and their supporters spent the entire first year going after the standing president and his own supporters? As if the campaign were still going on? Is that not equally as pathetic? 



Cabanarama said:


> Saying that someone is stupid for voting for Trump doesn't contradict the fact that Hillary is irrelevant at this point.


How is Hillary irrelevant? She was the other candidate. Every time someone accuses a Trump voter of being stupid, they are all but insinuating that it is because they didn't vote for Hillary.

"You're stupid if you voted for Trump"... is the EXACT same thing as saying..."You're stupid if you didn't vote for Hillary".

So as long as the left continues to complain about this, Hillary is relevant.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> This goes both ways doesn't it?
> 
> Has there ever been a presidency where the losing candidate and their supporters spent the entire first year going after the standing president and his own supporters? As if the campaign were still going on? Is that not equally as pathetic?
> 
> 
> 
> .



who is going after Trump as if the campaign is still going on? Those of us bashing Trump are bashing him based on his actions as president. Trump is just an utter disaster he gives us way too much to point out.


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump didn't get the thanks he wanted for getting Americans out of jail in China so now he's making petulant comments on Twitter. Says he should have left them to rot in jail.

This POTUS...


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> *who is going after Trump as if the campaign is still going on? *Those of us bashing Trump are bashing him based on his actions as president. Trump is just an utter disaster he gives us way too much to point out.


I take it you don't watch the news?


----------



## Cabanarama

Smarky Mark said:


> This goes both ways doesn't it?
> 
> Has there ever been a presidency where the losing candidate and their supporters spent the entire first year going after the standing president and his own supporters? As if the campaign were still going on? Is that not equally as pathetic?


Um, remember the Tea Party? 

Remember the way congressional republicans were openly doing everything in their power to keep the economy in the dumps and preventing any problems from being fixed just because they didn't want Obama to take credit for it?

And no, it's not equally pathetic to be critical of a president and his actions, than his supporters constantly bringing up his opponent from a past election because they have zero defense of him and those actions



> How is Hillary irrelevant? She was the other candidate. Every time someone accuses a Trump voter of being stupid, they are all but insinuating that it is because they didn't vote for Hillary.
> 
> "You're stupid if you voted for Trump"... is the EXACT same thing as saying..."You're stupid if you didn't vote for Hillary".
> 
> So as long as the left continues to complain about this, Hillary is relevant.


Criticisms of Trump and his supporters have NOTHING to do with Hillary at this point.
Once the election is over, the loser becomes irrelevant, unless they still hold some other high office. Hillary no longer has any power or influence. She has zero say in running the country. What she does now has no actual effect. Therefore, she is not relevant to any discussion, and any mention of her at this point is nothing but a deflection from the indefensible.


----------



## Cabanarama

draykorinee said:


> Trump didn't get the thanks he wanted for getting Americans out of jail in China so now he's making petulant comments on Twitter. Says he should have left them to rot in jail.
> 
> This POTUS...


Honestly, I hope this feud with Lavar Ball goes on for awhile, just for the entertaining value.
But is there any two people more fitting for each other than Lavar Ball and Donald Trump? They are possibly the two most delusional, egotistical douchebags in America...


----------



## Smarky Mark

Cabanarama said:


> Um, remember the Tea Party? Criticisms of Trump and his supporters have NOTHING to do with Hillary at this point.
> Once the election is over, the loser becomes irrelevant, unless they still hold some other high office. *Hillary no longer has any power or influence. * She has zero say in running the country. What she does now has no actual effect. Therefore, she is not relevant to any discussion, and any mention of her at this point is nothing but a deflection from the indefensible.


This is a little disingenuous wouldn't you say? She still has millions of supporters and she still gets superstar treatment from the left media. She's done her rounds on all the news programs, all the talk shows, she's still out there doing speaking tours promoting her book... to say she has no influence is just ridiculous. To at least 30% of the democratic voter base she is still a god, just like Trump was to his. Her comments still make headlines. 

And again, if the people hadn't voted for Trump then Hillary would be the president. That's a fact. So whether you want to admit or not any condemnation of someone because they voted for Trump means that you wished they had voted for Hillary instead.

Mind you I think you are perfectly within your rights to accuse Trump as well as his supporters.


----------



## CamillePunk

Anyone who can look at Hillary's Twitter feed and say it'd be better if she was president is not someone I care to spend time on. Life is better with a president who tweets ridiculous, hilarious shit that has no actual real world consequences yet drives so many people up the wall. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

Smarky Mark said:


> Never knew so many people cared about elephants.
> 
> If you aren't a vegetarian, you have no ground to stand on. If you own anything that's leather, you have no ground to stand on.
> 
> Yes in a perfect world it would be great if people didn't kill other animals for sport but sorry I don't buy the outrage.


Late responding but remember the outrage over the girl who killed that giraffe?

It was funny because it was legal, the meat went to the people and it's a way for the Africans to make money off tourism while gaining food from animals they were going to hunt anyways. 

So the outrage is pretty silly.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/19754921958


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/19754921958


Has he converted to Islam yet?


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Has he converted to Islam yet?


If he does they 'll celebrate him as the next Malcolm X.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Vic Capri

Kathy Griffin has been blacklisted from Hollywood. :lol



> Anyone who can look at Hillary's Twitter feed and say it'd be better if she was president is not someone I care to spend time on. Life is better with a president who tweets ridiculous, hilarious shit that has no actual real world consequences yet drives so many people up the wall.


I do wonder how autistic screechers would function in life without Twitter.

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

No real world consequences. Do people really believe that?


----------



## Reaper

Seriously though, I agree that they were trying to get him to raging black man mode and this dude remained cool and rational. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/932991478271500288
:lol










Meanwhile, Newsweek coming up with content that even The Onion can't rival anymore :lmao


----------



## samizayn

So elephant trophies are now re-banned. KOOL. fpalm


----------



## Empress

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/933002595064565760

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/933007822052261889
Sgt. La David Johnson's widow was right to call out this administration. She stated that the government didn't allow her to see her husband's remains. But the man child in the Oval chose to attack her. Trump has never found a Black person he couldn't make a villain. At least LaVar Ball trolled him back. Outside of the theatrics, Trump continues to act as though he is a King and we are all his subjects, in particular minorities who he deems as being underfoot and must contort in constant gratification to him.


----------



## Stephen90

Smarky Mark said:


> This is a little disingenuous wouldn't you say? She still has millions of supporters and she still gets superstar treatment from the left media. She's done her rounds on all the news programs, all the talk shows, she's still out there doing speaking tours promoting her book... to say she has no influence is just ridiculous. To at least 30% of the democratic voter base she is still a god, just like Trump was to his. Her comments still make headlines.
> 
> And again, if the people hadn't voted for Trump then Hillary would be the president. That's a fact. So whether you want to admit or not any condemnation of someone because they voted for Trump means that you wished they had voted for Hillary instead.
> 
> Mind you I think you are perfectly within your rights to accuse Trump as well as his supporters.


Most people who talk about Hillary are Trump supporters.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Seriously though, I agree that they were trying to get him to raging black man mode and this dude remained cool and rational.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/932991478271500288
> :lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, Newsweek coming up with content that even The Onion can't rival anymore :lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

Mike Cernovich, who has broken many major stories over the last couple years, has exposed a huge sexual harassment settlement story within Congress, which our president Donald J Trump has responded to, and the left-wing media responds with conspiracy theories trying to link Cernovich to Russia. :lol


----------



## MrMister

CamillePunk said:


> Mike Cernovich, who has broken many major stories over the last couple years, has exposed a huge sexual harassment settlement story within Congress, which our president Donald J Trump has responded to, and the left-wing media responds with conspiracy theories trying to link Cernovich to Russia. :lol


The mass hysteria truly is fascinating to me.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


>


I'd say that's funny and I did laugh. 

In reality though, Manson was *actually *a socialist hippie that ran a commune (which is essentially a socialist retreat for fellow communalists) - which is where his cult started. Good old leftie minus the bleeding heart.  

He would probably have hated Trump and Trump supporters and would have voted for Bernie if he wasn't also a murderous lunatic. :mj


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> I'd say that's funny and I did laugh.
> 
> In reality though, Manson was *actually *a socialist hippie that ran a commune - which is where his cult started. Good old leftie minus the bleeding heart.
> 
> He would probably have hated Trump and Trump supporters and would have voted for Bernie if he wasn't also a murderous lunatic. :mj


I'm sure Manson would hate Trump, I was just pointing out how they have similar mannerisms to be funny.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> I'm sure Manson would hate Trump, I was just pointing out how they have similar mannerisms to be funny.


I know. That's why I acknowledged it. 

I am unbelievably surprised though that people are taking the new fangled far-right association they're trying to forge seriously though. 

Manson would have been the poster child of the leftist revolution if people had never realized that he was also the leader of a death cult. 

The current political climate of absolutely ridiculous claims and conspiracy theories have made it impossible to be critical of the current administration when they genuinely fuck up.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> I know. That's why I acknowledged it.
> 
> I am unbelievably surprised though that people are taking the new fangled far-right association they're trying to forge seriously though.
> 
> Manson would have been the poster child of the leftist revolution if people had never realized that he was also the leader of a death cult.
> 
> The current political climate of absolutely ridiculous claims and conspiracy theories have made it impossible to be critical of the current administration when they genuinely fuck up.


Manson has a lot in common with the far right especially the white nationalist.
Its probably fair to say that Manson borrowed from the worst of the far right and far left.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> *Manson has a lot in common with the far right especially the white nationalist.*
> Its probably fair to say that Manson borrowed from the worst of the far right and far left.


That's indeed true. But I believe that his white nationalism (if it was even remotely actual white nationalism with a core philosophical rationalization) was a _consequence _of his core desire to continue to be a leader or a part of a group and you have to remember that maximum security prisons hold a lot of murderous white nationalists. It would make sense for a man who simply could not be without a cult to not become a part of those cults while in prison. 

His core philosophy that led to the death cult was that we are all god and part of a whole, therefore when we kill, we are merely killing a part of ourselves only. There was no political motivation behind his original cult - neither left, nor right. It was mysticism, spirituality ... kinda like a sufi of the west. 

In essence, he was the nightmare of the otherwise dream-like hippie revolution. Just a monster through and through.


----------



## Draykorinee

I'm not sure the left would take his racism...


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> I'm not sure the left would take his racism...


Racism is neither simply left nor right.

His "swastika" was originally an X to denote exclusion from society. He changed it afterwards. The original Manson was not a racist. He was simply a harbinger of chaos.


----------



## Empress

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/933127896541028352


> Three military personnel have been reassigned from their White House jobs amid allegations that they had improper contact with foreign women while traveling with President Trump on his recent trip to Asia, according to officials familiar with the situation.
> 
> The service members all worked for the White House Communications Agency, a specialized military unit that helps provide the president, vice president, Secret Service and other officials with secure communications.
> 
> The military is scrutinizing three Army noncommissioned officers who allegedly broke curfew during Trump’s trip to Vietnam this month, officials said.
> 
> Mark Wright, a spokesman for the Defense Department, confirmed that the Pentagon is examining the behavior of personnel during the visit to Vietnam.
> 
> “We are aware of the incident, and it is currently under investigation,” Wright said.
> 
> Trump visited Vietnam as part of a 12-day swing through Asia.
> 
> The episode comes after four military personnel on the same White House team faced allegations related to their behavior during a trip to Panama in August with Vice President Pence. Those men — two from the Army and two from the Air Force — stood accused of taking foreign women after hours into a secure area as they were preparing for Pence’s arrival, officials said.


----------



## 2 Ton 21




----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Ironic him calling Doug Jones soft on crime in the same speech where endorses a Pedo for a Senate Seat


----------



## Reaper

The Turkeys are next. 

I hear that on route to the White House they were touched by some guy who drove a FOREIGN TOYOTA! 

COLLUDING WITH THE JAPS. 

THEY BLEW UP PEARL HARBOR. 

WORLD WAR III!!! 










He pardoned them. It's a war crime. Fascistsssssss .. Aarrggghhh.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/933046732467949569
:clap


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Ironic him calling Doug Jones soft on crime in the same speech where endorses a Pedo for a Senate Seat


Except:

- He hasn't endorsed Moore

- He's reasonably skeptical of the accusers

- He's happy the accusers came forward instead of remaining in the shadows, regardless of his skepticism toward their claims

- He stated that if the allegations are true, Moore should step aside

Try again next time.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> The Turkeys are next.
> 
> I hear that on route to the White House they were touched by some guy who drove a FOREIGN TOYOTA!
> 
> COLLUDING WITH THE JAPS.
> 
> THEY BLEW UP PEARL HARBOR.
> 
> WORLD WAR III!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He pardoned them. It's a war crime. Fascistsssssss .. Aarrggghhh.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/933046732467949569


That tweet shows the fallacious progun argument in a nutshell. People aren't saying don't carry guns, they're saying making harder to get guns and, like the police, don't let them walk around with assault rifles...


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> That tweet shows the fallacious progun argument in a nutshell. People aren't saying don't carry guns, they're saying making harder to get guns and, like the police, don't let them walk around with assault rifles...


Assault rifles are already illegal. And that's why antigun advocates can't be taken seriously. They don't even know which laws exist and whrich don't.

Making something illegal doesn't make it magically disappear from existence.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Assault rifles are already illegal. And that's why antigun advocates can't be taken seriously. They don't even know which laws exist and whrich don't.
> 
> Making something illegal doesn't make it magically disappear from existence.


Oh look this bullshit again, this is what the pro-gun crowd has to stoop to, we have been over this a million times but you always bring up this tired old semantic argument.

Everyone knows when people say assault rifles should be banned they are talking about semi-auto rifles, stop acting like that is not what they are talking about. Yes a lot of people assume AR-15 stands for assault rifle when it does not, but you know those are the types of guns they are talking about. Just because they don't know what AR stands for doesn't mean they are wrong about guns like the AR-15 should be banned.

And making semi-automatic rifles would help prevent mass shootings and would save lives. Anyone who claims otherwise are the ones who cant be taken seriously.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Everyone knows when people say assault rifles should be banned they are talking about semi-auto rifles,


:lol 

"It's not what I say, but what I mean". 

Also known as shifting goal-posts.

It's not just this, it was made painfully clear in the previous thread about the church massacre that none of you knew the laws that were in place. The guy who got the gun should have never gotten the gun if the laws that were in place to prevent him from getting the gun were enforced. But they were in place. 

Laws don't work.

---


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/933052773427499011


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Reaper said:


> Making something illegal doesn't make it magically disappear from existence.


Try telling the GOP that in regards to abortion.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> That tweet shows the fallacious progun argument in a nutshell. People aren't saying don't carry guns, they're saying making harder to get guns and, like the police, don't let them walk around with assault rifles...
> 
> 
> 
> Assault rifles are already illegal. And that's why antigun advocates can't be taken seriously. They don't even know which laws exist and whrich don't.
> 
> Making something illegal doesn't make it magically disappear from existence.
Click to expand...

Sorry my mistake I meant semi autos of course. You are quite correct the term assault rifle is thrown seeing incorrectly too often. But that's just deflecting from my main point which is the usual pro gun complaints about banning guns.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reservoir Angel said:


> Reaper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making something illegal doesn't make it magically disappear from existence.
> 
> 
> 
> Try telling the GOP that in regards to abortion.
Click to expand...

Abortion just goes underground and becomes unsafe. America already has terrible maternity care, the only western country with rising maternity deaths. Let's make it even higher...


----------



## Reaper

Reservoir Angel said:


> Try telling the GOP that in regards to abortion.


Just because I'm against one (or many) leftist hysterical talking points, why do you guys immediately assume that I'm pro-GOP on all their talking points. 

This is the lowest and unbelievably incompetent forms of argumentation that some of you _consistently _resort to. It may work in your echo chambers though. 

I've made my views clear on abortion. I don't need to repeat myself to every leftist that comes in here trying to build a strawman of some sort.



draykorinee said:


> Sorry my mistake I meant semi autos of course.


No you didn't. If your argument had any intellectual nuance built into it, you would not make that mistake. Fact is, generally liberals know nothing about guns nor existing laws and this is why they consistently get names of guns wrong and continue to advocate laws that are already in existence.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Reaper said:


> Just because I'm against one (or many) leftist hysterical talking points, why do you guys immediately assume that I'm pro-GOP on all their talking points.
> 
> This is the lowest and unbelievably incompetent forms of argumentation that some of you _consistently _resort to. It may work in your echo chambers though.
> 
> I've made my views clear on abortion. I don't need to repeat myself to every leftist that comes in here trying to build a strawman of some sort.


Genuinely not even trying to make a big argument. Just couldn't resist a snarky comment. Because I'm just a dick like that.


----------



## Reaper

Reservoir Angel said:


> Genuinely not even trying to make a big argument. Just couldn't resist a snarky comment. Because I'm just a dick like that.


Sure. I believe you.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> Reservoir Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try telling the GOP that in regards to abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because I'm against one (or many) leftist hysterical talking points, why do you guys immediately assume that I'm pro-GOP on all their talking points.
> 
> This is the lowest and unbelievably incompetent forms of argumentation that some of you _consistently _resort to. It may work in your echo chambers though.
> 
> I've made my views clear on abortion. I don't need to repeat myself to every leftist that comes in here trying to build a strawman of some sort.
> 
> 
> 
> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry my mistake I meant semi autos of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you didn't. If your argument had any intellectual nuance built into it, you would not make that mistake. Fact is, generally liberals know nothing about guns nor existing laws and this is why they consistently get names of guns wrong and continue to advocate laws that are already in existence.
Click to expand...

I did, but then this is normal for you to tell people their own thought processes. Still deflecting from the main point because of misuse of a term. You applaud and defend a fallacious tweet by deflection, it's fine. If that tweet had any intellectual nuance he wouldn't use the whole ban guns schtick.

Irony is lost I you I'm sure.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reservoir Angel said:


> Reaper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because I'm against one (or many) leftist hysterical talking points, why do you guys immediately assume that I'm pro-GOP on all their talking points.
> 
> This is the lowest and unbelievably incompetent forms of argumentation that some of you _consistently _resort to. It may work in your echo chambers though.
> 
> I've made my views clear on abortion. I don't need to repeat myself to every leftist that comes in here trying to build a strawman of some sort.
> 
> 
> 
> Genuinely not even trying to make a big argument. Just couldn't resist a snarky comment. Because I'm just a dick like that.
Click to expand...

It was the perfect retort to someone who is a known anti abortion, don't worry.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> I did, but then this is normal for you to tell people their own thought processes. Still deflecting from the main point because of misuse of a term. You applaud and defend a fallacious tweet by deflection, it's fine. If that tweet had any intellectual nuance he wouldn't use the whole ban guns schtick.


No, You missed the point of the argument which is deprivation of citizens from having arms while handing them to the police who are all racist. It was also speaking about those liberals who do want complete gun control and they exist in numbers larger than you will admit because at this point in this particular argument you want to prop up a different group to deflect from the actual argument. You deflected by bringing in a typical antigun talking point but if you had any actual knowledge you wouldn't have made what you call a "mistake". 

And now you're doubling down. Own up to the fact that you know nothing about gun laws and gun legislation nor the actual gun debate in America and you just want to have your say. If you want a soap box, feel free to make your own posts and I'll leave your posts alone  



draykorinee said:


> It was the perfect retort to someone who is a known anti abortion, don't worry.


:lol Keep believing that. There are people who are anti-murder as well. The fact that you guys have conveniently redefined murder as something else doesn't change the fact that it is murder. 

*I don't care for legislating it though because obviously the law won't work.* (see, that's called consistently of belief! I know it's an alien concept for some) The fact that it _can't _be legislated doesn't make it not murder. 

So I'm not pro-legislation, but I won't fool myself or anyone else by claiming that it's something it's not just to make it more palatable. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. 

BTW, GOP does not have a different platform from the dems with regards to abortion. There is majority support for abortion amongst the GOP. But I know despite your obsession with anything American, you don't know that. GOP as a party has been pro-abortion since the Bush era. They merely say things that sound like they're doing something, but they aren't and they don't. 

Don't quote me again because your obsessiveness to make this about how America is terrible is the only reason why you troll this thread. You pick out the most obscure and irrelevant little factoids (like the one about rising maternity deaths having anything to do with abortions) without nuance just to get a cheap shot in. 

And no, that is not me thinking on your behalf. This is based on your hundreds of posts I've seen and read in this thread.


----------



## CamillePunk

I'm pretty sure everyone alive is an anti-abortion.


----------



## Reaper

The real irony here is that the same person (or people) who vehemently believe that legislating abortion as murder and preventing abortions won't stop people from getting illegal abortions also believes that legislating guns and making certain guns illegal will prevent people from getting those guns.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did, but then this is normal for you to tell people their own thought processes. Still deflecting from the main point because of misuse of a term. You applaud and defend a fallacious tweet by deflection, it's fine. If that tweet had any intellectual nuance he wouldn't use the whole ban guns schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> No, You missed the point of the argument which is deprivation of citizens from having arms while handing them to the police who are all racist. It was also speaking about those liberals who do want complete gun control and they exist in numbers larger than you will admit because at this point in this particular argument you want to prop up a different group to deflect from the actual argument. You deflected by bringing in a typical antigun talking point but if you had any actual knowledge you wouldn't have made what you call a "mistake".
> 
> And now you're doubling down. Own up to the fact that you know nothing about gun laws and gun legislation nor the actual gun debate in America and you just want to have your say. If you want a soap box, feel free to make your own posts and I'll leave your posts alone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was the perfect retort to someone who is a known anti abortion, don't worry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep believing that. There are people who are anti-murder as well. The fact that you guys have conveniently redefined murder as something else doesn't change the fact that it is murder.
> 
> *I don't care for legislating it though because obviously the law won't work.* (see, that's called consistently of belief! I know it's an alien concept for some) The fact that it _can't _be legislated doesn't make it not murder.
> 
> So I'm not pro-legislation, but I won't fool myself or anyone else by claiming that it's something it's not just to make it more palatable. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
> 
> BTW, GOP does not have a different platform from the dems with regards to abortion. There is majority support for abortion amongst the GOP. But I know despite your obsession with anything American, you don't know that. GOP as a party has been pro-abortion since the Bush era. They merely say things that sound like they're doing something, but they aren't and they don't.
> 
> Don't quote me again because your obsessiveness to make this about how America is terrible is the only reason why you troll this thread. You pick out the most obscure and irrelevant little factoids (like the one about rising maternity deaths having anything to do with abortions) without nuance just to get a cheap shot in.
> 
> And no, that is not me thinking on your behalf. This is based on your hundreds of posts I've seen and read in this thread.
Click to expand...

Making up stuff doesn't help your cause, there is no large push for a total ban on guns. It can't happen, it won't happen and it hasn't happened. You're lying to build a false narrative.

The arrogance you show by assuming someone meant something even after they've said they didn't is know by everyone, were used to it.

You doubling down, to borrow your term, just shows how desperate you can get to not admit error. I'll freely admit I made a mistake, it was early in the morning.

As to telling me not to quote you, lol. America has the worst maternity death rate in the west, sorry facts paint America in a bad light, I didn't make them up.

When did I even mention GOP? Getting yourself quite the strawman yourself.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Making up stuff doesn't help your cause, there is no large push for a total ban on guns. It hasn't happen, it won't happen and it hasn't happened. You're lying to build a false narrative.


25% of people in America want a total gun ban including handguns, 37% of democrats. 

"No large push" indeed. 



> The arrogance you show by assuming someone meant something even after they've said they didn't is know by everyone, were used to it.


Uh yeah. You used the words assault rifle. I don't care if you claim that you meant something else (because later on you accuse me of trying to think on your behalf despite also claiming that I should know what you mean and not just look at what you say). 

If you knew what you were talking about already you wouldn't have made that mistake - as you seem to have little factoids and stuff littered throughout your post, sorry my mistake for assuming that you know what you're talking about in the statements to you make. 



> You doubling down, to borrow your term, just shows how desperate you can get to not admit error. I'll freely admit I made a mistake, it was early in the morning.


You're the one who said something wrong and claiming "I made an error by responding to what you _said _without realizing what you _meant_", but you're also upset at me now trying to think on your behalf. How does that work. 

Here's what you've done so far:

1. You accused me of not being able to get what you _mean _and only addressing what you _said_. 
2. You accused me of trying to interpret what you're saying instead of simply addressing what you're saying because "it's what I do". 



> As to telling me not to quote you, lol.


Yes, because you're clearly not in the right frame of mind to have a conversation at the moment. Reading between the lines of what you're saying of course. I mean, it's what you mean, not what you say after all  Is that how I'm supposed to do this? 

----


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/933067047835234304
Sad little man that used to once have independent thoughts on issues is now repeating the same party line of the same party that rigged the shit against him. How pathetic can someone be? Too bad. This would have been the perfect time for this sad little man to break away and try to start another party ... but sheep do what sheep do.


----------



## DOPA

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ser-leigh-corfman-i-didn-t-deserve-be-n822416



> Leigh Corfman, who alleged earlier this month that Roy Moore sexually abused her nearly 40 years ago when she was a 14-year-old girl, said Monday that she “didn’t deserve to have a 32-year-old man prey upon” her.
> 
> In an exclusive interview with NBC’s TODAY— her first on television since she made her allegations against the embattled GOP Senate candidate in Alabama — Corfman, now 53, said she was simply a “14-year-old child playing in an adult’s world,” when Moore initiated a sexual encounter with her.
> 
> “I was expecting candlelight and roses, what I got was very different,” she said. “I felt guilty. I felt like I was the one to blame. It was decades before I was able to let that go.”
> 
> “I was a 14-year-old child trying to play in an adult’s world and he was 32 years old,” she said.
> 
> Corfman told The Washington Post earlier this month that in 1979, a 32-year-old Moore took off her "shirt and pants and removed his clothes," touched her "over her bra and underpants" and "guided her hand to touch him over his underwear." At least eight other women have come forward with accusations against Moore. Moore has repeatedly denied all of the allegations and said they were the product of nefarious efforts by his political opponents and the media.
> 
> “I am not guilty of sexual misconduct with anyone,” Moore said earlier this month, a message his campaign has put out repeatedly.
> 
> Corfman, however, maintained Monday that the Post “sought me out,” “that she’s “voted as a Republican for years and years” and that “this isn’t political for me.”
> 
> And she dismissed Moore's denials of sexual misconduct with anyone, saying, "I wonder how many 'me’s' he doesn’t know."
> 
> When asked why she waited until now to come forward with the allegations, she explained that she had told people after the incident occurred — “my family knew, family friends knew,” she said — but that she wanted to protect her young children from the maelstrom she knew would follow.
> 
> “My children were small, I was a single parent," she said, expressing a desire to shield them from the fallout.
> 
> But when the Post contacted her, she told them, that, “If they found additional people, I would tell my story.”
> 
> “I didn’t go looking for this, it fell in my lap,” she said of deciding to make her story public.
> 
> In fact, the Post also interviewed three other women who claim Moore "pursued" them when they were 16 to 18 and when he was in his early 30s, and following Corfman’s allegations, several other women have come forward with similar allegations.
> 
> Corfman denied receiving any compensation for telling her story, saying that, “if anything, this has cost me.”
> 
> Corfman said Monday that she is “looking forward to being an advocate for people like me" and that she's already seen positive results from having told her story.
> 
> "I’ve had a lot of people that have come out and have said that because of my courage that they’re able to do the same," she said.
> 
> The report in the Post, which came before the state’s Dec. 12 special Senate election, has sent Moore’s campaign into turmoil, with a growing number of Republican lawmakers, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., urging Moore to drop out of the race. Moore, in turn, has accused McConnell of trying to "steal the election from the people of Alabama." President Donald Trump initially said Moore should step aside in the race if the allegations are true, but has since remained silent on the issue.
> 
> In her interview Monday, Corfman provided additional details about her encounters with Moore decades ago.
> 
> "I met him around the corner from my house, my mother did not know and he took me to his home," Corfman said Monday. "After arriving at his home on the second occasion that I went with him he basically laid out some blankets on the floor of his living room and proceeded to…seduce me, I guess you would say."
> 
> The Post originally reported that the relationship between Moore and Corfman began in 1979, when he approached her and her mother outside a courtroom in rural Alabama and offered to watch the teenage girl while her mother went into court for a hearing. Moore, then a district attorney in Etowah County, asked the girl for her phone number, and picked her up for a date days later, when he drove her to his house and kissed her. The sexual encounter Corfman detailed to The Post occurred during second meeting between her and Moore.
> 
> Meanwhile, a woman who was friends with Corfman when the two were teenagers backed up her account, explaining during a separate interview with NBC News that a mutual friend had relayed the harrowing story to her decades ago.
> 
> The friend, Patti Spradlin, added that Moore long had a particular reputation in their hometown of Gadsden, Ala.
> 
> "Creepy, in a word," Spradlin said, explaining that she and her friends would see Moore at the Gadsden mall “almost every weekend.”
> 
> “We learned very quickly that you didn't dare make eye contact because we felt like that that would encourage him to approach us and if you found yourself um coming, walking toward him or he walking toward us our group, we would simply just scooch over to the other side of the mall,” she said.
> 
> Last week, a different Moore accuser named Becky Gray said she was told at the time that Moore had later been banned from the mall.
> 
> Spradlin, for her part, called on Moore to drop out of the race.
> 
> “The truth is the truth,” she said. “And Alabama deserves better.”


Here's the interview she had with NBC: 





What I find really sad is that these type of pedophilia and sexual assault accusations that have come out whether it be Roy Moore, George Takei or Al Franken really shouldn't be made political or about right vs left or Democrat vs Republican but often are and have been, even in this thread it seems. Claims of deflection because one accusation has been talked about in line with another. All of these stories coming out should be taken seriously and as seriously as each other. Hopefully the truth will come out on all of them.

Of course if these accusations against Moore are true then he should at the very least drop out of the race. Having 8 people accuse him in such detail isn't something to make light of. At the same time, we shouldn't dismiss the possibility of it being a political hit. Stranger things have happened and politics is a very dirty game. I only hope that the truth will come out and whoever is lying....whether it's Moore's denials or these women's stories are essentially found out and are put to bed. It's not a good thing for American politics in any event.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> 25% of people in America want a total gun ban including handguns, 37% of democrats.
> 
> "No large push" indeed.


While half of Americans see gun violence as a very big problem in their country, fewer than 10% of American adults said that “almost no one” should be able to legally own a gun, and only 10% said that “almost no types” of guns should be legally available to buy. Overall, however, 52% want stricter gun laws.

Latest Pew poll less than 10%, a tiny fraction who aren't even vocal, has anyone pushed for legislation banning all guns? Also, notice the 'almost' no one. 



> Uh yeah. You used the words assault rifle. I don't care if you claim that you meant something else (because later on you accuse me of trying to think on your behalf despite also claiming that I should know what you mean and not just look at what you say).


You don't care because you're arrogant enough to make assumptions of people, its fine. I acknowledge 100% my mistake is a classic pro gun liberal mistake, it was made in error not a lack of knowledge, regardless of what you think. I USED to equate the two but the last few years I've learnt a lot more about calibers, bumper stocks etc. This slip up was an honest retarded mistake. 



> Here's what you've done so far:
> 
> 1. You accused me of not being able to get what you _mean _and only addressing what you _said_.


Absolutely not, I accused you of deflecting from the main point. I think you knew perfectly what I meant the whole time. 



> 2. You accused me of trying to interpret what you're saying instead of simply addressing what you're saying because "it's what I do".


Nope, I made a mistake and you picked up on that telling my what I know and what I was thinking at the time even when I said otherwise, you've made that perfectly clear. You did not address the point that pro gun lobbyists and supporters regularly misrepresent the position of the vast majority of people who do not want to ban all guns.

I did lol at the obscure factoid bit though, how does mortality rate during pregnancy not link in with abortion rates? Seriously? You do realise people in the world die because they're not allowed to abort right? Even in the west. Or that death during safe or unsafe abortions are classed as maternal deaths? Not linked...oh dear oh dear.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Latest Pew poll less than 10%, a tiny fraction who aren't even vocal, has anyone pushed for legislation banning all guns? Also, notice the 'almost' no one.


And that was the minority that was being talked about by Walsh. Whether it's 5, 10, 15, 20 or even 40% no longer matters when that group exists. Why can't the conversation be about that group just because you want to bring in some other group. 



> You don't care because you're arrogant enough to make assumptions of people, its fine.


So you can't decide whether I should assume what you're saying, but that I should assume what you're saying because that's what you're saying. You keep claiming that I made assumptions about you, but that I should have made the assumption that you were right but that also making assumptions is wrong.

You sound very conflicted here. That's a problem in your communication. 



> I acknowledge 100% my mistake is a classic pro gun liberal mistake, it was made in error not a lack of knowledge, regardless of what you think. I USED to equate the two but the last few years I've learnt a lot more about calibers, bumper stocks etc. This slip up was an honest retarded mistake.


And yet, in that original thing you're still arguing about you still made that mistake. Why am I in the wrong when you led me to believe something through a mistake you made. 



> Absolutely not, I accused you of deflecting from the main point. I think you knew perfectly what I meant the whole time.


More conflicting thoughts. You want me to assume what you meant, but you say that me assuming what people say is a bad thing too. You're very conflicted. 



> I did lol at the obscure factoid bit though, how does mortality rate during pregnancy not link with abortion rates? Seriously? You do realise people in the world die because they're not allowed to abort right?


Here I'm going to make an assumption. I would like to believe that you don't actually believe this because just the other day you were mocking someone else for trying to make a correlation/causation mistake in another thread. Also, your argument about mothers dying because of lack of abortions is completely ridiculous because abortions in America are legal. They are not illegal. And they are very easy to get. This argument makes no sense whatsoever. 

It's just a cheap shot because you felt like you could take one. Just like that guy who took a cheap shot at democrats for running cities with high crime. 

I don't know what you actually believe and I don't think that I should make assumptions anymore because it seems to me like you haven't thought all your positions through hard enough and most of the times it seems like you're arguing for arguments' sake. We can have good conversations. They don't have to devolve into this nonsense if you would articulate your positions better.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> And that was the minority that was being talked about by Walsh. Whether it's 5, 10, 15, 20 or even 40% no longer matters when that group exists. Why can't the conversation be about that group just because you want to bring in some other group.


I'm sure you're aware why taking a tiny majority of people and using them to make a point about gun control is both anti-intellectual, grasping and misrepresentative of the discussion being had. No one is pushing for gun bans on a legislative route, but pro gun advocates always drag back the argument to 'dey want to take all are guns'. 



> I know you don't actually believe that because you were mocking someone else for trying to make a correlation/causation mistake in another thread.


I'm sorry, but I supplied actual evidence for people dying due to not being allowed an abortion, I find it bizarre you would label that as a causation/correlation fallacy you'll have to explain that to me how you came to that conclusion.

Its not as mind boggling as suggesting that abortion is not linked to maternity deaths even though they are classed as maternity deaths if they die during abortions. like saying gun deaths are not linked to murder rates even though they statistically count towards them. :hmmm



Reaper said:


> Also, your argument about mothers dying because of lack of abortions is completely ridiculous because abortions in America are legal.


I guess you struggle to read today? I did not link the American maternity death rates to a lack of abortion. Like where are you even getting this from. I said 



> You do realise people* in the world *die because they can't get abortions


Your maternity death rates are purely down to substandard care at the midwifery level, we all know that, which is why if you make abortions unsafe you drive up the risk of maternal deaths. Ta da. Simple right? They're linked. Case closed.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> I'm sure you're aware why taking a tiny majority of people and using them to make a point about gun control is both anti-intellectual, grasping and misrepresentative of the discussion being had. No one is pushing for gun bans on a legislative route, but pro gun advocates always drag back the argument to 'dey want to take all are guns'.


And I supplied evidence that they do and you're rejecting it because you want to talk about those people who don't. They are not relevant to this conversation at all. 



> I'm sorry, but I supplied actual evidence for people dying due to not being allowed an abortion, I find it bizarre you would label that as a causation/correlation fallacy you'll have to explain that to me how you came to that conclusion.


You mean, you supplied evidence of what's happening in Ireland which has always been a far worse country than America with regards to its overall religious fervor to make a claim about the rise in deaths in America having to do with lack of abortions. Yeah. Ok. That's not how "evidence" works. Abortions in Ireland are still illegal. Abortions in America have been legal for 40+ years. How can you even begin to compare the two? 

_You need to provide a causation between America's rise in maternal deaths to their inability to get abortions. Because first you have to establish that you can't get abortions legally in America and then you have to establish a causation between the two. The SC legalized abortions 40+ years ago. _ In America abortions are legal. The idea that the rise in maternal deaths has anything to do with not being able to get abortions is ridiculous. 

I feel like you do understand what evidence is, but you're intentionally skirting the rules in order to make a point. Well, you're wrong. The Irish situation has nothing to do with the American one and the similarities cannot be drawn. Completely different countries with completely different sets of laws. There's a reason why I keep insisting that you don't know things in America as much as you like to project.

---



> Your maternity death rates are purely down to substandard care at the midwifery level, we all know that, which is why if you make abortions unsafe you drive up the risk of maternal deaths. Ta da. Simple right? They're linked. Case closed.


Complete and UTTER fabrication based on total personal feelings and echo chamber myths :lol 

Some speculation (because that's all it is at the moment) on the rise in Maternal deaths in America. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/death-rate-is-up-during-pregnancy-childbirth-in-u-s/

1. Americans are simply adopting better reporting techniques and higher standards than they previously used
2. Women are having babies at an older age and are also more prone to obesity and other diseases that cause complications
3. In a separate study done in Iowa, it was found that they were caused by car accidents, drug abuse, suicide and murders. 
4. Women die in car accidents more because they stop using seat belts during pregnancy. 

And here we have a respected scientific publication that simply says there's nothing to worry about because we just might be reported deaths more than we used to 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-maternal-mortality-really-doubled-in-the-u-s/



> Statistics for 40 states and the District of Columbia, gleaned from death certificates, indicate that whereas the reported maternal mortality rate from 1999 to 2002 was 9.8 per 100,000 live births, it jumped to 20.8 per 100,000 live births for the period 2010 to 2013. But the numbers in the latter period may have been affected by a small change in the forms that are filed when a person dies. Until relatively recently most states relied on a death certificate form that was created in 1989. A newer version of the form, released in 2003, added a dedicated question asking whether the person who died was currently or recently pregnant—effectively creating a flag for capturing maternal mortality. Specifically, this recently introduced question asks if the woman was pregnant within the past year, at the time of death or within 42 days of death.
> 
> The addition of this question means that the apparent increase in maternal mortality in the U.S. “is almost certainly not a real increase. It’s better detection from the new certificates,” says Robert Anderson, chief of the Mortality Statistics Branch with the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics. “The numbers are going up but it’s most likely not because women are more likely to die,” he contends. (Anderson’s branch of CDC counts maternal mortality as death during pregnancy or in the following 42 days; some other researchers look at the whole year after giving birth.) States have been slow to switch over to the new form and even now two states—Alabama and West Virginia—still have not adopted it. But “as the certificate with the check box is being implemented over time, we are detecting more maternal deaths,” Anderson says. Another administrative change in how deaths were classified and coded internationally, called the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Edition (ICD-10), is also widely believed to be a contributing factor to the uptick in death numbers.


The link to not being able to get abortions is completely ridiculous. No one inside America even is making it.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> _You need to provide a causation between America's rise in maternal deaths to their inability to get abortions. _


_

Why on earth would I do that? Thats a dumb correlation and absolutely nowhere have I ever said that. Can you quote me saying that? Because if thats why we're arguing I'd love to know how you got here.

Here is what I said in my edited post and you didn't even quote it.




Your maternity death rates are purely down to substandard care at the midwifery level, we all know that, which is why if you make abortions unsafe you drive up the risk of maternal deaths. Ta da. Simple right? They're linked. Case closed.

Click to expand...

Why do you misrepresent a persons position? I'll admit the idea that America has 4x the death rate because they have older, more obese people who don't wear seatbelts an odd assumption considering that happens in the UK. You know why our maternal death rates are so low even with a rise in obesity, age and drug abuse? Probably not, its down to the care given and a push for change led by a dedicated social health care system.

I'll just share this one from Time.



Access is inconsistent: Between 2000 to 2015, Texas saw a spike in maternal mortality while the state also underwent changes to reproductive health services, including the closure of several clinics offering abortions and other services. In 2011, the state’s family planning budget was cut by two-thirds. Experts say the lack of access is probably not solely responsible for the state’s dramatic spike in deaths, but as The Texas Tribune reports, it may have exacerbated the issue. “I’ve done my best to try to investigate this as a data error and I can’t find any changes to account for it,” says MacDorman. “It’s very concerning what’s happening in Texas.”

Click to expand...

This is of course NOT proof of a causation-correlation but if you wanted some kind of evidence to a lack of abortion access and a rise in maternity deaths in America..._


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Why do you misrepresent a persons position?





draykorinee said:


> Abortion just goes underground and becomes unsafe. *America already has terrible maternity care, the only western country with rising maternity deaths.* Let's make it even higher...


I'm not misrepresenting what you're saying if I'm doing what you've been wanting me to do is to assume that you mean something else while saying something else. How am I supposed to know after you lectured me on _not_ assuming what you're saying. So how am I supposed to know that I'm not supposed to do it _all _the time. 

It was obvious to me that you were drawing a link between unsafe abortions as part of the reason why maternity deaths are on the rise in America but I guess _THIS_ time I wasn't supposed to assume what you meant. 

Ok. :lol 

Anyways, America's rise in Maternal deaths is likely not even a rise at all because America changed reporting standards recently hence now we have two different data sets which can no longer be used to indicate a rise or decline. 

The discussion ends here.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> It was obvious to me that you were drawing a link between unsafe abortions as part of the reason why maternity deaths are on the rise in America but I guess _THIS_ time I wasn't supposed to assume what you meant.


How? How on earth did you jump to that? 

I literally said America ALREADY has high maternal deaths so don't make it worse by adding in illegal abortions.

Now you're trolling me I swear. I think you've dropped a few brain cells recently.



Reaper said:


> Anyways, America's rise in Maternal deaths is likely not even a rise at all because America changed reporting standards recently hence now we have two different data sets which can no longer be used to indicate a rise or decline.
> 
> The discussion ends here.


Your death rates are 2-3 x higher per capita than anywhere else in the west...but okay, its the reporting thats the problem.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> How? How on earth did you jump to that?
> 
> I literally said America ALREADY has high maternal deaths so don't make it worse by adding in illegal abortions.
> 
> Now you're trolling me I swear.


But you also said assault rifles and wanted me to think semi-automatic weapons. I can make that jump because I can no longer tell if I'm supposed to simply take what you say at face value or try to assume what else you might be trying to say or imply. Based on your history of consistently posting negative shit about America, I figured that that's what you're doing by bringing in abortions into the mix. 

Not trolling. You have me genuinely confused. 



> Your death rates are 4 x higher per capita than anywhere else in the west...but okay.


That doesn't mean you make assumptions as to why without doing even a little bit of research. Most sources have literally claimed why the numbers are showing an increase and you want to deny that just because you can't fight your cognitive dissonance. If you were genuine about understanding what's going on, you'd read about it instead of just posting stuff .. You've done that in the past as well. Remember another one of our earlier conversations.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> But you also said assault rifles and wanted me to think semi-automatic weapons. I can make that jump because I can no longer tell if I'm supposed to simply take what you say at face value or try to assume what else you might be trying to say or imply. Based on your history of consistently posting negative shit about America, I figured that that's what you're doing by bringing in abortions into the mix.
> 
> Not trolling. You have me genuinely confused.


You make stuff up, we get it. I didn't bring abortions up, I just agreed with someone who did.



> That doesn't mean you make assumptions as to why without doing even a little bit of research. Most sources have literally claimed why the numbers are showing an increase and you want to deny that just because you can't fight your cognitive dissonance. If you were genuine about understanding what's going on, you'd read about it instead of just posting stuff .. You've done that in the past as well. Remember another one of our earlier conversations.


I didn't want to pull the appeal to authority fallacy, but I sit in an office with our head of midwifery, she made the same face I made when I said Americans think their rising death rates is because of seatbelts and obesity. The idea that I, as a health professional who regularly works within midwifery would need to do more reading on maternal deaths is interesting to me. 

We regularly use America as a marker of how not to achieve improvements in maternal care, based on thorough reading might I add. Take that as you will.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> You make stuff up, we get it. I didn't bring abortions up, I just agreed with someone who did.


I only make stuff up when someone is literally demanding that I talk about what they mean instead of what I say. 



> I didn't want to pull the appeal to authority fallacy, but I sit in an office with our head of midwifery, she made the same face I made when I said Americans think their rising death rates is because of seatbelts and obesity. *The idea that I, as a health professional who regularly works within midwifery would need to do more reading on maternal deaths is interesting to me.*


It most certainly should be interesting because your profession like all others does have a blind spot to outside information. Being in a profession does not make you an authority on reasons. It doesn't make me one either, which is why I posted the articles that I did. This is a "I know the reality of the whole world because I exist in a small corner in my world and this is how it is in my corner of the world" problem. 

As I said, you want to deny what doesn't fit your presumptions and both of you and your midwife boss can be wrong. Because you haven't even attempted to discredit either of the articles I posted. Discredit the counter-claims directly. There are many reasons which I know you are intentionally leaving out. You want to completely reject the change in reporting standard because it doesn't fit the narrative and you don't want to change your mind either. Your and your boss's conclusions are assumptions not based on fact. 



> We regularly use America as a marker of how not to achieve improvements in maternal care, based on thorough reading might I add. Take that as you will.


I know. I'm aware of the non-American obsession with America. It's a global problem and stems from certain very deep insecurities. I understand this because I've lived in multiple nations and I can see both a deep awe and fascination mixed in with a dislike. It's a common affliction and I consider it to be a massive need to deflect from having to concentrate on the problems that exist in one's own nation.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make stuff up, we get it. I didn't bring abortions up, I just agreed with someone who did.
> 
> 
> 
> I only make stuff up when someone is literally demanding that I talk about what they mean instead of what I say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't want to pull the appeal to authority fallacy, but I sit in an office with our head of midwifery, she made the same face I made when I said Americans think their rising death rates is because of seatbelts and obesity. *The idea that I, as a health professional who regularly works within midwifery would need to do more reading on maternal deaths is interesting to me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It most certainly should be interesting because your profession like all others does have a blind spot to outside information. Being in a profession does not make you an authority on reasons. It doesn't make me one either, which is why I posted the articles that I did. This is a "I know the reality of the whole world because I exist in a small corner in my world and this is how it is in my corner of the world" problem.
> 
> As I said, you want to deny what doesn't fit your presumptions and both of you and your midwife boss can be wrong. Because you haven't even attempted to discredit either of the articles I posted. Discredit the counter-claims directly. There are many reasons which I know you are intentionally leaving out. You want to completely reject the change in reporting standard because it doesn't fit the narrative and you don't want to change your mind either. Your and your boss's conclusions are assumptions not based on fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We regularly use America as a marker of how not to achieve improvements in maternal care, based on thorough reading might I add. Take that as you will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know. I'm aware of the non-American obsession with America. It's a global problem and stems from certain very deep insecurities. I understand this because I've lived in multiple nations and I can see both a deep awe and fascination mixed in with a dislike. It's a common affliction and I consider it to be a massive need to deflect from having to concentrate on the problems that exist in one's own nation.
Click to expand...

Let's just hold hands and walk away from this discussion, it's deviating from Trump. I would move to America from the UK in a heartbeat mind, do not take me for an anti-American. I was there for 3 months while traveling and it's the most fantastic place with amazing people.


----------



## Empress

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/933297329079119879
Trump is pathologically obsessed with Black people staying in their place but never shows the same emotion in regards to our troops; it's especially galling since he uses them as shields and props. But supporting a pedophile, a fellow deviant in arms, is worth his effort. There is no decency in this White House. It needs to be fumigated once he leaves.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/933342088820862978

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/933339805731250176

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/933349650693787648


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Let's just hold hands and walk away from this discussion, it's deviating from Trump. I would move to America from the UK in a heartbeat mind, do not take me for an anti-American. I was there for 3 months while traveling and it's the most fantastic place with amazing people.


I know it is :lol 

There is something to the idea of bashing America while you're not living in America that seems to resonate with almost every non-American I've ever met. 

Trust me, I was one of those who used to bash America too before I fell in love with an american woman :cudi


----------



## Vic Capri

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


Incoming Twitter meltdown because the turkey didn't thank him for the pardon. Ungrateful turkey, should have let him go to the chopping block.


----------



## Reaper

It's more like "Hire someone to hire someone to rob the person next to you and use his money for your free beer!"










But this works too :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Empress said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/933297329079119879
> Trump is pathologically obsessed with Black people staying in their place but never shows the same emotion in regards to our troops; it's especially galling since he uses them as shields and props. But supporting a pedophile, a fellow deviant in arms, is worth his effort. There is no decency in this White House. It needs to be fumigated once he leaves.



Just more examples of what a racist Trump is.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer

_*We all know that Trump is a huge racist. ^^ :draper2*_


----------



## Reaper

It's pretty obvious to me that Trump has a hard on for black approval and when he doesn't get it he lashes out like a little bitch. 

Whether you guys like it or not my opinion of this is that this is also a very liberal view of blacks. 

With the whole LaVar situation Trumps response is something I've seen commonly exposed in both conservative and liberal whites. 

It's a consequence of seeing oneself as the savior of black people and if they assert independence and reject the white savior then they're ungrateful and libs do it to to those conservative blacks who reject their world view. Seen a lot of blacks being called c***s simply for supporting the small government ethos of conservatives to realize that this hatred comes from many sides. 

This is obviously not a defense of Trump's. His attitude stinks. There's no denying it. But if you see it as racist then you need to keep perspective because this isn't exclusive to conservatives. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## virus21

Reaper said:


> This is obviously not a defense of Trump's. His attitude stinks. There's no denying it. But if you see it as racist then you need to keep perspective because this isn't exclusive to conservatives. That's all I'm saying.


You mean "Hipster Racists"?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> It's pretty obvious to me that Trump has a hard on for black approval and when he doesn't get it he lashes out like a little bitch.
> 
> Whether you guys like it or not my opinion of this is that this is also a very liberal view of blacks.
> 
> With the whole LaVar situation Trumps response is something I've seen commonly exposed in both conservative and liberal whites.
> 
> It's a consequence of seeing oneself as the savior of black people and if they assert independence and reject the white savior then they're ungrateful and libs do it to to those conservative blacks who reject their world view. Seen a lot of blacks being called c***s simply for supporting the small government ethos of conservatives to realize that this hatred comes from many sides.
> 
> This is obviously not a defense of Trump's. His attitude stinks. There's no denying it. *But if you see it as racist then you need to keep perspective because this isn't exclusive to conservatives.* That's all I'm saying.


People don't say Trump is a racist because he is conservative, he is racist because of his comments and actions towards blacks and other minorities.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> People don't say Trump is a racist because he is conservative, he is racist because of his comments and actions towards blacks and other minorities.


And Reaper is saying that you see the same comments and actions from the left towards blacks and other minorities. Hence, the entire part of his post where he talked about keeping perspective, which I'm sure you thought was some insult because you didn't understand what he was saying. That's okay, though, here I am to help you understand.

:Bayley

You're welcome.


----------



## Reaper

The white savior complex form of racism also known as hipster/benevolent racism is very much an issue amongst rich whites.

No one denies it.


----------



## Empress

@Reaper is correct in that there is a strain of racism among liberals. At times, the denial feels like gas lighting. Far too conservatives are motivated by a personal hate of the "other" but certain liberals have a way of thinking they know best. Minorities are more than able to govern their own thoughts and express them. I do it daily and I'm far from a unicorn. I'll be honest. I'm no huge fan of Black Republicans but they have agency. They've made their choice. I don't like it but it's their choice to make. My ex is a proud Republican. He's running for office eventually. 


I do believe the Republican party would be more successful engaging minorities via social and economic issues. I grew up in a very conservative reared family, strictly by the Bible. Not sure how I ended up a rabid liberal but maybe that is the why but I digress. The xenophobic and overtly bigoted aspects of the GOP render common ground moot for some. 


Lena Dunahm is just as prejudiced as Trump but the scary part is that she views herself as different from him. There's more to racism than just the direct acts of burning a cross or shouting the "N" word. 

In any event, I don't care for the man in office but I've had good discussions with most in here. We don't agree but we make our points and leave it at that. It's not complete nastiness and I'd like to continue that. Happy Thanksgiving to those that are celebrating.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> And Reaper is saying that you see the same comments and actions from the left towards blacks and other minorities. Hence, the entire part of his post where he talked about keeping perspective, which I'm sure you thought was some insult because you didn't understand what he was saying. That's okay, though, here I am to help you understand.
> 
> :Bayley
> 
> You're welcome.


Nice deflection. If Trump was a Democrat and said the same type of things against blacks, we would still call him racist.
I just said his comments have nothing to do with him being a conservative. But sure ignore that part


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Empress said:


> @Reaper is correct in that there is a strain of racism among liberals. At times, the denial feels like gas lighting. Far too conservatives are motivated by a personal hate of the "other" but certain liberals have a way of thinking they know best. Minorities are more than able to govern their own thoughts and express them. I do it daily and I'm far from a unicorn. I'll be honest. I'm no huge fan of Black Republicans but they have agency. They've made their choice. I don't like it but it's their choice to make. My ex is a proud Republican. He's running for office eventually.
> 
> 
> *I do believe the Republican party would be more successful engaging minorities via social and economic issues.* I grew up in a very conservative reared family, strictly by the Bible. Not sure how I ended up a rabid liberal but maybe that is the why but I digress. The xenophobic and overtly bigoted aspects of the GOP render common ground moot for some.
> 
> 
> Lena Dunahm is just as prejudiced as Trump but the scary part is that she views herself as different from him. There's more to racism than just the direct acts of burning a cross or shouting the "N" word.
> 
> In any event, I don't care for the man in office but I've had good discussions with most in here. We don't agree but we make our points and leave it at that. It's not complete nastiness and I'd like to continue that. Happy Thanksgiving to those that are celebrating.


They do, it's just their solutions aren't very appealing. They want people to get jobs and stuff.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> *Nice deflection. * If Trump was a Democrat and said the same type of things against blacks, we would still call him racist.
> I just said his comments have nothing to do with him being a conservative. But sure ignore that part


Ah, I see, so you don't know what perspective means. Got it.


----------



## Reaper

Empress said:


> I do believe the Republican party would be more successful engaging minorities via social and economic issues. I grew up in a very conservative reared family, strictly by the Bible. Not sure how I ended up a rabid liberal but maybe that is the why but I digress. The xenophobic and overtly bigoted aspects of the GOP render common ground moot for some.


I think I somewhat _understand _the problem with Republican blacks. You obviously know better. 

I believe that their primary problem is preaching that just by adopting the white man's ways they will be able to emancipate and grow financially without acknowledging the differences. They believe in sameness but also _emulation _instead of independent agency and growing separately. By preaching emulation, they've already admitted that they think blacks are inferior. By admitting that blacks are inferior they've basically closed off all avenues of thought that doesn't require emulation. Us Asians are successful too, but we are nothing like the whites and we didn't adopt western ways to achieve our success. Our work ethic, family and group culture is very different. And not once was the goal to emulate, but to achieve. Huge difference. 

Republican blacks have what I have come to understand (and I could be wrong) to have a completely irrelevant methodology that diminishes a lot of the black experience because they simply refuse to acknowledge diversity within their own communities and this is why they simply cannot appeal to the majority of black voters. 

That said, the democrats are just as bad imo if not worse, but that's a discussion for another time if you want to hear my views. 

I've recently immersed myself in some black nationalist thought (the Hoteps --- who I don't agree with on the majority of what they believe) but what I've _understood _is that _their _idea (and this is not my idea) is to stop comparisons entirely and to build their own selves and their families. If you're providing for your family, saving, investing, building businesses and investing economically as per what you can and not worrying about what the white man is doing to try to subvert you. 

I believe that there is a solution to be found in individual and family struggle. As a member of America that's part of the individual struggle myself, all I can do is to understand. That's why despite vehemently disagreeing with the concepts of instituitionalized racism etc, I simply try to listen and learn. Not everyone that complains about racism or institutionalized racism is looking for anything in response and that's fine. 

I'm learning. I don't have all the answers and I don't have to. I don't think anyone does because we're all struggling. Individually and collectively. One thing I do know for sure is that until such time we can become self-governing individuals, one of the things we can try to achieve is to break down the parties into more representative blocs. The 2-party system is failing America because there's FAR too much room for power consolidation and therefore corruption. 

Anyways, Happy Thanksgiving to you too. Hope you have a good one.


----------



## Empress

Reaper said:


> I think I somewhat _understand _the problem with Republican blacks. You obviously know better.
> 
> I believe that their primary problem is preaching that just by adopting the white man's ways they will be able to emancipate and grow financially without acknowledging the differences. They believe in sameness but also _emulation _instead of independent agency and growing separately. By preaching emulation, they've already admitted that they think blacks are inferior. By admitting that blacks are inferior they've basically closed off all avenues of thought that doesn't require emulation. Us Asians are successful too, but we are nothing like the whites and we didn't adopt western ways to achieve our success. Our work ethic, family and group culture is very different. And not once was the goal to emulate, but to achieve. Huge difference.
> 
> Republican blacks have what I have come to understand (and I could be wrong) to have a completely irrelevant methodology that diminishes a lot of the black experience because they simply refuse to acknowledge diversity within their own communities and this is why they simply cannot appeal to the majority of black voters.
> 
> That said, the democrats are just as bad imo if not worse, but that's a discussion for another time if you want to hear my views.
> 
> I've recently immersed myself in some black nationalist thought (the Hoteps --- who I don't agree with on the majority of what they believe) but what I've _understood _is that _their _idea (and this is not my idea) is to stop comparisons entirely and to build their own selves and their families. If you're providing for your family, saving, investing, building businesses and investing economically as per what you can and not worrying about what the white man is doing to try to subvert you.
> 
> I believe that there is a solution to be found in individual and family struggle. As a member of America that's part of the individual struggle myself, all I can do is to understand. That's why despite vehemently disagreeing with the concepts of instituitionalized racism etc, I simply try to listen and learn. Not everyone that complains about racism or institutionalized racism is looking for anything in response and that's fine.
> 
> I'm learning. I don't have all the answers and I don't have to. I don't think anyone does because we're all struggling. Individually and collectively.
> 
> Anyways, Happy Thanksgiving to you too. Hope you have a good one.


From my understanding, Black Republicans want autonomy, small government and economic mobility. They resent the Democratic party for taking the Black vote for granted and think of the DNC as a "plantation". They believe that Black people are self sufficient and do not need handouts; that if one can make it, all can. 

Most of the fissure seems to come from institutionalized racism and a system designed to make minorities a permanent underclass; that we're not all born truly equal and need assistance. I believe Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas and many others took advantage of social programs to get to where they are now but now look down on those measures being exploited by others. Most of us want to earn a paycheck and not be characterized as welfare queens. A safety net shouldn't become a lifestyle. 

I was at a conference earlier this year and there was a Black Republican in the room. He hated Hilary because of "super predators" and felt she was a phony. However, he said he wasn't a Trump Republican because his personality and attitudes towards minorities were a turn off. He voted third party.

But I'm learning just like you. One of my good friends is a gay, Blue Dog Democrat; he hates big government, wants religion back in schools and thinks southerners get a bad rep. He also voted third party. I love that he has so many contradictions and refuses to toe the liberal line.


----------



## CamillePunk

What did Trump say that was racist? I didn't see anything. Must be another case of "he lashed out at a person of color who was critical of him, just as he lashes out at ANYONE who is critical of him, MUST BE RAYYYYYCISM".


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> What did Trump say that was racist? I didn't see anything. Must be another case of "he lashed out at a person of color who was critical of him, just as he lashes out at ANYONE who is critical of him, MUST BE RAYYYYYCISM".


He is like a petulant child to everyone you're quite correct.


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> He is like a petulant child to everyone you're quite correct.


Seems to work for him. :draper2


----------



## Reaper

Spoiler: Thoughts



:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

Scott Adams on the Rubin Report providing fascinating insight about Trump, Trump supporters, and the mass hysteria bubble.


----------



## DOPA

http://www.dailywire.com/news/23912..._content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro#



> In a rant that sounds a whole lot more like a teenager lashing out at his father than a 45-year-old massively successful celebrity talking about the President of the United States, Eminem said in a recent interview that he's "very angry" that Trump's "not paying attention to me."
> 
> "I was and still am extremely angry," said Eminem, BET reports. "I can’t stand that motherf***er. I feel like he’s not paying attention to me. I was kind of waiting for him to say something and for some reason, he didn’t say anything."
> 
> Eminem has been desperately trying to get Trump's attention, most notably in the racially charged freestyle rap he performed for BET in early October in which he accused Trump of being a racist.
> 
> "From his endorsement of Bannon, support for the Klansmen, tiki torches in hand for the soldier that’s black and comes home from Iraq and is still told to go back to Africa, fork and a dagger, and this racist 94-year-old grandpa, who keeps ignoring our past, historical deplorable factors," Eminem rapped (video below).
> 
> In the performance, he also condemned every American who voted for Trump, declaring, "Any fan of mine who’s a fan of his, I’m drawing in the sand a line, you either for or against, and if you can’t decide who you like more in this split, on who you should stand beside, I’ll do it for you with this, f*** you."
> 
> For all his effort and vitriol, Eminem got no response whatsoever from Trump.
> 
> The BET rap wasn't the first time Eminem attacked the president. In a song by Big Sean called "No Favors" released in February that features Eminem, he calls Trump a "b*tch" and vows to "make his whole brand go under."
> 
> "I'm anti, can't no government handle a commando," Eminem raps. "Your man don't want it, Trump's a b*tch. I'll make his whole brand go under."
> 
> In the song, Eminem also fantasized about violently raping conservative Ann Coulter, a strong Trump supporter during the primary.
> 
> "And f*** Ann Coulter with a Klan poster. With a lamp post, door handle, shutter. A damn bolt cutter, a sandal, a can opener, a candle, rubber. Piano, a flannel, sucker, some hand soap, butter. A banjo and manhole cover," raps Eminem. The disturbing lyrics were met with no outcry from liberal feminists.
> 
> Eminem recently appeared on Saturday Night Live to perform his new single, "Walk On Water." While many celebrated his "revival" online, others suggested the "washed up" 45-year-old performer should "retire back into the trailer park."



:HA :lmao!

This is just sad now :lmao.


----------



## birthday_massacre

L-DOPA said:


> http://www.dailywire.com/news/23912..._content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro#
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :HA :lmao!
> 
> This is just sad now :lmao.


If Eminem was black Trump would be responding.


----------



## virus21

> Hillary Clinton said in a new interview that her inability to run on an "agenda of change," coming off of former President Barack Obama's two terms, was a significant problem for her 2016 campaign.
> 
> "It is true that when you run to succeed a two-term president of your own party, you have a historical headwind blowing against you," Clinton told radio host Hugh Hewitt. "It’s not just this campaign can be set apart from everything that’s ever happened in our politics. It is a challenge."
> 
> "If you are both the candidate defending a lot of the areas of agreement, but also putting forth an agenda for change, which is what I tried to do, it is often difficult to get the second part of that message through," she added. "So I do think it was a problem."
> 
> "I was proud to serve in the Obama administration. I did not agree with everything that President Obama decided, but on balance, I really think he did what had to be done to rescue the economy, which as we all remember, was in desperate straits," Clinton told the conservative radio host. "He did chart a course in the world that favored diplomacy and negotiation, something that I think is important."
> 
> Hewitt asked Clinton if the Obama aides hampered her from allowing the "emotional Hillary Clinton" to emerge during the campaign. But Clinton chalked up her issues to the simple inability to being able to "break through" in the environment in which the 2016 campaign took place.
> 
> "I have high regard for the campaign that we put together, and all of the people who were working in it so hard. But I think it is fair to say that it was hard to break through," Clinton said. "Maybe some of that is on my shoulders, and perhaps some because of the campaign as well. But I think a lot of it ... is that it was really hard in the environment in which this 2016 campaign played out to break through in a lot of ways."
> 
> "I’ve said a few times that this was the first reality TV campaign. My opponent was the first reality TV candidate, and I was, for better or worse, the candidate of reality," she said. "And I think it was a shortcoming of the campaign that the work that I’ve done my entire life, the passion I feel for helping people, the record that I have of doing just that, never really could break through."


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-obamas-record-made-it-hard-to-run-as-an-agent-of-change/article/2641464



> (CNN) — As a wave of stories unfold about sexual harassment and assault by men in power, a senior Democratic leader says her party should reflect on how it handled such charges when they were leveled against former President Bill Clinton.
> "Not only did people look the other way, but they went after the women who came forward and accused him," says Kathleen Sebelius, the former secretary of Health and Human Services and Kansas governor. "And so it doubled down on not only bad behavior but abusive behavior. And then people attacked the victims."
> Sebelius extended her criticism to Hillary Clinton, and the Clinton White House for what she called a strategy of dismissing and besmirching the women who stepped forward—a pattern she said is being repeated today by alleged perpetrators of sexual assault—saying that the criticism of the former first lady and Secretary of State was "absolutely" fair. Sebelius noted that the Clinton Administration's response was being imitated, adding that "you can watch that same pattern repeat, It needs to end. It needs to be over."
> Should Democrats turn their backs on Bill Clinton?
> Related Article: Should Democrats turn their backs on Bill Clinton?
> The comments came during a conversation with David Axelrod on the latest episode of "The Axe Files," a podcast produced by the University of Chicago Institute of Politics and CNN.
> While Sebelius was critical of both Clintons, she questioned whether the impeachment pursued by Republicans in Congress was the appropriate vehicle for addressing his transgressions.
> Sebelius also refused to take a position on whether Sen. Al Franken, a Democrat, should step down in response to allegations of groping. She drew a distinction between Franken's reaction and those of Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, movie mogul Harvey Weinstein and several others, who have denied accusations of sexual assault and sexual harassment.
> "Franken has done something different than some of the other males involved," she said. "He first of all admitted behavior and apologized but immediately asked for an ethics investigation on himself." The others, she said, "have followed a very different path and it's a path that looks a lot more like what Bill Clinton did."
> Sebelius acknowledged that the Senate Ethics Committee has a checkered history of policing such charges, but suggested that the intense focus on this issue will make it more difficult for the panel to ignore the behavior Franken had acknowledged or to bury its review in secrecy. "I don't think you can do that. And I think that Franken is likely to do some real soul searching in the meantime."
> Recalling her own experiences in and around Kansas government decades ago, Sebelius, a former lobbyist and legislator, said she was saddened that the abusive behavior toward women she saw then is still pervasive today.
> "It breaks my heart is to know that here we are 40 years later, and very much the same atmosphere prevails," she said. "And it's about power, it's never been about sex. It's all about power. And men who have power over women use that power and all kinds of ways."
> Sebelius said that while she "had certainly my share of a variety of horrific situations, bosses," and people, that she was "protected, in that I didn't ever desperately need this job. I could walk out at any minute. I could walk away at any minute."
> Calling for more attention on women who weren't in her comparatively privileged position, Sebelius said "there are so many women who can't do that; who need to feed their families; who need to be quiet because they are desperate for the work that they have and that, that needs to be blown up."
> She also called on men to be part of the solution, urging them to "call out" other men for problematic behavior towards women. "I mean it's the same thing as having racial slurs joked about in a locker room," she said. "It's the same thing. You know people need to be called out and said that's not acceptable. We're not going to do that anymore. It's over."


http://archive.is/EOBx8#selection-453.1-549.358


----------



## birthday_massacre

Hillary just needs to go away. If she would have ran on medicare for all, and $15 an hour min. wage, that alone could have given her the swing state votes she needed to beat Trump.

She only lost by less than 80,000 votes across three states. If she would have ran on those two things, she would have gotten those votes and then some.

she needs to go away before she fucks up the DNCs chance at winning in 2020 And lets get a real progressive in there.

Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard ticket. Lets go already.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

She was 80,001 votes away from being President, and a year later if she doesn't shut up she's gonna ruin the DNC's chances in 2018.

:maury


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

:done at Eminem officially confirming that he's now bitch-made.

Now his only semblance of worth is to ensure that Skylar Grey's music keeps getting bankrolled. :armfold



L-DOPA said:


> http://www.dailywire.com/news/23912..._content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro#
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :HA :lmao!
> 
> This is just sad SAD! now :lmao.


FTFY, chum. :trump3


----------



## stevefox1200

Daily Wire is such a weird fucking news site

It runs new articles next to weird gossip stories, random twitter trends and stories bashing other news sources


----------



## birthday_massacre

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> :done at Eminem officially confirming that he's now bitch-made.
> 
> Now his only semblance of worth is to ensure that Skylar Grey's music keeps getting bankrolled. :armfold
> 
> 
> 
> FTFY, chum. :trump3


How is that any different from Trump whining about stuff like that on Twitter like at first he was crying about how the two UCLA basketballs were not going to thank him, even though a few hours later they did.

You had Trump complaining about how Facebook is anti-Trump. When isn't Trump crying when someone says something negative about him.

No one is more bitch made than Trump.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Considering the way the dominoes are falling, surely Bill Clinton must be running for the hills.

That dirty bugger surely has some music to face, and it ain't out of his own stupid saxophone.


----------



## Ghost Lantern

yeahbaby! said:


> Considering the way the dominoes are falling, surely Bill Clinton must be running for the hills.
> 
> That dirty bugger surely has some music to face, and it ain't out of his own stupid saxophone.


Nah he's skated over thinner ice than this. He's impregnable just like JFK.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Greenlawler said:


> Nah he's skated over thinner ice than this. He's impregnable just like JFK.


That was before the power of the internet and all it's tentacles that create outrage like cotton candy baby.

Quite frankly I'll be shocked if Slick Willy makes it out of this.


----------



## Draykorinee

stevefox1200 said:


> Daily Wire is such a weird fucking news site
> 
> It runs new articles next to weird gossip stories, random twitter trends and stories bashing other news sources


It's a terrible source for information, but if you're looking for a certain bias or something written to suit your narrative it's a great source. I understand why people quote it, I sometimes use the guardian, but both they're both awful.

I'm not sure dailywire could be classed as a news source, just a left hating propaganda machine for that Ben fella.


----------



## Ghost Lantern

yeahbaby! said:


> That was before the power of the internet and all it's tentacles that create outrage like cotton candy baby.
> 
> Quite frankly I'll be shocked if Slick Willy makes it out of this.


well i hope you are right....but seriously he and Hillary have gotten away with murder... so there's that.


----------



## CamillePunk

On this Thanksgiving Day in the year of our Lord Two-Thousand-And-Seventeen I just want to express how thankful I am that Donald J Trump is our President, National Motivator, and Entertainer-in-Chief. :trump3

I pray that those of you stuck in the mass hysteria bubble, i.e the "bad movie", find your way over to our movie where we can all enjoy this golden age in peace and harmony. :trump2


----------



## Empress

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/934057003579621376

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/933806822351400961

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/933577244273811456

*
TRUMP HAS A 'BLACK BELT IN SEXUAL IMPROPRIETY' ACTOR BILLY BALDWIN TELLS PRESIDENT'S SON*


----------



## Vic Capri

> It's pretty obvious to me that Trump has a hard on for black approval and when he doesn't get it he lashes out like a little bitch.
> 
> Whether you guys like it or not my opinion of this is that this is also a very liberal view of blacks.
> 
> With the whole LaVar situation Trumps response is something I've seen commonly exposed in both conservative and liberal whites.
> 
> It's a consequence of seeing oneself as the savior of black people and if they assert independence and reject the white savior then they're ungrateful and libs do it to to those conservative blacks who reject their world view. Seen a lot of blacks being called c***s simply for supporting the small government ethos of conservatives to realize that this hatred comes from many sides.
> 
> This is obviously not a defense of Trump's. His attitude stinks. There's no denying it. But if you see it as racist then you need to keep perspective because this isn't exclusive to conservatives. That's all I'm saying.


Haters say President Trump is a racist, but let a minority admit they are a Trump supporter and you'll see who the real racists are.

- Vic


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

birthday_massacre said:


> How is that any different from Trump whining about stuff like that on Twitter like at first he was crying about how the two UCLA basketballs were not going to thank him, even though a few hours later they did.
> 
> You had Trump complaining about how Facebook is anti-Trump. When isn't Trump crying when someone says something negative about him.
> 
> No one is more bitch made than Trump.


Because Trump has a history of being an unapologetic blowhard toward anyone who draws his ire, regardless of their political affiliation and has virtually no off switch for his shit-talking. Conversely, pre-Anti-Trump Eminem was almost the same, minus being a blowhard and actually having an off switch.

Try again. :trump3


----------



## Goku

:move

swoon


----------



## birthday_massacre

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Because Trump has a history of being an unapologetic blowhard toward anyone who draws his ire, regardless of their political affiliation and has virtually no off switch for his shit-talking. Conversely, pre-Anti-Trump Eminem was almost the same, minus being a blowhard and actually having an off switch.
> 
> Try again. :trump3


Trump is the biggest bitch because he cries whenever anyone says anything bad about him. The White House has to filter all the info he seems because if he sees anything negative it puts him in a cry baby mood all day.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...eps-him-happy-with-delusional-good-polls.html

President Trump still admires poll numbers just as much as he did during his presidential campaign, and his advisers have reportedly figured out that it’s much easier to keep Trump happy if you only show him positive numbers. According to Politico, “Aides in the White House often show Trump polls designed to make him feel good,” like internal polls, the ones that show him maintaining his popularity with Trump supporters, or right-leaning polls like the Rasmussen one that recently showed him with a 46 percent approval rating.

White House aides use these rosier poll results to cheer Trump up as well as attempt to coerce support from members of Congress — though it’s not at all clear that Republican lawmakers have been very convincible in that regard. Public polls, after all, rarely have good news for Trump or the GOP these days, and Politico adds that some White House officials aren’t happy about Trump being misled:

everal senior officials said they don’t trust the internal polls because they are “delusional” or “just not accurate,” in the words of two officials. The numbers Trump are shown are almost always higher than his public polling numbers. “I wouldn’t trust our polling on that,” one senior aide said, after ticking off numbers on health care earlier this year.
This is also hardly the first time we’ve heard about White House staff coddling the president, trying to arrange praise, or treating him like a tantrum-prone toddler.

But Trump is not totally cut off from bad polling numbers. The ratings-obsessed former reality-television star apparently finds his own poll fixes, too, like the Gallup daily tracking poll, which currently gives him a 39 percent approval rating. Those numbers, unlike the ones his aides feed him, reportedly upset the president, which indicates that he probably does not believe they are as fake as his tweet history suggests.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

BM's lost it, he's so angry Trump is President that he's just straight calling him a bitch now.

:heston


----------



## samizayn

L-DOPA said:


> http://www.dailywire.com/news/23912..._content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro#
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :HA :lmao!
> 
> This is just sad now :lmao.


Fair play. A 4y/o could wind Trump up with a fraction of the effort, if I got no-sold after doing that much I'd probably be faintly suicidal :'(


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> BM's lost it, he's so angry Trump is President that he's just straight calling him a bitch now.
> 
> :heston


Keep deflecting because you know you can't defend how bitch made Trump is.

Trump is the guy that for over 25 years sent pics of his hands to a vanity fair editor because he said Trump had small hands.


----------



## stevefox1200

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/24/politics/rex-tillerson-ivanka-trump-india-trip/index.html

I still think there is tension between Rex and Trump and I do think both are willing to hurt the other to look better


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> Keep deflecting because you know you can't defend how bitch made Trump is.
> 
> Trump is the guy that for over 25 years sent pics of his hands to a vanity fair editor because he said Trump had small hands.


You aren't breaking any news though. Trump's supporters already know that he's a petty man and a blowhard. They voted for him anyway.

When there are two candidates and only one of them is campaigning on policies you agree with, it doesn't really matter if he's an asshole or not. You'll put up with it. Lesser of the evils.

Not trying to change your mind, just saying you aren't going to get anywhere by pointing out Trump's inadequacies. They're well documented.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Keep deflecting because you know you can't defend how bitch made Trump is.
> 
> Trump is the guy that for over 25 years sent pics of his hands to a vanity fair editor because he said Trump had small hands.


I don't care about what you said, except that it's you saying it. You've come completely undone. The longer Trump is President the more you're going to unravel, because the world you've built around you is crumbling. The narrative you've spun is falling apart. There's only one way to handle something like that, and that's to lose your shit, which you're doing....and honestly, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is the biggest bitch because he cries whenever anyone says anything bad about him. The White House has to filter all the info he seems because if he sees anything negative it puts him in a cry baby mood all day.
> 
> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...eps-him-happy-with-delusional-good-polls.html
> 
> President Trump still admires poll numbers just as much as he did during his presidential campaign, and his advisers have reportedly figured out that it’s much easier to keep Trump happy if you only show him positive numbers. According to Politico, “Aides in the White House often show Trump polls designed to make him feel good,” like internal polls, the ones that show him maintaining his popularity with Trump supporters, or right-leaning polls like the Rasmussen one that recently showed him with a 46 percent approval rating.
> 
> White House aides use these rosier poll results to cheer Trump up as well as attempt to coerce support from members of Congress — though it’s not at all clear that Republican lawmakers have been very convincible in that regard. Public polls, after all, rarely have good news for Trump or the GOP these days, and Politico adds that some White House officials aren’t happy about Trump being misled:
> 
> everal senior officials said they don’t trust the internal polls because they are “delusional” or “just not accurate,” in the words of two officials. The numbers Trump are shown are almost always higher than his public polling numbers. “I wouldn’t trust our polling on that,” one senior aide said, after ticking off numbers on health care earlier this year.
> This is also hardly the first time we’ve heard about White House staff coddling the president, trying to arrange praise, or treating him like a tantrum-prone toddler.
> 
> But Trump is not totally cut off from bad polling numbers. The ratings-obsessed former reality-television star apparently finds his own poll fixes, too, like the Gallup daily tracking poll, which currently gives him a 39 percent approval rating. Those numbers, unlike the ones his aides feed him, reportedly upset the president, which indicates that he probably does not believe they are as fake as his tweet history suggests.




Trump doesn't cry. He retaliates. I thought you knew this by now. :lol

If he needs a little morale boost, even if it's dressed up, then so be it. If anything, I'm slightly surprised that said morale boosts aren't more grandiose, considering he's rich as fuck and he gets a 24/7 stream of hate, abuse, venom, vitriol and disdain regardless of what he does.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Trump doesn't cry. He retaliates. I thought you knew this by now. :lol
> 
> If he needs a little morale boost, even if it's dressed up, then so be it. If anything, I'm slightly surprised that said morale boosts aren't more grandiose, considering he's rich as fuck and he gets a 24/7 stream of hate, abuse, venom, vitriol and disdain regardless of what he does.


LOL Dude, he cries and whines on Twitter all the time, and he does the same thing in the white house, so much so his staff has to baby him.

No one has thinner skin than Trump. but keep pretending he doesn't when he tweets prove otherwise.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I don't care about what you said, except that it's you saying it. You've come completely undone. The longer Trump is President the more you're going to unravel, because the world you've built around you is crumbling. The narrative you've spun is falling apart. There's only one way to handle something like that, and that's to lose your shit, which you're doing....and honestly, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.


Your trolling is pretty poor, you are a joke dude.

You call people point out how Trump is a little bitch and whiner and that means the person saying is it unraveling lol

The only people that unravel are Trump and is supporters that can't defend his actions or tweets. 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/donald-trump-is-unraveling-white-house-advisers

“I HATE EVERYONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE!”: TRUMP SEETHES AS ADVISERS FEAR THE PRESIDENT IS “UNRAVELING”
In recent days, I’ve spoken with a half dozen prominent Republicans and Trump advisers, and they all describe a White House in crisis as advisers struggle to contain a president who seems to be increasingly unfocused and consumed by dark mood



Sorry if people attacking Trump get you triggered. You can't even defend what I am saying about him, so instead, you have to make up some fantasy about me. 

So tell me what I have said about Trump is not true? Using your logic all the Trump supporters that keep bitching about Hillary must also be unraveling and for them it's even worse since She didn't even win but Trump supporters need to keep crying about it.

So stop with your BS trolling and stick to the topic at hand.


----------



## sesel

So, I heard people saying to me that the police in Maryland destroyed peoples houses looking for illegal imigrants and that's Trump's fault. I don't know when this happened but I would like someone to tell me anything about it, I mean. Something like that really happened?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

You keep fighting that virtuous good fight there, BM. I look forward to seeing how it turns out for you.

I see you, once again, using a word incorrectly. Triggered is another go-to word for you. Deflect....trigger....deflect....trigger. Yet, you rarely use them correctly.

What have you said about Trump that isn't true? Quite a lot, but I don't keep a journal of all your rants, so I'm not gonna pull anything out. 

And nobody here is calling Hillary a "little bitch". In fact, what is really funny to me, is that a lot of posters here you box into the "pro-Trump" group have, at many times, said negative things about Trump. We just don't feel the need to respond to every single thing he does, like you do. Most of us don't give two shits about his tweets, but for you, they're like written nukes that go straight to your enraged heart.

This thread is like your personal anti-Trump diary, where you can come and whine about every single thing he does because you just hate him so much. So, ya, you're unraveling, dude.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> You keep fighting that virtuous good fight there, BM. I look forward to seeing how it turns out for you.
> 
> I see you, once again, using a word incorrectly. Triggered is another go-to word for you. Deflect....trigger....deflect....trigger. Yet, you rarely use them correctly.
> 
> What have you said about Trump that isn't true? Quite a lot, but I don't keep a journal of all your rants, so I'm not gonna pull anything out.
> 
> And nobody here is calling Hillary a "little bitch". In fact, what is really funny to me, is that a lot of posters here you box into the "pro-Trump" group have, at many times, said negative things about Trump. We just don't feel the need to respond to every single thing he does, like you do. Most of us don't give two shits about his tweets, but for you, they're like written nukes that go straight to your enraged heart.
> 
> This thread is like your personal anti-Trump diary, where you can come and whine about every single thing he does because you just hate him so much. So, ya, you're unraveling, dude.


that is what I thought. More deflection. Still can't show how what I said about Trump isn't Trump because you know I am right.

Keep your trolling, it's all you have since you can't debate the facts and evidence. The only one unraveling here is you because you keep making trolling comments instead of debating what Trump does.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL Dude, he cries and whines on Twitter all the time, and he does the same thing in the white house, so much so his staff has to baby him.
> 
> *
> No one has thinner skin than Trump.* but keep pretending he doesn't when he tweets prove otherwise.


If he cried, he wouldn't be a billionaire and especially not the leader of the free world. His staff knew what they were getting into when they signed up for the job, yet they have every right to call it quits if they're don't feel like doing the gig.

In regard to the bolded part, SJWs say otherwise. :hayden3


----------



## Reaper

Trump is the only politician whose net worth has declined since entering politics. It's fascinating to see a man who was universally loved, revered and pedestalized would suddenly become the most reviled. It's obviously a media creation. 

Interestingly, everyone else has increased their wealth. Including the Obamas and especially the Clintons. I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that the democrats are the party of the poor is delusional. Democrats are definitely the party people join to become wealthy. Republicans are also wealthy, but they're already wealthy. 

Dems become dems to become wealthy so they lie in bed with cronies, repubs are already wealthy and so they do what they can to maintain their wealth and hence they lie in bed with cronies. 

Politics and politicians are not a solution to poverty. *Only private charity is.* 

https://patch.com/illinois/newlenox/s/gahk1/homeless-man-helped-woman-get-home-shes-returning-favor



> Woman Raises $300K For Homeless Man Who Helped Her Get Home
> 
> In this case, the nice guy certainly did not finish last.
> 
> A homeless man who used his last $20 to help a South Jersey woman get home is now more than $300,000 richer for his good deed.
> 
> Kate McClure, of Bordentown, ran out of gas while driving into Philadelphia on I-95. She had no money, and was frightened when she pulled over to the side of the road. A homeless man named Johnny approached the car and told her not to get out and to lock the door. He disappeared and returned a short while later with a red can of gas. He used his last $20 to make sure she could get home safe.
> 
> Wanting to repay him, she launched a GoFundMe to help him get on his feet.
> 
> "Johnny did not ask me for a dollar, and I couldn't repay him at that moment because I didn't have any cash, but I have been stopping by his spot for the past few weeks," McClure said in the "Paying It Forward" post for her GoFundMe campaign. "I repaid him for the gas, gave him a jacket, gloves, a hat, and warm socks, and I give him a few dollars every time I see him."
> 
> Subscribe
> The online fundraiser had an initial goal of $10,000. As of Friday night, $345,205 had been raised.
> 
> The campaign was launched on Nov. 10. She was initially hoping the money could pay for the first and last month's rent at an apartment, a reliable car, and 4-6 months of expenses.
> 
> "He is very interested in finding a job, and I believe that with a place to be able to clean up every night and get a good night's rest, his life can get back to being normal," McClure said. "Truly believe that all Johnny needs is one little break. Hopefully with your help I can be the one to give it to him."
> 
> Even before launching the campaign, McClure would visit Johnny and deliver snacks and supplies. As she got to know him, she learned he was a caring and selfless person.
> 
> "One day I stopped to see him and had a few things in a bag to give him, one of which was a box of cereal bars so he could have something that he could carry around and eat," McClure wrote. "He was very appreciative as usual and the first thing he said was 'do you want one?' Another time, I dropped off two Wawa gift cards and a case of water. The first words that came out of his mouth were 'I can't wait to show the guys' (there are two others he hangs out with and they all take care of each other). If just those two statements alone do not give you a glimpse of the good heart this man has, I'm not sure anything will."


Spare me the bullshit about how the governments can do anything for the homeless. And spare me the bullshit about how people are selfish. 

Governments are only there to serve their own ends. Only people help others. Abolish the fucking state.

I'm starting a fundraiser for a friend who's recently become homeless and needs some money to be able to travel to one province from another in Canada. If anyone has any suggestions or help to offer, pls PM me, I'll get back with details on how you can help. I would mobilize my family (like I usually do), but they're already involved in raising funds for my uncle who's dying of cancer.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Trump is the only politician whose net worth has declined since entering politics. It's fascinating to see a man who was universally loved, revered and pedestalized would suddenly become the most reviled. It's obviously a media creation.
> 
> Interestingly, everyone else has increased their wealth. Including the Obamas and especially the Clintons. I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that the democrats are the party of the poor is delusional. Democrats are definitely the party people join to become wealthy. Republicans are also wealthy, but they're already wealthy.
> 
> Dems become dems to become wealthy so they lie in bed with cronies, repubs are already wealthy and so they do what they can to maintain their wealth and hence they lie in bed with cronies.
> 
> Politics and politicians are not a solution to poverty. *Only private charity is.*
> 
> https://patch.com/illinois/newlenox/s/gahk1/homeless-man-helped-woman-get-home-shes-returning-favor
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me the bullshit about how the governments can do anything for the homeless. And spare me the bullshit about how people are selfish.
> 
> 
> Governments are only there to serve their own ends. Only people help others. Abolish the fucking state.
> 
> I'm starting a fundraiser for a friend who's recently become homeless and needs some money to be able to travel to one province from another in Canada. If anyone has any suggestions or help to offer, pls PM me, I'll get back with details on how you can help. I would mobilize my family (like I usually do), but they're already involved in raising funds for my uncle who's dying of cancer.


LOL Trump was not universally loved before running for president. What are you on dude. And yeah a media creation all the appalling and racist shit Trump does in his own words and tweets. You really have lost is reaper. You are so far gone you will never come back to reality. All you have to do is take a weeks worth of Trump tweets to see what a POS he is. But sure blame the media and not the guy actually saying all that stuff.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL Trump was not universally loved before running for president. What are you on dude. And yeah a media creation all the appalling and racist shit Trump does in his own words and tweets. You really have lost is reaper. You are so far gone you will never come back to reality


Yes, the "racist" that got an award from Rosa Parks and Muhammad Ali for his diversity employment and I'm delusional. The only reason why he's accused of racism is because he decided he wanted to run for president on the republican ticket. This is normal for democrats as it's the only way they can legitimize their party. 

If anything, Trump is an equal opportunity basher. Just because he bashes blacks here and there doesn't make it racist.

Just this year alone he's bashed people in hollywood, NFL owners who are white etc etc. The list is pretty huge. We all know that a lot of minorities tend to associate race irrespective of whether race is a factor or not. 

Victimhood is social currency.

You're a white man who uses his *********** to silence my voice as a minority. If I called you a racist, would you disagree or accept the fact that since I called you a racist for being condescending towards me that I'm right


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Yes, the "racist" that got an award from Rosa Parks and Muhammad Ali for his diversity employment and I'm delusional. The only reason why he's accused of racism is because he decided he wanted to run for president on the republican ticket. This is normal for democrats as it's the only way they can legitimize their party.
> 
> If anything, Trump is an equal opportunity basher. Just because he bashes blacks here and there doesn't make it racist.



You can ignore all the racist things Trump has said all you want, only in your little Trump bubble do people not think Trump is a racist. But carry on.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> You can ignore all the racist things Trump has said all you want, only in your little Trump bubble do people not think Trump is a racist. But carry on.


What _racist _things has he said? Where has he once associated any kind of negativity to innateness. Supply the evidence. 

And remember _simply _attacking black people and minorities isn't racism because he's attacked white people too. It's just what he does. It's his shitty personality and terrible attitude in general. But it's not racist. 

Unless you think that all attacks on non-whites are racism, therefore you're also engaged in racism right now


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> What _racist _things has he said? Supply the evidence.
> 
> And remember _simply _attacking black people and minorities isn't racism because he's attacked white people too.
> 
> Unless you think that all attacks on non-whites is racism, therefore you're also engaged in racism right now.


We have been over this a million times, I am not going over again. This topic has been done to death and the evidence is overwhelming he is racist. And it's not him attacking minorities, its how he does it and what he says about minorities.


----------



## CamillePunk

"Person of the Year" is still trending worldwide because of Trump's shitpost tweet. Not to mention all of the serious news articles about it. Imagine having that kind of power over all of the people who despise you. They stop what they're doing to talk about some random silly thing you spent 10 seconds writing and it doesn't actually accomplish anything for their side at the end of the day and by tomorrow they're ready to do it all over again. 

:banderas


----------



## Draykorinee

I'm trying to think of a time when Trump was universally loved, if he was, that too was just a media creation, let's not act like he doesn't flip flop around on his views to pander to his current target audience.


----------



## CamillePunk

Trump was never universally beloved and especially not after getting involved with birtherism. However, he is now everyone's favorite president, and that comes from the highest authority in the land - the current President of the United States of America. 

:trump3


----------



## Reaper

I disagree. I never heard a bad thing about him in the 80's-2010. He was a close friend of the Clintons and it wasn't until he started attacking Obama that everything he did after that was seen from a racialized context. He was also very popular during the run of The Apprentice and his show would not have succeeded if people despised _him_. 

I call rage against him based on highly selective recall and most of it is intentional. 

This comes from someone who grew up very close to western mainstream culture. I lived it. 

----

Liberation of Africans brought to you by The Democrats in Libya: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/930739986353278976


----------



## stevefox1200

Very few people had any real reason to care about Trump pre-apprentice 

He was a real estate mogul who was best known for his costly divorces 

The "media savvy millionaire" and "insane gold digger" were far more common back then than the "indecisive awkward tech millionaire" that is common in the media today

When you had Richard Branson jumping off everything it was hard to care

also cause its funny


----------



## DOPA

Reaper said:


> ----
> 
> Liberation of Africans brought to you by The Democrats in Libya:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/930739986353278976


Now this is interesting, the true test will be if those BLM activists who rail against historical slavery in the United States will actually campaign on this in order to even do something, even if it's just to raise awareness on the subject or whether they will be like modern day feminists and completely ignore the subject.....like feminists who ignore the oppression of women that is happening in Islamic and Arabic countries.

We all know it's easier to complain about how sexist and racist western societies are when you have the liberty to speak your mind and criticize without being persecuted. Actually talking and doing something about countries that persecute women and sell Africans into slavery requires some effort.


----------



## Reaper

I actually agree. The incoming secularization of Saudi Arabia has been the best news since Trump's election last year.

----

"Government cares about the poor" What a joke:

https://www.activistpost.com/2017/1...ed-feeding-homeless-thanksgiving-holiday.html



> *Good Samaritans Shutdown, Ticketed for Feeding Homeless During Thanksgiving Holiday*
> 
> By Matt Agorist
> 
> Atlanta, GA — According to the official historical record, in 1621, the Plymouth colonists and Wampanoag Indians shared an autumn harvest feast that is acknowledged today as one of the first Thanksgiving celebrations in the colonies. For over a century, families have gathered to proclaim what they are thankful for while others have taken to shelters and charities to help those who cannot help themselves. However, thanks to the state, helping others during this most giving time is now illegal—unless you pay the government for permission.
> 
> During this Thanksgiving week, Adele Maclean and Marlon Kautz took to the streets to begin handing out food to the homeless—like they do every week. However, this time, instead of receiving praise for their services, they were issued a notice of extortion by police in the form of a citation.
> 
> “We’re looking at a citation,” Maclean said.
> 
> As WSB-TV notes, Atlanta police have been handing out the flyers across the city telling people that a permit is needed to give food to the homeless.
> 
> The fliers are being used as a warning by the police to stop people from feeding the homeless without first paying the state for permission to do so.
> 
> “I mean outrageous, right? Of all the things to be punished for, giving free food to people who are hungry?” Maclean told Channel 2’s Justin Wilfon.
> 
> The pair has been handing out food in the same spot for weeks and they told WSB-TV that they have never heard of needing a permit to feed the needy.
> 
> “It seems ridiculous to me that they would be spending their time and resources on stopping people from feeding the homeless,” said Maclean said.
> 
> Indeed, it is ridiculous considering the murders and rapes taking place in Atlanta and the low rate at which they are solved. However, issuing notices of extortion, aka citation, to people for feeding the homeless is far easier and much more profitable than catching a murderer.
> 
> As WSB-TV reports:
> 
> Wilfon contacted the city to find out what was going on. A city representative said the Fulton and DeKalb County boards of health both require permits to give food to the homeless and the city of Atlanta enforces those requirements.
> 
> While the requirements aren’t new, Atlanta police told Wilfon they recently started more strictly enforcing them for several reasons.
> 
> The city believes there are better ways to help the homeless, like getting them into programs and shelters. They are also taking issue with the litter the food distributions leave behind.
> 
> Naturally, leaving behind waste for the city to clean up is wrong — but littering is already a crime. Why not just enforce that law?
> 
> Instead, good people, who don’t litter, are being punished for helping their hungry and less fortunate counterparts.
> 
> Unfortunately, in the land of the free, feeding the homeless has become a revolutionary act. Cities across the country are cracking down on good people who want to feed the needy.
> 
> Last December, the Dallas, Texas city council enacted Ordinance No. 29595, which makes it illegal to serve food to the homeless without jumping through a statist myriad of bureaucratic hoops, including a fee, training classes, and written notices.
> 
> However, the folks over at the aptly named organization Don’t Comply, took to the streets just outside the Austin Street Shelter in Dallas, while well armed, and successfully fed thousands of homeless people.
> 
> Sadly, the state’s endless desire to generate revenue has led to a system which requires permits for just about every activity not just feeding the homeless.
> 
> In May, the Alameda County Sheriff’s department posted a photo of a deputy arresting a man for selling fruits and vegetables on the roadside and attempted to justify the arrest. When people read the department’s justification, they lashed out — peacefully — to let them know what they were doing is wrong.
> 
> In June, a 38-year-old homeless man was attempting to earn some honest money by providing a much-desired service to the residents of Kennewick, Washington when he was threatened with extortion and arrest by the local police department, which effectively ended his enterprise. After the Kennewick Police Department threatened the homeless man and prevented him from making a living, they took to Facebook to shamelessly brag about it. The man was told that while it was illegal for him to fix bicycles, he could certainly beg for money.


1. Pay us to get permission to feed homeless
2. Pay us so that we can establish programs and shelters. 
3. Pay us so that we can create laws that prevent you from helping others. 
4. Pay us so that we can use your money to train you how to feed people 

See a pattern there. If the government cannot make money off of it, it doesn't allow it to happen but the solution for people is to create more and bigger government.

---










When attention whores demand attention and they don't get any :mj4 

Eminem ANGRY that Trump ignored him 

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## stevefox1200

Person of the year is not a award

It is merely time stating who was the most important person of that year 

Hitler, Stalin won it twice, Ruhollah Khomeini and numerous middle eastern dictators have won it


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> I actually agree. The incoming secularization of Saudi Arabia has been the best news since Trump's election last year.
> 
> ----
> 
> "Government cares about the poor" What a joke:
> 
> https://www.activistpost.com/2017/1...ed-feeding-homeless-thanksgiving-holiday.html
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Pay us to get permission to feed homeless
> 2. Pay us so that we can establish programs and shelters.
> 3. Pay us so that we can create laws that prevent you from helping others.
> 4. Pay us so that we can use your money to train you how to feed people
> 
> See a pattern there. If the government cannot make money off of it, it doesn't allow it to happen but the solution for people is to create more and bigger government.
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When attention whores demand attention and they don't get any :mj4
> *
> Eminem ANGRY that Trump ignored him
> 
> :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


 I love how Trump supporters say this when Trump is a huge attention whore. He was the one crying for attention for those UCLA basketball players to thank him on twitter before they even had a chance. Trump is always doing stuff like that. The white house has to baby him to keep him happy and filter out anything negative about him because they know how he gets when he see's it.

No one is a bigger attention whore than Trump. he always makes everything about him. Just look at the speeches he makes when its supposed to be about smeone else, he always has to put him comments about himself or his election win or stupid stuff like that.

So if you are going to call people out for being attention whores, you may want to start with Trump.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> that is what I thought. More deflection. Still can't show how what I said about Trump isn't Trump because you know I am right.
> 
> Keep your trolling, it's all you have since you can't debate the facts and evidence. The only one unraveling here is you because you keep making trolling comments instead of debating what Trump does.


I know what it is, you've been guaranteeing all year that Trump would be impeached by the end of the year. December is right around the corner and your guarantee has fallen to pieces. You're really angry about that, so you've lost what little decorum you have and have now resorted to calling the President a "little bitch".

It's quite comical.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I know what it is, you've been guaranteeing all year that Trump would be impeached by the end of the year. December is right around the corner and your guarantee has fallen to pieces. You're really angry about that, so you've lost what little decorum you have and have now resorted to calling the President a "little bitch".
> 
> It's quite comical.


You really need to stop misquoting me. I said Trump would never make it to 2020, I said he will be lucky to make it to the end of the year. So get it right. 

And Trump is a little bitch lol If you don't think so then you are just lying to yourself. what is comical is you getting triggered over me calling Trump a little bitch.

You still can't defend Trump not being a bitch.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> You really need to stop misquoting me. I said Trump would never make it to 2020, I said he will be lucky to make it to the end of the year. So get it right.
> 
> And Trump is a little bitch lol If you don't think so then you are just lying to yourself. what is comical is you getting triggered over me calling Trump a little bitch.
> 
> You still can't defend Trump not being a bitch.


I don't have to defend him, that's not how this works. 



birthday_massacre said:


> I said I would not be surprised if Trump was impeached by the end of the year, and it still looks to be going that way.


Doesn't really look to be going that way at all, but we get 3 more years of your Maxine Waters impression to entertain us, which I'm appreciative of. Thank you Trump for "making internet message boards great again".


----------



## CamillePunk

That freestyle is still the most cringe shit I've ever seen. :lol

Sargon rocking that MAGA hat though. :trump2


----------



## Reaper

@L-Dopa; @CamillePunk; @Miss Sally; @DesolationRow; @AryaDark; @birthday_massacre; @draykorinee 

This is the new wave of human trafficking and let me know if your local anti-Brexit British media is reporting this or not: 

It's not hard to put 2 and 2 together. First you have reports of a Libyan slave trade. Which corroborates earlier reports of human trafficking by certain groups that has been going on for a while now. 

And now you have africans dying off the coast of Libya while being shuttled across in these horrible rafts: 

https://www.dawn.com/news/1372903/31-bodies-recovered-after-migrant-boat-sinks-off-libya



> *31 bodies recovered after migrant boat sinks off Libya*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRIPOLI/ATHENS: At least 31 migrants died after their boat sank off Libya’s western coast on Saturday and some 200 others were picked up by the coastguard to be brought back to port in Tripoli, officials said.
> 
> The migrants were on two boats off the coast near Garabulli, east of Tripoli, one of which had already sunk when the coastguard arrived at the scene, said Abu Ajala Amer Abdelbari, a coast guard commander.
> 
> “The boat had sunk and they were spread out in the sea, they were trying to swim towards the coast,” he said. “There were about 60 people who we were able to save because they were clinging to the (remains of the) boat.” Another 140 migrants were picked up from the second boat, he said.
> 
> The dead, including a number of children, were brought back to Tripoli naval base where they were unloaded in white plastic body bags.
> 
> Libya is the main departure point for mostly African migrants trying to cross to Europe. Smugglers usually pack them into flimsy inflatable boats that often break down or sink.
> 
> Most migrants are picked up by international vessels and taken to Italy, where more than 115,000 have landed so far this year, although an increasing number are intercepted by Libya’s European-backed coastguard and returned to the North African country.
> 
> Since July, there has been a sharp drop in crossings, though this week has seen a renewed surge in departures.
> 
> Nearly 3,000 migrants are known to have died or be missing after trying to cross to Europe by sea this year, the majority of them between Libya and Italy. The International Organisation for Migration said that since 2000 the Mediterranean had been “by far the world’s deadliest border” for migrants.
> 
> Afghan boy dies amid panic on migrant boat
> A 10-year-old Afghan boy was crushed to death on Saturday on board an overcrowded boat carrying scores of migrants headed from Turkey to the Greek island of ******, Greek news agency ANA reported.
> 
> Panic erupted when the 66 migrants on board the rickety vessel saw a patrol boat from European border agency Frontex approaching, afraid they would be taken back to Turkey, ANA said.
> 
> The boy was on the boat with his parents and two younger sisters. When she discovered her son had died in the chaos, his mother tried to end her life by jumping into the sea, only to be rescued by the coastguard.
> 
> Despite an EU-Turkey deal in 2016 aimed at stemming the migrant flow to Greece, refugees and migrants desperate for a fresh start continue to arrive on the southern European nation’s shores — with a spike in the numbers since this summer.
> 
> At least three migrants have drowned this month while attempting to reach Greece, while a nine-year-old girl died in September.
> 
> The casualties are far lower than in 2015 and 2016, when hundreds of people drowned, including several children. Despite the relative improvement, tragedy continues to strike.
> 
> Published in Dawn, November 26th, 2017


Let's say that there isn't a conspiracy here and these efforts are genuine. 

Why can't these people be helped where they are instead of being forced into these kinds of conditions where they still die? What kind of madness is this? This madness perpetrated by the EU must stop.

This particular news has taken me back to the original days of the Euro slave trade. Muslims catch african slaves, they sell them to european buyers, european buyers shuttle them across and a HUGE number die on the way and end up in horrendous living conditions as slaves after. Of course, the "new migrants" aren't ending up as slaves, but they are still being trafficked nonetheless. Let's say there isn't a globalist agenda of population replacement of some sort, but here are some pictures of the living conditions of these "refugees" in western countries:

These are from France: 





































None of this is right. There is no moral higher ground here if you're shuttling people from bad conditions in one country to bad conditions in another country and 100's are dying in transport.


----------



## virus21




----------



## 2 Ton 21

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/11/24/12-year-old-girl-sues-jeff-sessions-in-fight-to-legalize-medical-marijuana.html



> *12-year-old girl sues Jeff Sessions in a fight to legalize medical marijuana*
> 
> A 12-year-old girl is a mission to get medical marijuana legalized and she’s going head-to-head with Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a lawsuit to make it happen.
> 
> Alexis Bortell says she taking her case to court because she needs cannabis in order to treat her severe form of epilepsy known as intractable epilepsy.
> 
> “One night, I had the worst seizure of my life [and] after that our doctor actually said [we had to] choose between brain surgery or moving to Colorado to get my medicine-- Haleigh’s Hope. So we were basically after talking to many politicians, forced out of Texas and we were forced to move here in Colorado because it’s illegal in Texas to get my medicine,” Bortell told FOX Business’ Ashley Webster on “Varney & Company.”
> 
> Colorado is one of 29 states that have legalized medical marijuana, but is one of only seven states that have legalized it for recreational use.
> 
> Bortell’s attorney Michael Hiller elaborated on what the lawsuit was really about.
> 
> “Well the suit is actually to invalidate the controlled substances act as unconstitutional. Right now cannabis is a schedule one drug under the Controlled Substances Act, which means federally its illegal, which means that Alexis can’t travel to Washington to lobby her representatives. She can’t really travel across state lines safely, so what we’re trying to do is invalidate it at the federal level and that we believe will pave the way toward legalization throughout the United States,” he said.
> 
> Hiller also explained why he is confident that they will win the lawsuit.
> 
> “I don’t think we’ve been in a better position to legalize than we are right now, the evidence we’ve collected, the facts we’ve uncovered really make clear that the United States Government knows that cannabis is actually safe and medically effective, but for some reason the United States government continues to render it illegal for people like Alexis who desperately need the medication to preserve their health and their lives,” he said.
> 
> And, they’re going after Sessions because he has been a longtime opponent of the substance, even going as far as saying, “Good people don’t smoke marijuana,” last year.
> 
> Bortell added that she would love the opportunity to speak with Sessions on why this law needs to be passed.
> 
> “Cannabis has saved my life. If I stay in Texas and got brain surgery who would have known what would have happened, I could have died. Seizures they are really scary because just imagine being stuck in your own body, you can’t scream, you can’t say anything, you can’t call for help, that could kill me,” she said


Good luck to her. Hope she wins. It's ridiculous that families have to uproot their lives and move to another state to save their children.


----------



## FITZ

She's not going to win. I'm all for legalizing it but there really isn't a rational Constitutional argument that you can make to say it has to be legalized.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

FITZ said:


> She's not going to win. I'm all for legalizing it but there really isn't a rational Constitutional argument that you can make to say it has to be legalized.


Like I said, I hope she wins, but yeah I know she's got almost no chance. Still, the more this gets brought up, the more support it will gain, I think.

Last poll I saw said that 83% of those polled in the US believe medical marijuana should be legal so it should already be settled.

I really don't get why any politician would be anti mm, for any other reason than special interests lobbying against it.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reaper said:


> None of this is right. There is no moral higher ground here if you're shuttling people from bad conditions in one country to bad conditions in another country and 100's are dying in transport.


One thing to pick up is our physical media is predominantly pro-brexit, the BBC are notoriously wishy washy but I would suggest a fair swing towards remain, otherwise its pretty much a mixed bag. None of them are talking about the Migrant crisis.
Its been forgotten, its not even thought of, we've never been truly affected by it like other states have been, the only thing we have is the odd front page of a dead person. The Daily mail had the audacity to have 'Migrants how many more can we take?' on the front page and then within a week have a picture of a dead baby on the front with 'Tiny victim of a human catastrophe'. 
The whole things a mess but I don't think our government/media or populace has any interest in it right now.

The EU has been rank amateurish in their handling, I think they hoped Turkey would sort it all out once they negotiated a deal.

This is how its always going to be though, dead Africans/middle easterns are not going to get a lot of front pages.


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> Like I said, I hope she wins, but yeah I know she's got almost no chance. Still, the more this gets brought up, the more support it will gain, I think.
> 
> Last poll I saw said that 83% of those polled in the US believe medical marijuana should be legal so it should already be settled.
> 
> I really don't get why any politician would be anti mm, for *any other reason than special interests lobbying against it.*


That is exactly the reason because big pharma gives millions to the GOP and some Democrats to keep pot illegal because for pot is a better and cheaper treatment for a lot of aliments that cost big bucks for pills.

If Trump made pot legal and not just MM, he could get a huge boost in his approval rating.


----------



## Reaper

:ha


----------



## CamillePunk

hot tbh


----------



## Vic Capri

> Eminem ANGRY that Trump ignored him


I'm actually shocked / impressed Trump didn't respond to him.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

This is about the most first world millennial thing I've ever seen 

[emoji38]


----------



## Kabraxal

Reaper said:


> This is about the most first world millennial thing I've ever seen
> 
> [emoji38]


As a millenial (just barely), I wish we could jettison the sicial mesia/tmblerina sect that has given my generation a black eye. At least it seems social mesia is starting to fracture and not be the sick juggernaut it was the past 5 years or so. Most people laugh at the stupidity instead of embrace it.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer

Reaper said:


> This is about the most first world millennial thing I've ever seen
> 
> [emoji38]


_*Strange, I would eat those food since I do love eating Vegan food. 

:lol at the message behind it all. *_


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Reaper said:


> This is about the most first world millennial thing I've ever seen
> 
> [emoji38]


The Russians would destroy us через секунду.


----------



## Reaper

:hmmm










[emoji38]


----------



## Art Vandaley

So I'm doing a course on US corruption law atm, taught by a prof from NYU visiting Aus and the prof brought up the Mueller investigation and pointed out something I hadn't quite realised before, Trump can only pardon federal crimes but New York has a bunch of stuff down as state crimes and Trump can't do anything about them. 

Mueller has apparently been officially sharing his info with the New York attorney general.


----------



## Reaper

It's funny how both libs and conservatives hold up state rights and small government when it's their personal pet issues and demand federal legislation when the opposite is true.


----------



## CamillePunk

Alkomesh2 said:


> So I'm doing a course on US corruption law atm, taught by a prof from NYU visiting Aus and the prof brought up the Mueller investigation and pointed out something I hadn't quite realised before, Trump can only pardon federal crimes but New York has a bunch of stuff down as state crimes and Trump can't do anything about them.
> 
> Mueller has apparently been officially sharing his info with the New York attorney general.


We already have a mass hysteria bubble thread: http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anyth...obstruction-justice-investigation-thread.html 

Good luck waiting on Mueller to transform into Superman. 
@DesolationRow @L-DOPA @AryaDark 

Rand Paul penned an article for Fox News discussing his intention to vote for the Senate tax bill, and how we can continue to fight to keep more of our own money going forward: 



> One of the fundamental problems in Washington is the attitude that the money that people make belongs to the government. That’s why you hear arguments about how much a tax cut “costs,” or big government advocates disingenuously and breathlessly complaining about the people who pay taxes getting a tax cut.
> 
> I believe it is the other way around. Our default position should be that the money you earn belongs to you, and government has to justify why it should take it from you.
> 
> Currently, there are at least 97 different federal taxes. The tax code that instructs people how they must hand over their hard-earned money to government spans some 74,000-plus pages.
> 
> This is absurd, and so is the fact that government will collect over $3 trillion from taxpayers next year but still is not satisfied.
> 
> One of the main differences between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans, in general, favor less government and more tax cuts. That’s why I’m pleased to see us moving forward on a plan for tax cuts, and why I hope to vote to pass such a cut in the coming weeks.
> 
> I spoke out all year against the GOP leaders’ initial plan to make their tax reform “revenue neutral” — meaning not really a cut. I’m pleased to see my point of view has prevailed, and the current tax plan calls for a $1.5 trillion cut over the next ten years. I would have liked to see more — in fact, I offered an amendment to move it up to $2.5 trillion — but I’ve stated many times that as long as it is a real cut, I’ll vote for it, even if it isn’t as large as I would prefer.
> 
> I’m also pleased to note that, in part by my urging, the Senate tax-plan writers have included repeal of the ObamaCare individual mandate in the tax plan. The mandate is clearly a tax, a fact that was established by the Supreme Court when it upheld ObamaCare. So including it in the tax bill only makes sense. In addition, with CBO scoring it as a $350 billion savings, repealing the mandate helped pave the way for increased middle-class tax cuts, like an expanded child tax credit.
> 
> I was pleased to work directly with President Trump to push this important change that lets us keep multiple promises in one bill — cut taxes and repeal the ObamaCare mandate we’ve been fighting against for years.
> 
> This bill is not perfect. I would prefer a larger cut. I would prefer that the Senate bill match the House bill and keep some form of state and local deductions so that no one gets caught in the trap of losing too many deductions at once and failing to benefit from the tax cuts. Lastly, I’d like to see more permanence on the individual side.
> 
> Some of that is still achievable. Some of it is due to the peculiarities of the budget and Senate rules and will have to wait for another day.
> 
> The good news is — we can do this every year. Want a bigger tax cut? Urge your legislators to do one every single year. I’ll sponsor it. Want them to be permanent? Well, one good start is to keep extending them, every single year.
> 
> This tax bill is a true test for my colleagues. I’m not getting everything I want — far from it. But I’ve been immersed in this process. I’ve fought for and received major changes for the better — and I plan to vote for this bill as it stands right now.
> 
> I urge my colleagues to do the same. I urge you, their constituents, to make sure they hear from you.
> 
> The next few weeks in Washington will be important. Will we keep our word and cut taxes? Will we do what we campaigned on and repeal the ObamaCare mandate? I will fight for both, and I look forward to ending the year keeping these important promises to the American people.


Based RAND. :drose


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Trump just referred to Elizabeth Warren as Pocahontas at a meeting with the last surviving Navajo code talkers from WWII. :lmao :sodone :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

SHIVVY POO III: SHIV HARD WITH A VENGEANCE said:


> Trump just referred to Elizabeth Warren as Pocahontas at a meeting with the last surviving Navajo cde talkers from WWII. :lmao :sodone :trump


Just another example of Trump being a racist. He is such a POS.


----------



## stevefox1200

SHIVVY POO III: SHIV HARD WITH A VENGEANCE said:


> Trump just referred to Elizabeth Warren as Pocahontas at a meeting with the last surviving Navajo cde talkers from WWII. :lmao :sodone :trump


He has also said John Kelly is his chief


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Just another example of Trump being a racist. He is such a POS.


_If_ this is racist, then it's also racist for an obviously white woman to steal a cultural identity for her political pivot. Since she's white af, she can't claim to be victimized by being called Pocahontas.

I'm 1/8th Irani, but when asked for my ethnicity I don't say "I'm 1/8th Irani, 1/4th Indian, some Pakistani and maybe a little bit of Arab or Turkish as well".

I'm brown and pakistani, it would be like me feeling racially victimized if someone called me the N-word. It's not my race. I can't claim to be offended by it. I don't have the right to appropriate someone else's victimization.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> _If_ this is racist, then it's also racist for an obviously white woman to steal a cultural identity for her political pivot. Since she's white af, she can't claim to be victimized by being called Pocahontas.
> 
> I'm 1/8th Irani, but when asked for my ethnicity I don't say "I'm 1/8th Irani, 1/4th Indian, some Pakistani and maybe a little bit of Arab or Turkish as well".
> 
> I'm brown and pakistani, it would be like me feeling racially victimized if someone called me the N-word. It's not my race. I can't claim to be offended by it. I don't have the right to appropriate someone else's victimization.


Oh, look reaper defending Trump's racism again.

If a white person calls another white person who dresses in hip-hop clothing the N word, that white person is still making a racial slur which is racist. Trump is using the term Pocahontas a racial slur.


----------



## birthday_massacre

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...64/senate-republican-tax-bill-health-cut-poor

CBO: the Senate Republican tax bill takes billions from the poor

From the perspective of rich people benefiting from slashing the corporate tax rate, the bill the Senate is currently considering — and could vote on this week — is a tax cut bill. But from the perspective of America’s poor, the bill looks more like a health care cut.

The proposal would abolish Obamacare’s individual mandate and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, reduce the number of people with health insurance by 4 million in 2019 and 13 million in 2027. The people no longer pushed to enroll by the mandate are overwhelmingly lower and middle class and don’t get insurance from their employers. Instead, they typically sign up for Medicaid or for subsidized insurance on the Obamacare marketplaces.

That means that when looking at who wins and loses from the tax bill, you can’t just look at who pays more or less in taxes. You have to look at who gets more or less Medicaid and insurance subsidy money too. A new report from the CBO does exactly that.










The CBO breaks down the billions of dollars in annual changes to spending and tax revenue by income group, up to people making more than $1 million. What they find is that while the rich as a group benefit each year (as do people making more than $75,000, on aggregate) the desperately poor, earning $10,000 or less a year, lose out consistently — and by 2021, people earning $40,000 a year or less start losing out as well.

By 2027, when all the individual tax cuts in the law have been phased out to pay for permanent corporate rates, the situation is considerably bleaker. The combination of benefit cuts and tax hikes for people earning between $10,000 and $30,000 are one-third bigger than they were in 2025.

The amounts in the table are in billions: The table is saying, for instance, that people earning under $10,000 lose $8.7 billion as a group in 2025 under the bill, whereas people earning $1 million or more gain $15.8 billion as a group. It doesn’t tell us how much a typical family earning under $10,000 would lose, or how much a typical millionaire would gain, or which groups gain or lose more or less per person.

The aggregate gains to the group of people earning $100,000 to $200,000 a year are much greater than those to the group of people earning $1 million or more — but that's only because there are a lot more people making $100,000 to $200,000 a year than there are millionaires.

And the table actually leaves out some factors that would make the Senate bill look even worse. For instance, it doesn’t include the costs to upper-middle-class people who buy individual health insurance without a subsidy. Those people would face much higher premiums, because the individual mandate’s repeal would push healthy people off the insurance rolls. Because that change doesn’t affect federal spending, it doesn’t show up on the CBO ledger. The CBO also doesn’t attempt to estimate the effect of slashing the estate tax, a change that exclusively helps the ultrarich.

But it’s nonetheless the most comprehensive accounting of who wins and loses from the spending and revenue changes in the tax bill. And the conclusion is clear: The rich consistently win, and the poor consistently lose.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh, look reaper defending Trump's racism again.
> 
> If a white person calls another white person who dresses in hip-hop clothing the N word, that white person is still making a racial slur which is racist. Trump is using the term Pocahontas a racial slur.


Oh look. BM again proving that he has no idea what context is. Stealing an entire culture's identity for political or personal profit is a condemnable offence and she deserves to be condemned and ridiculed for it relentlessly because it's shameful what she's doing. Go read Anark's cultural appropriation thread for some understanding.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Oh look. BM again proving that he has no idea what context is.


It has to do with Trump using a slur but keep defending it. So what women who claimed she was black (Rachel Dolezal), if a white person called her the N word, they are not making a racial slur? If you are using racial slurs to disparage someone you are racist.

Do you think its ok for Trump to use that slur especially at the native american vet event?


----------



## stevefox1200

Reaper said:


> Oh look. BM again proving that he has no idea what context is.


Its kind of not a great idea to rant about your political opposition in a meeting honoring something


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> Its kind of not a great to rant about your political opposition in a meeting honoring something


Opinion. I don't care much for it either way. Lots of people say things we think they shouldn't say. 

Boo fucking hoo.



birthday_massacre said:


> It has to do with Trump using a slur but keep defending it. So what women who claimed she was black (Rachel Dolezal), if a white person called her the N word, they are not making a racial slur? If you are using racial slurs to disparage someone you are racist.
> 
> Do you think its ok for Trump to use that slur especially at the native american vet event?


A word by itself without context is never a slur. Or any word without a racial context could be a racial slur that is non-conventional. 

Also, please STOP acting on behalf of "minorities". It's not your place to do so. We're mature and intelligent enough to understand context. We don't need men with hero complexes to explain shit to us or fight on our behalf. You don't need to protect us from raycisses. We're ok. We're doing ok without your virtue signaling.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Opinion. I don't care much for it either way. Lots of people say things we think they shouldn't say.
> 
> Boo fucking hoo.


So if Trump mentioned Lavar Ball and called him the N-word at an event honoring black vets, then that is just an opinion and boo fucking hoo?



Reaper said:


> A word by itself without context is never a slur. Please STOP trying to act like you're the savior of minorities and acting like you know what is racist to whom and when because it's not your place to tell us what we should think about what's racist and what's not racist. Will you also tell me to stop using the word Paki for fellow Pakis just because some other people use it in a racist manner ... The word by itself is never racist. I'm tired of your white savior complex because honestly speaking to me in context THAT is racist.


But it is in context. Stop acting like him calling LIz Warren Pocahontas especially at a native american event is not in context.

As for being a savior of minorities, you are such a joke. The POTUS is an embarrassment for being openly racist, and you keep defending him. Stop being the savior of racist and defending racism.

As for your other BS nice strawman argument. Quote me where I said for you to stop using the term Paki. You keep talking about context but you are the one ignoring the context. Trump is not using the term Pocahontas in the same context you are using the term Paki.

Just like how a white person using the N-Word to disparage a black person is not the same as a black person calling his friend then N-word.

Trump's whole context of calling Warren Pocahontas is to disparage her, thus why its racist.

You really want to claim Trump is using the term Pocahontas in the same context you use the term Paki


----------



## birthday_massacre

double post


----------



## stevefox1200

Reaper said:


> Opinion. I don't care much for it either way. Lots of people say things we think they shouldn't say.
> 
> Boo fucking hoo.
> 
> 
> 
> A word by itself without context is never a slur. Or any word without a racial context could be a racial slur that is non-conventional.
> 
> Also, please STOP acting on behalf of "minorities". It's not your place to do so. We're mature and intelligent enough to understand context. We don't need men with hero complexes to explain shit to us or fight on our behalf. You don't need to protect us from raycisses. We're ok. We're doing ok without your virtue signaling.


When you are the president saying the "right thing" is much more important

They have entire staffs to make sure the right message is being sent out 

Every week its something like this

Boo fucking hoo is not acceptable for the president, its the most important position in the nation and one of the most important positions in the world, dumb mistakes are not acceptable

I know you want ABOLISH EVERYTHING1!!! but for majority those of us who like having government and society, we prefer a president who treats his position seriously


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> So if Trump mentioned Lavar Ball and called him the N-word at an event honoring black vets, then that is just an opinion and boo fucking hoo?


If and when he does that it would be. But he hasn't. You're creating something that hasn't happened. It's called a fantasy. 



> But it is in context. Stop acting like him calling LIz Warren Pocahontas especially at a native american event is not in context.


It isn't because _she _isn't a minority. If he calls an actual native a racially charged word, sure. But he hasn't done that. It would be like me calling you a racist slur exclusive for Indians. It's not racist, because you're not Indian. Just because I uttered a word that some people get triggered by doesn't automatically make it racist. The word needs to be contextualized. 

In fact, she's the racist one for appropriating an entire culture's victimhood and profiting from the victim complex industry. She has literally stolen from funds designed to help minorities as a white person and you're one of her supporters and constituents. You're also erasing the existence of the natives who actually despise her for appropriation. 



> As for being a savior of minorities, you are such a joke. The POTUS is an embarrassment for being openly racist, and you keep defending him. Stop being the savior of racist and defending racism.
> 
> As for your other BS nice strawman argument.


And yet, you've never provided any actual evidence of him being racist. 

Him being a prick. Sure. Him being a racist. Nope.



stevefox1200 said:


> When you are the president saying the "right thing" is much more important
> 
> They have entire staffs to make sure the right message is being sent out
> 
> Every week its something like this
> 
> Boo fucking hoo is not acceptable for the president, its the most important position in the nation and one of the most important positions in the world, dumb mistakes are not acceptable
> 
> I know you want ABOLISH EVERYTHING1!!! but for majority those of us who like having government and society, we prefer a president who treats his position seriously


This post is too authoritarian4me.com 

Don't care much for it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> It isn't because _she _isn't a minority. If he calls an actual native a racially charged word, sure. But he hasn't done that. It would be like me calling you a racist slur exclusive for Indians. It's not racist, because you're not Indian. Just because I uttered a word that some people get triggered by doesn't automatically make it racist. The word needs to be contextualized.
> 
> In fact, she's the racist one for appropriating an entire culture's victimhood and profiting from the victim complex industry. She has literally stolen from funds designed to help minorities as a white person and you're one of her supporters and constituents. You're also erasing the existence of the natives who actually despise her for appropriation.


Liz Warren claims she is part native American thus why Trump is using the slur. It's racist and Trump is still using a slur. If a white person calls another white person the N word who thinks they are black, like that woman I mentioned, it's still racist to call her the N word. 

You can make excuses all you want for Trumps racism, you always have an excuse to try to explain it away.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Liz Warren claims she is part native American thus why Trump is using the slur. It's racist and Trump is still using a slur. If a white person calls another white person the N word who thinks they are black, like that woman I mentioned, it's still racist to call her the N word.
> 
> You can make excuses all you want for Trumps racism, you always have an excuse to try to explain it away.


There is no racism because there is no such thing as trans-racialism. People can make the claim that they're some other race all they want, it doesn't make them that race. 

It's yet another fantasy that simply enables mentally ill people with Identity Dissociation Disorder instead of getting them help. 

Your ultra-progressive group lives in a fantasy world. It's understandable that in your hallucinated reality white people aren't white and therefore Trump is a racist.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> There is no racism because there is no such thing as trans-racialism. People can make the claim that they're some other race all they want, it doesn't make them that race.
> 
> It's yet another fantasy that simply enables mentally ill people with Identity Dissociation Disorder instead of getting them help.
> 
> Your ultra-progressive group lives in a fantasy world. It's understandable that in your hallucinated reality white people aren't white and therefore Trump is a racist.


Trump is using racial slurs to disparage someone, that is racism. You really have no clue what racism even is.

You are the only one who lives in a fantasy world. But keep defending racism and racist. I am done.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is using racial slurs to disparage someone, that is racism. You really have no clue what racism even is.


No, he's calling a fake native american Pocahontas because that's what she wants to be and sees herself as even though she's not it. It's not racist. It's mean. But not racist. I don't see him calling actual natives any disparaging terms or using slurs at all. 



> You are the only one who lives in a fantasy world. But keep defending racism and racist. I am done.


You are very heavily implying that we should believe everyone that says that they are a different race when they're not that race and you're saying that I live in a fantasy world. 

I'm simply saying that I don't believe that there is any racial context behind Trump's justified bashing of the fake native american. That's not fantasy. That's interpretation. 

Fantasy is believing a mentally ill woman with an Identity Disorder (or worse, a cultural thief) that she's actually a native just because she believes she's one and then believing that someone calling her Pocahontas is racially charged because she's actually part of that race when she's clearly not and has never provided any evidence that she's even remotely native american. _That's _a fantasy. She lives in a fantasy world, and you believe her fantasies. You're an enabler of cultural thieves :shrug That's not a fantasy.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Trump's Presidency is like a daily barrage of idiocy and horror.

Today's entry:

Using 'Pocahontas' to insult Elizabeth Warren while supposedly honouring Native American war heroes, also while standing in front of a portrait of Andrew 'Trail of Tears' Jackson.

And here's where I plead a bit of ignorance, given my non-US credentials and thus my lack of truly in-depth understanding of some things: Has it ever actually been proven that Elizabeth Warren doesn't have some Native American heritage? It's not exactly something I've tuned into massively but my understanding of this 'issue' is that the Republican that she unseated to win her Senate seat found her university application where she put down that she has Native heritage, claimed she doesn't, and based seemingly on that alone this has become one of "those things" that seem to have, regardless of how factual it may or may not be, become just a common fact of reality among those of a right-wing, Republican-favouring ideology.

I mean if it was at some point proven that she was lying then I'll call her out for that, but even with that it still doesn't make Trump any less of a tactless fucking dingbat for randomly bringing it up at a ceremony honouring Native war heroes like a loudmouth child with zero fucking impulse control.

And that gets to fundamental problem with Trump, I think. Even if he is right about something, the way he conducts himself at all times makes it impossible to see him as anything but a ridiculous lunatic manchild.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reservoir Angel said:


> Trump's Presidency is like a daily barrage of idiocy and horror.
> 
> Today's entry:
> 
> Using 'Pocahontas' to insult Elizabeth Warren while supposedly honouring Native American war heroes, also while standing in front of a portrait of Andrew 'Trail of Tears' Jackson.
> 
> *And here's where I plead a bit of ignorance, given my non-US credentials and thus my lack of truly in-depth understanding of some things: Has it ever actually been proven that Elizabeth Warren doesn't have some Native American heritage?* It's not exactly something I've tuned into massively but my understanding of this 'issue' is that the Republican that she unseated to win her Senate seat found her university application where she put down that she has Native heritage, claimed she doesn't, and based seemingly on that alone this has become one of "those things" that seem to have, regardless of how factual it may or may not be, become just a common fact of reality among those of a right-wing, Republican-favouring ideology.
> 
> I mean if it was at some point proven that she was lying then I'll call her out for that, but even with that it still doesn't make Trump any less of a tactless fucking dingbat for randomly bringing it up at a ceremony honouring Native war heroes like a loudmouth child with zero fucking impulse control.
> 
> And that gets to fundamental problem with Trump, I think. Even if he is right about something, the way he conducts himself at all times makes it impossible to see him as anything but a ridiculous lunatic manchild.


Its never been proven she doesn't but at the same time its never been proven that she does. She said her parents and grand parents always told her she was part native American when she was a kid, that is where her claim comes from.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

birthday_massacre said:


> Its never been proven she doesn't but at the same time its never been proven that she does. She said her parents and grand parents always told her she was part native American when she was a kid, that is where her claim comes from.


So it's a dumb game of "he said, she said" that does nothing to change the fact that Trump is a blithering idiot for bringing it up at all in the context that he did.

Marvellous.


----------



## Reaper

Reservoir Angel said:


> Trump's Presidency is like a daily barrage of idiocy and horror.
> 
> Today's entry:
> 
> Using 'Pocahontas' to insult Elizabeth Warren while supposedly honouring Native American war heroes, also while standing in front of a portrait of Andrew 'Trail of Tears' Jackson.
> 
> And here's where I plead a bit of ignorance, given my non-US credentials and thus my lack of truly in-depth understanding of some things: Has it ever actually been proven that Elizabeth Warren doesn't have some Native American heritage? It's not exactly something I've tuned into massively but my understanding of this 'issue' is that the Republican that she unseated to win her Senate seat found her university application where she put down that she has Native heritage, claimed she doesn't, and based seemingly on that alone this has become one of "those things" that seem to have, regardless of how factual it may or may not be, become just a common fact of reality among those of a right-wing, Republican-favouring ideology.
> 
> I mean if it was at some point proven that she was lying then I'll call her out for that, but even with that it still doesn't make Trump any less of a tactless fucking dingbat for randomly bringing it up at a ceremony honouring Native war heroes like a loudmouth child with zero fucking impulse control.
> 
> And that gets to fundamental problem with Trump, I think. Even if he is right about something, the way he conducts himself at all times makes it impossible to see him as anything but a ridiculous lunatic manchild.


You can claim you're of a certain race all you want, but when you use that to give yourself an advantage and can't prove it when called out on it, then it's stealing plain and simple. Not everything is a conservative/liberal issue. 

As far as Trump's demeanor is concerned even when he does present himself as presidential, people call him whatever they want, (just one example was his State of the Union address) so it's better that he's just himself. His rhetoric and "blue collar" hyper masculinity appeals to people who are at a certain while Obama was an ivory tower elitest which is aspirational for another class of people. Different people. Different strokes. Different demands. 

Two sides of a different coin. Both realities exist in America. Both kinds of people exist in America. This is why I don't care much for the "he's not presidential" argument made by both conservatives and liberals. Couldn't care less for it actually. 

Anyone that's hung out with the American working class knows that a lot of them are uncouth but they all generally mean well. Plus snobs (both local and foreign) have always used their ultra-elitest snobbery to thumb their noses at well meaning, hard working Americans and it's annoying as fuck. 

I don't need some Harvard elitest preaching to me, so for me, Trump's presidential because he speaks the language of the masses. Doesn't say anything about my disdain for the elite class ... But it is a matter of perspective. 

People criticize Obama's elitism in conservative circles all the time. And THEY consider that alienating. 

It's based on political partisanship. Trump is the anti-Obama and for some people that's a good thing. Both with respect to policy and antics.


----------



## Cabanarama

Reservoir Angel said:


> Trump's Presidency is like a daily barrage of idiocy and horror.
> 
> Today's entry:
> 
> Using 'Pocahontas' to insult Elizabeth Warren while supposedly honouring Native American war heroes, also while standing in front of a portrait of Andrew 'Trail of Tears' Jackson.
> 
> And here's where I plead a bit of ignorance, given my non-US credentials and thus my lack of truly in-depth understanding of some things: Has it ever actually been proven that Elizabeth Warren doesn't have some Native American heritage? It's not exactly something I've tuned into massively but my understanding of this 'issue' is that the Republican that she unseated to win her Senate seat found her university application where she put down that she has Native heritage, claimed she doesn't, and based seemingly on that alone this has become one of "those things" that seem to have, regardless of how factual it may or may not be, become just a common fact of reality among those of a right-wing, Republican-favouring ideology.
> 
> I mean if it was at some point proven that she was lying then I'll call her out for that, but even with that it still doesn't make Trump any less of a tactless fucking dingbat for randomly bringing it up at a ceremony honouring Native war heroes like a loudmouth child with zero fucking impulse control.
> 
> And that gets to fundamental problem with Trump, I think. Even if he is right about something, the way he conducts himself at all times makes it impossible to see him as anything but a ridiculous lunatic manchild.


To add to what you said, she's never used her alleged heritage to make any career gains, she's never publicly flaunted it or touted it. The only time she claimed it was during her tenure as Harvard law professor, when she registered in the directory of law instructors as being of Native American heritage.
And no, it's never actually been debunked or proven. Probably because it's never really been relevant enough to do so, as she has never gained anything from that claim and nobody else was harmed.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Trump isn't the American working class. He is an elite, a billionaire. You don't seriously think Trum[p is for the middle class and poor. Just look at the article I just posted about his tax plan.


----------



## Reaper

Cabanarama said:


> To add to what you said, she's never used her alleged heritage to make any career gains, she's never publicly flaunted it or touted it. The only time she claimed it was during her tenure as Harvard law professor, when she registered in the directory of law instructors as being of Native American heritage.
> And no, it's never actually been debunked or proven. Probably because it's never really been relevant enough to do so, as she has never gained anything from that claim and nobody else was harmed.


That's been debunked even by your liberal leaning snopes.




birthday_massacre said:


> Trump isn't the American working class. He is an elite, a billionaire. You don't seriously think Trum[p is for the middle class and poor. Just look at the article I just posted about his tax plan.


Of course he's an elite. But he's not an elitest. He doesn't speak that language. His language and demeanor is coarse and rough. His demeanor is that of the working class. 

Even his children are pathetic snobs and you can tell from how they speak. Especially ivanka.

Being able to communicate with the working class is a skill he definitely has. Democrats have been ignoring that to their own detriment.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Reaper said:


> As far as Trump's demeanor is concerned even when he does present himself as presidential people call him whatever he wants, so it's better that he's just himself. His rhetoric and "blue collar" hyper masculinity appeals to people who are at the bottom while Obama was an ivory tower elitest.


I feel this paragraph highlights that it's more than just a partisan political divide, for one simple reason:

I cannot, for the life of me, fathom how anyone can interpret Trump as either 'blue collar' or 'hyper masculine'

He's a rich New York elite business executive who inherited his money from his rich dad and who until he became President lived a life of literal gilded luxury in a golden apartment in a downtown New York skyscraper. I can think of nothing less blue collar if I tried.

And hyper masculine? To me he comes off like the most delicate bitch to ever stalk the Earth. For all he and his fans like to insult 'snowflake SJW cucks' or whatever other nonsense name they have for anyone who isn't them, I can think of nobody who is more easily offended and prone to over-emotional bursts of flailing self-obsessed outrage than Trump.

One look at his Twitter account should be enough to undercut any claim to masculinity he has. Twitter tantrums don't strike me as a particularly 'masculine' thing, unless you're a 13-year-old Call of Duty fan hyped up on Monster energy drink who thinks shouting obscenities into a microphone is the apex of awesomeness.


----------



## birthday_massacre

OH look Trump ignoring the law again

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/26/politics/leandra-english-cfpb-lawsuit-donald-trump/index.html

Showdown over top post at key watchdog agency

(CNN)A showdown over the leadership of a major consumer fraud protection agency was underway Monday morning, as both President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the person tapped by its former director showed up to work.

Sunday night, lawyers for Leandra English, whom Richard Cordray named the effective acting director when he resigned on Friday, filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to halt the appointment of Mick Mulvaney, who serves as head of the Office of Management and Budget and is also named in the lawsuit.
English's move marked a stunning turn of events at the agency, which was created after the financial crisis to protect consumers and keep an eye on Wall Street. While serving in Congress, Mulvaney voted in favor of killing the bureau, arguing it has too much power and issues unduly harsh regulations, and he has worked alongside Trump to roll back some of the agency's rules.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Monday that the administration does not have anything against English.
"I am saying we want director Mulvaney to lead this agency, and that is a decision that the President is allowed to make and one that he has made and has legal authority to do so," Sanders said.

th Mulvaney and English were present at the CFBP Monday morning. Mulvaney was given full access to the CFPB director's office with "full cooperation" from its staff, a senior White House official told CNN, adding that the OMB director brought doughnuts for his new staff. English, according to a source familiar with the matter, also was present at the bureau Monday morning, but it was not immediately clear if she and Mulvaney interacted. Mulvaney's communications director tweeted a photo of his boss "hard at work" in his new position.

Mulvaney also addressed reporters Monday afternoon, where he announced a 30-day hiring freeze effective immediately and a 30-day "immediate freeze on any new rules, regulations and guidance."
"Anything that's in the pipeline stops for at least 30 days while I get a chance to see exactly what's going on," Mulvaney said.
In a remarkable example of the power struggle and resulting confusion, English and Mulvaney issued dueling emails to staff Monday morning. English's was brief, offering appreciation "to all of you for your service." Mulvaney's email directly disputed English's, asking staff to disregard her instructions and to inform the agency's general counsel of any communications from her related to bureau duties.
Both emails were signed "acting director."

Judge Timothy J. Kelly has been assigned to the case filed by English. Kelly, a former staffer of Sen. Chuck Grassley on the Senate Judiciary Committee, was nominated by Trump and confirmed by the Senate in September.
In their court filing, attorneys for English argue she is entitled to the position under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law, which created the agency and says the deputy director becomes acting director when the agency's top spot is vacant. When Cordray resigned, he named English, then his chief of staff, as deputy director, establishing her as the bureau's acting director.
But Trump named Mulvaney the head of the agency shortly after Cordray appointed English, signaling a showdown over who will take charge of the federal watchdog agency.
"The President's attempt to install a White House official at the head of an independent agency — while allowing that officer to simultaneously serve in the White House — is unprecedented," said English's lawyer, Deepak Gupta of the law firm Gupta Wessler, in the statement on Sunday. "The law is clear: Ms. English is acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau until the Senate confirms a new director."
When asked about the controversy, Mulvaney said he plans to return to work Tuesday, but also said he would "absolutely follow the law" if the courts block him from the agency.
"If the court decides to issue a temporary restraining order, order me not to come into the building, I will absolutely follow the law," Mulvaney said. "I want to make that perfectly clear. We follow the law here; that's what we do in the executive branch. I'm not concerned about it. I'm going forward tonight and tomorrow assuming that I'll be here, and I'll be here until the court or the President tells me otherwise."
The White House defended its decision Sunday night despite English's court filing.
"The administration is aware of the suit filed this evening by Deputy Director English. However the law is clear: Director Mulvaney is the Acting Director of the CFPB," Sanders said in a statement. "Now that the CFPB's own General Counsel -- who was hired under Richard Cordray -- has notified the Bureau's leadership that she agrees with the Administration's and DOJ's reading of the law, there should be no question that Director Mulvaney is the Acting Director. It is unfortunate that Mr. Cordray decided to put his political ambition above the interests of consumers with this stunt."
On Saturday morning, the White House defended Trump's choice of Mulvaney as the consumer agency's acting director, calling it a "typical, routine move."
Mulvaney and his team were not expecting a showdown at the agency Monday morning, a source close to the OMB director told CNN. They view Mulvaney's appointment as something that the Justice Department, consumer agency lawyers and staff agree upon and expect a normal transition, the source said.
"Rumors that I'm going to set the place on fire, or blow it up or lock the doors are completely false. I'm a member of the executive branch of government -- we intend to execute the laws of the United States, including the revisions of Dodd-Frank," Mulvaney said to reporters Monday afternoon.
"Anybody who thinks that a Trump administration CFPB would be the same as an Obama administration ... CFPB is simply being naive. Elections have consequences at every agency, and that includes the CFPB," he later added.
Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, a member of the Banking Committee and longtime critic of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, called English's lawsuit "just the latest lawless action" by the agency, which he labeled "rogue" and "unconstitutional" in a statement Sunday night.

"The President should fire her immediately and anyone who disobeys Director Mulvaney's orders should also be fired summarily," Cotton said. "The Constitution and the law must prevail against the supposed resistance."
But Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, said on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday that the White House's move was intentionally aimed at dismantling the agency.
"Wall Street hates it like the devil hates holy water. And they're trying to put an end to it with Mr. Mulvaney stepping into Cordray's spot," he said. "But the statute is specific, it's clear, and it says that the deputy shall take over."


----------



## Reaper

Reservoir Angel said:


> I feel this paragraph highlights that it's more than just a partisan political divide, for one simple reason:
> 
> I cannot, for the life of me, fathom how anyone can interpret Trump as either 'blue collar' or 'hyper masculine'
> 
> He's a rich New York elite business executive who inherited his money from his rich dad and who until he became President lived a life of literal gilded luxury in a golden apartment in a downtown New York skyscraper. I can think of nothing less blue collar if I tried.
> 
> And hyper masculine? To me he comes off like the most delicate bitch to ever stalk the Earth. For all he and his fans like to insult 'snowflake SJW cucks' or whatever other nonsense name they have for anyone who isn't them, I can think of nobody who is more easily offended and prone to over-emotional bursts of flailing self-obsessed outrage than Trump.
> 
> One look at his Twitter account should be enough to undercut any claim to masculinity he has. Twitter tantrums don't strike me as a particularly 'masculine' thing, unless you're a 13-year-old Call of Duty fan hyped up on Monster energy drink who thinks shouting obscenities into a microphone is the apex of awesomeness.


And none of that matters because he is able to persuade the working class by speaking their language. 

His Twitter tantrums are effective and part of that persuasion. It doesn't matter what his own origins are of if he's perceived as a birch by people who are never going to vote for him. 

You don't have to be universally beloved to be a good leader. And yes, being aggressive towards adversaries is seen as masculine. 

I know that in certain circles it isn't. But that doesn't make it true for how all men are or should be perceived.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> And none of that matters because he is able to persuade the working class by speaking their language.
> 
> His Twitter tantrums are effective and part of that persuasion. It doesn't matter what his own origins are of if he's perceived as a birch by people who are never going to vote for him.
> 
> You don't have to be universally beloved to be a good leader. And yes, being aggressive towards adversaries is seen as masculine.
> 
> I know that in certain circles it isn't. But that doesn't make it true for how all men are or should be perceived.


Trump is a terrible leader. And his tantrums are not effective, WTF are you talking about. Trump is an embarrassment and the rest of the world is laughing at him.

You truly are delusional.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is a terrible leader. And his tantrums are not effective, WTF are you talking about. Trump is an embarrassment and the rest of the world is laughing at him.
> 
> You truly are delusional.


Your reality is your reality but it isn't the reality. 

You are so far removed from anything that isn't extreme far left that you have no clue who trump appeals to. For you half of the country is just racist, sexist, homophobic trash and that's the ultimate delusion. Your fantasy is so extreme that not even the leftists on this site want to be associated with your version of far left politics. 

And that's why he won and will win again.


----------



## alejbr4

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is a terrible leader. And his tantrums are not effective, WTF are you talking about. Trump is an embarrassment and the rest of the world is laughing at him.
> 
> You truly are delusional.


i have family all over the world and they send me news stories all the time, and many countries think he is a fool! and truly are laughing at him


----------



## Reservoir Angel

Reaper said:


> And none of that matters because he is able to persuade the working class by speaking their language.
> 
> His Twitter tantrums are effective and part of that persuasion. It doesn't matter what his own origins are of if he's perceived as a birch by people who are never going to vote for him.
> 
> You don't have to be universally beloved to be a good leader.


Fair point. Here's the thing that I don't quite grasp, though. 

There must have been Presidents before who have gotten the working class on their side... and they've done it without being a loudmouth braying jackass with seemingly no comprehension of what he's doing.

There's been 43 people to hold that job before Trump, there must have in that period been some of them who have found ways of earning the support of the working class without lowering themselves to the basement-level internet troll bullshit that he seems to have built his image on.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reaper said:


> Your reality is your reality but it isn't the reality.
> 
> You are so far removed from anything that isn't extreme far left that you have no clue who trump appeals to. And that's why he won and will win again.


My reality is real reality. You have proven that over and over again, especially with your defense of Trump. 

What exactly does Trump appeal to if you are middle class or poor? He only appeals to the rich. And Trump barely won, he only won by like 80,000 votes across three states. He wont win next time since everyone has seen what a liar he is and how he has fucked over the middle class and poor and is ruining the country.

But keep with your delusionals about Trump. You just prove how you have no clue about anything.

Trump's approval rating is a historical low.

Get a clue already.


----------



## Reaper

Reservoir Angel said:


> Fair point. Here's the thing that I don't quite grasp, though.
> 
> There must have been Presidents before who have gotten the working class on their side... and they've done it without being a loudmouth braying jackass with seemingly no comprehension of what he's doing.
> 
> There's been 43 people to hold that job before Trump, there must have in that period been some of them who have found ways of earning the support of the working class without lowering themselves to the basement-level internet troll bullshit that he seems to have built his image on.


Doesn't matter how everyone else does something as long as someone else finds a new way to do it. You don't have to like it. You don't have to accept it. But over 50 million people did. 

Just as people don't want to nor have to accept the elitist, hyper robotic and impersonal verbal garbage that's written by hyper-sensitive 20 something college interns and vetted by dozens of PR agencies before getting out to the people.



birthday_massacre said:


> My reality is real reality. You have proven that over and over again, especially with your defense of Trump.


Nope. You never back up what you say. You just repeat your own rhetoric and then ignore everything that's said that counters it because you consider your position infallible even though you can't response at length once you start losing ground. . 



> What exactly does Trump appeal to if you are middle class or poor?


Well, do your own research and immerse yourself amongst conservatives. You're the one whose knowledge is lacking on how he appeals to the poor. I suggest you do what I did and dive in with a humble mindset to learn. That's what people who are genuinely curious do. Elitists continue to preach on their pulpits like you do. 



> He only appeals to the rich.


And yet all the rich democrat cronies hate him and are spending millions trying to dethrone him and block his policies :lmao 



> And Trump barely won, he only won by like 80,000 votes across three states. He wont win next time since everyone has seen what a liar he is and how he has fucked over the middle class and poor and is ruining the country.


It's been made abundantly clear that you hold views where you don't want to accept the constitutional republic when your favored candidate loses. You don't want to accept the reason why the electoral college exists and you have refused to understand it. This talking point with you is a waste of everyone's time and mental energies. 



> But keep with your delusionals about Trump. You just prove how you have no clue about anything.


People who usually say that have already lost not just their argument but their composure. 



> Trump's approval rating is a historical low.


Why would it matter how people perceive him? There are always cases of prejudicial hatred. We know this because we live in a world where homophobia, transphobia and racism exists. 

Most people as we know suffer from Trumpophobia too so of course it's going to reflect in polls. Just like these polls: 












> Get a clue already.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

alejbr4 said:


> i have family all over the world and they send me news stories all the time, and many countries think he is a fool! and truly are laughing at him


I'm in the UK and I honestly don't think I've ever heard anyone genuinely express any opinion about him other than "what the fuck is wrong with him?" and I live in the goddamn conservative part of this country, the place that loves Theresa May and votes for the Tories every single time without even thinking about it, believes Thatcher was the best Prime Minister, and wants Nigel Farage to be knighted because of Brexit.

And even people who think all that can't understand what the fuck is going on over in America in regards to this idiot.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Reaper said:


> And none of that matters because he is able to persuade the working class by speaking their language.
> 
> His Twitter tantrums are effective and part of that persuasion. It doesn't matter what his own origins are of if he's perceived as a birch by people who are never going to vote for him.
> 
> You don't have to be universally beloved to be a good leader. And yes, being aggressive towards adversaries is seen as masculine.
> 
> I know that in certain circles it isn't. But that doesn't make it true for how all men are or should be perceived.


I like you reaper. I really do. But this is one of the most laughable things I've ever read. 

His twitter tantrums have been by no means effective, and have done more harm to him in the grand scheme of things. His twitter rants about a shit ton of illegals supposedly voting in the Presidential Election alone hurt his standing with a lot of his followers. He's insulted people in his twitter rants, and at one point he almost fucked himself over with a tweet during the whole Russian investigation fiasco. 

What I'm about to say should be taken with a grain of salt, but I live in an area where we had a lot of Trump supporters, and a lot of them live within my apartment complex. Most of them are good people, and quite a few of already said they don't plan to vote for Trump again in 2020 because they feel embarrassed by how he handles himself as a President.

I don't like that reasoning, as I'm of the belief that it's more about the results being provided than the way a person acts. But with all that said, Trump hasn't provided great results (yet). He needs to give people who don't believe in him a reason to want to vote for him. And right now, at least in my area, he's turning away the people who voted for him.

His twitter tantrums aren't effective, and they need to stop. I don't care for this little recent incident from him. At this point, I wouldn't expect anything less, so I don't think much of it. But what you're doing basically qualifies as blindly defending him. It's okay to support him, it's okay to defend him, but when you try defending every single thing he does, it becomes hard for us to take your word seriously. If you don't care what we think of you, then that's fine, but the thing is, why go through the effort defending him if none of us are going to take your word for it?

Just something to keep in mind. It's okay for Trump to do something wrong every now and then, all we're asking is that you start acting like he did rather than try to make out everything he does as being beneficial to the country.


----------



## birthday_massacre

alejbr4 said:


> i have family all over the world and they send me news stories all the time, and many countries think he is a fool! and truly are laughing at him


Reaper lives in his Trump bubble, where he thinks most people love him even though the facts show differently.


----------



## Mister Abigail

Pocahontas.


Pocahontas.


Pocahontas.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Rightwingers trying to give fake Roy Moore stories to make news papers look bad

Washington Post: Project Veritas Tried to Sell Us Bogus Roy Moore Story

https://www.thedailybeast.com/washington-post-project-veritas-tried-to-sell-us-bogus-roy-moore-story

right-wing activism organization Project Veritas, known for its highly edited hidden camera stings on liberals, seems to have gotten its most recent sting operation exposed by The Washington Post. An apparent employee or associate of the conservative group attempted to convince the Post that Senate candidate Roy Moore had impregnated her and forced her to get an abortion at 15. The woman, who went by Jamie Phillips, told reporters that Moore had abused her as a teenager, and that she wanted the Post to guarantee that Moore would lose his election if she came forward. But in doing their background research, Post reporters found holes in Phillips’ story, including that she did not work for the insurance company she named as her employer, and that she had published a GoFundMe page asking friends for money so that she could move to New York “to work in the conservative media movement to combat the lies and deceipt [sic] of the liberal MSM.” In a videotaped conversation with a Post reporter, Phillips continued to spin a web of debunked tales, ultimately backing out when it became apparent that she had become the story itself. The Post then saw her entering the Mamaroneck, New York offices of Project Veritas. The Post did not publish Phillips’ false allegations against Moore.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...cbe2af58c3a_story.html?utm_term=.2f4591dad8e8

A woman approached The Post with dramatic — and false — tale about Roy Moore. She appears to be part of undercover sting operation.

A woman who falsely claimed to The Washington Post that Roy Moore, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Alabama, impregnated her as a teenager appears to work with an organization that uses deceptive tactics to secretly record conversations in an effort to embarrass its targets.

In a series of interviews over two weeks, the woman shared a dramatic story about an alleged sexual relationship with Moore in 1992 that led to an abortion when she was 15. During the interviews, she repeatedly pressed Post reporters to give their opinions on the effects that her claims could have on Moore’s candidacy if she went public.

The Post did not publish an article based on her unsubstantiated account. When Post reporters confronted her with inconsistencies in her story and an Internet posting that raised doubts about her motivations, she insisted that she was not working with any organization that targets journalists.

ut on Monday morning, Post reporters saw her walking into the New York offices of Project Veritas, an organization that targets the mainstream news media and left-leaning groups. The organization sets up undercover “stings” that involve using false cover stories and covert video recordings meant to expose what the group says is media bias.

James O’Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas who was convicted of a misdemeanor in 2010 for using a fake identity to enter a federal building during a previous sting, declined to answer questions about the woman outside the Project Veritas office, a storefront in Mamaroneck, N.Y., on Monday morning shortly after the woman walked inside.

“I am not doing an interview right now, so I’m not going to say a word,” O’Keefe said.

In a follow-up interview, O’Keefe declined to answer repeated questions about whether the woman was employed at Project Veritas. He also did not respond when asked if he was working with Moore, former White House adviser and Moore supporter Stephen K. Bannon, or Republican strategists.

The group’s efforts illustrate the lengths to which activists have gone to try to discredit media outlets for reporting on allegations from multiple women that Moore pursued them when they were teenagers and he was in his early 30s. Moore has denied that he did anything improper. 

A spokesman for Moore’s campaign did not immediately respond to a message for comment.


The woman who approached Post reporters, Jaime T. Phillips, did not respond to calls to her cellphone Monday morning. Her car remained in the Project Veritas parking lot for more than an hour.

After Phillips was observed entering the Project Veritas office, The Post made the unusual decision to report her previous off-the-record comments.

“We always honor ‘off-the-record’ agreements when they’re entered into in good faith,” said Martin Baron, The Post’s executive editor. “But this so-called off-the-record conversation was the essence of a scheme to deceive and embarrass us. The intent by Project Veritas clearly was to publicize the conversation if we fell for the trap. Because of our customary journalistic rigor, we weren’t fooled, and we can’t honor an ‘off-the-record’ agreement that was solicited in maliciously bad faith.”

Phillips’s arrival at the Project Veritas office capped a weeks-long effort that began only hours after The Post published an article on Nov. 9 that included allegations that Moore once initiated a sexual encounter with a 14-year-old named Leigh Corfman. 


Post reporter Beth Reinhard, who co-wrote the article about Corfman, received a cryptic email early the next morning.

“Roy Moore in Alabama . . . I might know something but I need to keep myself safe. How do we do this?” the apparent tipster wrote under an account with the name “Lindsay James.” 

The email’s subject line was “Roy Moore in AL.” The sender’s email address included “rolltide,” the rallying cry of the University of Alabama’s sports teams, which are nicknamed the Crimson Tide. 

Reinhard sent an email asking if the person was willing to talk off the record.

“Not sure if I trust the phone,” came the reply. “Can we just stick to email?” 

“I need to be confident that you can protect me before I will tell all,” the person wrote in a subsequent email. “I have stuff I’ve been hiding for a long time but maybe it should stay that way.”

The tipster’s email came amid counterattacks by Moore supporters aimed at The Post and its reporters.

That same day, Gateway Pundit, a conservative site, spread a false story from a Twitter account, @umpire43, that said, “A family friend in Alabama just told my wife that a WAPO reporter named Beth offer her 1000$ to accuse Roy Moore.” The Twitter account, which has a history of spreading misinformation, has since been deleted.

The Post, like many other news organizations, has a strict policy against paying people for information and did not do so in its coverage of Moore.

On Nov. 14, a pastor in Alabama said he received a voice mail from a man falsely claiming to be a Post reporter and seeking women “willing to make damaging remarks” about Moore for money. No one associated with The Post made any such call.

In the days that followed the purported tipster’s initial emails, Reinhard communicated with the woman through an encrypted text messaging service and spoke by phone with the person to set up a meeting. When the woman suggested a meeting in New York, Reinhard told her she would have to know more about her story and her background. The woman offered that her real name was Jaime Phillips. 

Phillips said she lived in New York but would be in the D.C. area during Thanksgiving week and suggested meeting Tuesday in a shopping mall in Tysons Corner, Va. “I’m planning to do some shopping there so I’ll find a good place to meet before you get there,” Phillips wrote in a message sent via Signal, the encrypted messaging service. 

When Reinhard suggested bringing another reporter, Phillips wrote, “I’m not really comfortable with anyone else being there this time.”

Reinhard arrived to find Phillips, wearing a brown leather jacket and with long red hair, already seated in a booth in the restaurant. 

The 41-year-old said she had been abused as a child, Reinhard said. Her family had moved often. She said she moved in with an aunt in the Talladega area of Alabama and started attending a church youth group when she met Moore in 1992, the year he became a county judge. She said she was 15. She said they started a “secret” sexual relationship.

“I knew it wasn’t right, but I didn’t care,” she said.

She said that she got pregnant, that Moore talked her into an abortion, and that he drove her to Mississippi to get it.

In the interview, she told Reinhard that she was so upset she couldn’t finish her salad.

Phillips said she had started thinking about coming forward after the allegations about Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein surfaced. Then she said she saw the news about Moore flashing across the television screen while in a break room at her job at a company called NFM Lending in Westchester County, N.Y., Reinhard said.

Phillips also repeatedly asked the reporter to guarantee her that Moore would lose the election if she came forward. Reinhard told her in a subsequent text message that she could not predict what the impact would be. Reinhard said she also explained to Phillips that her claims would have to be fact-checked. Additionally, Reinhard asked her for documents that would corroborate or support her story.

Later that day, Phillips told Reinhard that she felt “anxiety & negative energy after our meeting,” text messages show. “You just didn’t convince me that I should come forward,” she wrote. 

Reinhard replied, “I’m so sorry but I want to be straight with you about the fact-checking process and the fact that we can’t guarantee what will happen as a result of another story.”

Phillips was not satisfied. On Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving, she suggested meeting with another Post reporter, Stephanie McCrummen, who co-wrote the initial article about Corfman. “I’d rather go to another paper than talk to you again,” Phillips told Reinhard. 

Back at the newsroom, Reinhard became concerned about elements of Phillips’s story. Phillips had said she lived in Alabama only for a summer while a teenager; but the cellphone number Phillips provided had an Alabama area code. Reinhard called NFM Lending in Westchester County, but they said a person named Jaime Phillips did not work there. 

Alice Crites, a Post researcher who was looking into Phillips’s background, found the document that strongly reinforced the reporters’ suspicions: a Web page for a fundraising campaign by someone with the same name. It was on the website GoFundMe.com under the name Jaime Phillips.


The GoFundMe fundraising page. (Internet Archive)
“I’m moving to New York!” the May 29 appeal said. “I’ve accepted a job to work in the conservative media movement to combat the lies and deceipt of the liberal MSM. I’ll be using my skills as a researcher and fact-checker to help our movement. I was laid off from my mortgage job a few months ago and came across the opportunity to change my career path.”

In a March posting on its Facebook page, Project Veritas said it was seeking 12 new “undercover reporters,” though the organization’s operatives use methods that are eschewed by mainstream journalists, such as misrepresenting themselves. 

A posting for the “journalist” job on the Project Veritas website that month warned that the job “is not a role for the faint of heart.”

The job’s listed goal: “To adopt an alias persona, gain access to an identified person of interest and persuade that person to reveal information.”

It also listed tasks that the job applicant should be able to master, including: “Learning a script,” “Preparing a background story to support your role,” “Gaining an appointment or access to the target of the investigation,” and “Operating concealed recording equipment.”

Project Veritas, founded in 2010, is a tax-exempt charity that says its mission is to “investigate and expose corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud and other misconduct.” It raised $4.8 million and employed 38 people in 2016, according to its public tax filing. It also had 92 volunteers.

O’Keefe’s criminal record has caused the charity problems in some states. Mississippi and Utah stripped the group of a license to raise money in those states because it failed to disclose O’Keefe’s conviction on state applications, records show.

Also working at Veritas is former television producer Robert J. Halderman, who was sentenced to six months in jail in 2010 after he was accused of trying to blackmail late-night host David Letterman. Halderman was with O’Keefe outside the Project Veritas offices Monday as a reporter tried to ask about Phillips’s role with the organization.

Because Jaime Phillips is a relatively common name, it wasn’t a certainty that the GoFundMe page that Crites found was created by was the same woman who approached The Post. But there was another telling detail, in addition to the name. One of two donations listed on the page was from a person whose name that matched her daughter’s, according to public records.

McCrummen agreed to meet Phillips that afternoon.

Phillips suggested meeting somewhere in Alexandria, Va., saying she was shopping in the area. Post videographers accompanied McCrummen, who brought a printout of the fundraising page to the interview.

Again, Phillips had arrived early and was waiting for McCrummen, her purse resting on the table. When McCrummen put her purse near Phillips’s purse to block a possible camera, Phillips moved hers.

The Post videographers sat separately, unnoticed, at an adjacent table. 

Phillips said she didn’t want to get into the details of what she had said happened between her and Moore. 

She said she wanted McCrummen to assure her that the article would result in Moore’s defeat, according to a recording. McCrummen instead asked her about her story regarding Moore.

Phillips complained that President Trump had endorsed Moore. 

“So my whole thing is, like, I want him to be completely taken out of the race . . . ” she said. “And I really expected that was going to happen, and now it’s not. So, I don’t know what you think about that.” 

McCrummen asked Phillips to verify her identity with a photo identification. Phillips provided a Georgia driver’s license. 

McCrummen then asked her about the GoFundMe page.

“We have a process of doing background, checking backgrounds and this kind of thing, so I wanted to ask you about one thing,” McCrummen said, pulling out a copy of the page and reading from it. “So I just wanted to ask you if you could explain this, and I also wanted to let you know, Jaime, that this is being recorded and video recorded.” 

“Okay,” Phillips said. “Um, yeah, I was looking to take a job last summer in New York, but it fell through,” Phillips said. “Yeah, it was going to be with the Daily Caller, but it ended up falling through, so I wasn’t able to do it.”

When asked who at the Daily Caller interviewed her, Phillips said, “Kathy,” pausing before adding the last name, “Johnson.”

Paul Conner, executive editor of the Daily Caller, said Monday that no one with the name Kathy Johnson works for the publication and that he has no record of having personally interviewed Phillips. Conner later said in email that he had asked other top editors at the Daily Caller and the affiliated Daily Caller News Foundation about Phillips.

“None of us has interviewed a woman by the name Jaime Phillips,” Conner wrote.

At the Alexandria restaurant on Wednesday, Phillips also told The Post that she had not been in contact with the Moore campaign. As the interview ended, Phillips told McCrummen she was not recording the conversation.

“I think I probably just want to cancel and not go through with it at this point,” Phillips said at Souvlaki Bar shortly before ending the interview. 

“I’m not going to answer any more questions,” she said. “I think I’m just going to go.”

She picked up her coat and bag, returned her drink to the front counter and left the restaurant.

By 7 p.m. the message on the GoFundMe page was gone, replaced by a new one.

“Campaign is complete and no longer active,” it read.

Thomas LeGro and Dalton Bennett contributed to this report.


----------



## stevefox1200

The president using his platform to screech at news agencies, companies and politicians for not supporting his is not "small government"

Its fucking massive government

Trump idea's of "small government" is just getting rid of departments he dosn't like no mater what their responsibility entail.

The only way Trump could be interpreted as small government is the he spreads so much discontent and pettiness that people start believing that government and the president are petty positions that are not worth listing to so its OK to just ignore them. If you think that's a good idea than you are a fucking idiot because that leaks to ALL leadership, not just the government


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> The president using his platform to screech at news agencies, companies and politicians for not supporting his is not "small government"
> 
> Its fucking massive government
> 
> Trump idea's of "small government" is just getting rid of departments he dosn't like no mater what their responsibility entail.
> 
> The only way Trump could be interpreted as small government is the he spreads so much discontent and pettiness that people start believing that government and the president are petty positions that are not worth listing to so its OK to just ignore them. If you think that's a good idea than you are a fucking idiot because that leaks to ALL leadership, not just the government


Find me a single Trump supporter that thinks he's perfect and I'll find you a pink unicorn. 

The idea that any of us here despite our constant criticisms of his various policies repeatedly are that kind of a supporter is basically a battle _you _guys have created because that battle is in your head. You even made a rant thread about Trump supporters and have made spurious claims about what we think of him. Just because we disagree on certain perceptions of certain behaviors does not mean that we endorse everything that he ever does or says :lol 

You bring up arguments and all we end up saying is "It's not that bad, man" or that it could be worse. 

Trump has his big government agendas like all Republicans but he's not _as _authoritarian as Democrats. Not even remotely close. The very fact that you do have to acknowledge that he wants to dismantle departments that currently exist is actually evidence of that fact. Dismantling parts of the government in order to reduce power of the government is not authoritarian. Don't even try to twist it in such a way that it is :lol 

Him screeching about certain things meanwhile not actually acting like a demagogue to achieve them means that he respects the limits of his powers. If he wanted more power, you'd see him _creating _bureaucracy and new levels of government instead of dismantling them or demanding that others (especially congress) do their jobs.


----------



## Mister Abigail

Reaper said:


> Find me a single Trump supporter that thinks he's perfect and I'll find you a pink unicorn.


Actual picture of @Reaper


----------



## stevefox1200

Reaper said:


> Find me a single Trump supporter that thinks he's perfect and I'll find you a pink unicorn.
> 
> The idea that any of us here despite our constant criticisms of his various policies repeatedly are that kind of a supporter is basically a battle _you _guys have created because that battle is in your head. You even made a rant thread about Trump supporters and have made spurious claims about what we think of him. Just because we disagree on certain perceptions of certain behaviors does not mean that we endorse everything that he ever does or says :lol
> 
> You bring up arguments and all we end up saying is "It's not that bad, man" or that it could be worse.
> 
> Trump has his big government agendas like all Republicans but he's not _as _authoritarian as Democrats. Not even remotely close. The very fact that you do have to acknowledge that he wants to dismantle departments that currently exist is actually evidence of that fact. Dismantling parts of the government in order to reduce power of the government is not authoritarian. Don't even try to twist it in such a way that it is :lol
> 
> Him screeching about certain things meanwhile not actually acting like a demagogue to achieve them means that he respects the limits of his powers. If he wanted more power, you'd see him _creating _bureaucracy and new levels of government instead of dismantling them or demanding that others (especially congress) do their jobs.


The departments that Trump wants to dismantle are mostly departments that affected his and his supporter's businesses and ones he just doesn't care about

Some of the most dismantled departments are fucking foreign relations, something the "Free market" can't really do on its own.

I'm fine with big government, I'm fine with small government. I just want effective government

Trump polices only make the government "smaller" by employing less people, it mostly just makes the laws and regulations and government stances less effective


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> The departments that Trump wants to dismantle are mostly departments that affected his and his supporter's businesses and ones he just doesn't care about


Such as? 



> Some of the most dismantled departments are fucking foreign relations, something the "Free market" can't really do on its own.


Yeah, it can. It always has since time immemorial. The thing that supports commerce is trade routes and pricing which the capitalists are perfectly capable of managing on their own. They've done this in small to no government environments, they've done it in communist governments and they've done it in non-regulated environments. Government does not impact trade globally as is widely believed. It impacts it more negatively than it does positively. 

The _only _way governments have gotten involved in foreign policy is either through wars (which are bad for business as peace time has always been more prosperous contrary to popular conventional mythology), or through funneling tax payer money into their pet projects. 

Generally countries with more economic freedom (less regulatory environment and fewer wars) are _always _more prosperous. And that's true today as well. Look at the list of the most prosperous countries (I'm not talking about richest countries) and you'll see that they have smaller governments, less regulation and more economic freedom. It's a matter of fact. 



> I'm fine with big government, I'm fine with small government. I just want effective government


And in what way has Trump's executive office been ineffective? Remember the separation of powers here. I know we're used to the executive office over-reaching over the last few decades, and so aren't we projecting our own demands for more executive office control? 

I'm ok with him just being a ceremonial President. He doesn't make policy nor shapes it. That's the job of Congress. 



> Trump polices only make the government "smaller" by employing less people, it mostly just makes the laws and regulations and government stances less effective


But Trump is _not _a policy maker. He's an agenda setter. They're different things. The executive office is limited in power and scope. I don't understand what you _want _him to do. 

Congress are the policy makers and where has congress made any new and ineffective policies so far. In fact, that is currently the problem with the congress. They're not doing their jobs.

You can't have it both ways. If Trump sought and gained more power, he'd be called a dictator. Now that he isn't, he's ineffective. You don't even have a proper stance on what he's supposed to be or supposed to do. It's just a case of everything he does is wrong from my perspective.


----------



## CamillePunk

More outrage over shit that doesn't matter at all. :lol I wonder when the professionally and perennially outraged will get bored, but then I realized I'm not even close to being bored. :lol One hundred years President Trump, please.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> More outrage over shit that doesn't matter at all. :lol I wonder when the professionally and perennially outraged will get bored, but then I realized I'm not even close to being bored. :lol One hundred years President Trump, please.


it doesn't matter the Trump makes a racial slur about native Americans at an honorary event for native Americans?

Just more proof how Trump supporters will defend anything.


----------



## stevefox1200

Reaper said:


> Such as?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it can. It always has since time immemorial. The thing that supports commerce is trade routes and pricing which the capitalists are perfectly capable of managing on their own. They've done this in small to no government environments, they've done it in communist governments and they've done it in non-regulated environments. Government does not impact trade globally as is widely believed. It impacts it more negatively than it does positively.
> 
> The _only _way governments have gotten involved in foreign policy is either through wars (which are bad for business as peace time has always been more prosperous contrary to popular conventional mythology), or through funneling tax payer money into their pet projects.
> 
> Generally countries with more economic freedom (less regulatory environment and fewer wars) are _always _more prosperous. And that's true today as well. Look at the list of the most prosperous countries (I'm not talking about richest countries) and you'll see that they have smaller governments, less regulation and more economic freedom. It's a matter of fact.
> 
> 
> 
> And in what way has Trump's executive office been ineffective? Remember the separation of powers here. I know we're used to the executive office over-reaching over the last few decades, and so aren't we projecting our own demands for more executive office control?
> 
> I'm ok with him just being a ceremonial President. He doesn't make policy nor shapes it. That's the job of Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> But Trump is _not _a policy maker. He's an agenda setter. They're different things. The executive office is limited in power and scope. I don't understand what you _want _him to do.
> 
> Congress are the policy makers and where has congress made any new and ineffective policies so far. In fact, that is currently the problem with the congress. They're not doing their jobs.
> 
> You can't have it both ways. If Trump sought and gained more power, he'd be called a dictator. Now that he isn't, he's ineffective. You don't even have a proper stance on what he's supposed to be or supposed to do. It's just a case of everything he does is wrong from my perspective.


Betsy, Rick and most of the department heads have finical ties to the industries that the departments they run now regulate and have been in fairly open about want to deregulate them

Trade war and piracy were MASSIVE in the years of open seas, it became industry in itself and become so big that governments themselves had to get in. It wasn't until someone decided that interrupting trade was a government matter that was some insurance that it wouldn't be robbed. Deregulating trade encourages corporate sabotage and proxy warfare.

And most dictators are ineffective as fuck because they choose to base their laws around what sounds good ideologically, what they think they people should and shouldn't do or, even worse, what they want to do. The want to restructure government and society into some hypothetical "vision" with zero ideas of functionality.

Long running effective dictators base their laws and regulation on what allows their nation and society to function, often in ways that extend their powers. They have to create a function government and society first and party later. 

Trump runs his government like the former.

HE wants to hunt elephants so he tries to deregulates it, HE doesn't like the department of energy so he tires to deregulate it, HE doesn't care about foreign relations so he deregulates it. 

Trump doesn't give a fuck WHY those departments do what they do, or WHY laws exist. He just knows he doesn't like them so they have to go. He and his DOE choice came into the department thinking they could just dismantle and found out that, OH SHIT, this departments regulates the nuclear arsenal. Trump didn't know and didn't care, he just knew he didn't like so he picked someone who he thought would dismantle it. 

Trump doesn't deregulate departments to make them smaller, he does because he is not interested in running them.

Its fucking irresponsible for a class president let alone a real one


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> Betsy, Rick and most of the department heads have finical ties to the industries that the departments they run now regulate and have been in fairly open about want to deregulate them
> 
> Trade war and piracy were MASSIVE in the years of open seas, it became industry in itself and become so big that governments themselves had to get in. It wasn't until someone decided that interrupting trade was a government matter that was some insurance that it wouldn't be robbed. Deregulating trade encourages corporate sabotage and proxy warfare.
> 
> And most dictators are ineffective as fuck because they choose to base their laws around what sounds good ideologically, what they think they people should and shouldn't do or, even worse, what they want to do. The want to restructure government and society into some hypothetical "vision" with zero ideas of functionality.
> 
> Long running effective dictators base their laws and regulation on what allows their nation and society to function, often in ways that extend their powers. They have to create a function government and society first and party later.
> 
> Trump runs his government like the former.
> 
> HE wants to hunt elephants so he tries to deregulates it, HE doesn't like the department of energy so he tires to deregulate it, HE doesn't care about foreign relations so he deregulates it.
> 
> Trump doesn't give a fuck WHY those departments do what they do, or WHY laws exist. He just knows he doesn't like them so they have to go. He and his DOE choice came into the department thinking they could just dismantle and found out that, OH SHIT, this departments regulates the nuclear arsenal. Trump didn't know and didn't care, he just knew he didn't like so he picked someone who he thought would dismantle it.
> 
> Trump doesn't deregulate departments to make them smaller, he does because he is not interested in running them.
> 
> Its fucking irresponsible for a class president let alone a real one


I'll respond to you later in depth about your other points but I ad to address this particular brand of BS you're trying to sell. 

You have no clue how an actual dictatorship functions. None whatsoever. All you're describing is the behavior of any man who is exercising power that he is given. This simply means that a hierarchical government is authoritative and functions that way but if that makes trump a dictator then it makes every single one a dictator before him. This comparison is laughable when people made it to Obama and it's laughable that you're making it to him. 

I spent 8 years living under one and fighting to overthrow him. And he was one of the benevolent ones but he always consolidated the state by making all levels of government subservient to him and him alone. That's what a dictator is. Please stop bsing and make hyperbolic exaggerations. 

The sheer hysteria and fantasy you're living in laughable.



birthday_massacre said:


> Reaper lives in his Trump bubble, where he thinks most people love him even though the facts show differently.


This after I literally said that most people hate him ... of course he hate is unjustified nd unjustifiable. That's already apparent in this thread with all the hyperbole and exaggerations.

When you have people trying to delude themselves into thinking he's a Russian spy agent dictator and every negative adjective that exists in a thesaurus without a shred of evidence, you realize the mass hysteria bubble that exists and you realize that these people are beyond redeemable.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Trump/Russia was so 6 months ago, yet some around here are still banging that drum. It's gonna be a long and miserable 7 years for them.


----------



## Vic Capri

Keith Olbermann retired from political commentary today. :lol

*#HeBrokeMe*










- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> it doesn't matter the Trump makes a racial slur about native Americans at an honorary event for native Americans?
> 
> Just more proof how Trump supporters will defend anything.


----------



## samizayn

CamillePunk said:


> More outrage over shit that doesn't matter at all. :lol I wonder when the professionally and perennially outraged will get bored, but then I realized I'm not even close to being bored. :lol One hundred years President Trump, please.


They certainly do. As a citizen in any kind of democracy, you must give weight to a leader's publicly voiced thoughts. Otherwise you're just waiting for the action, by which point it's too late. That's not to say a leader's thoughts will always translate to his actions, just that it's in your best interest to treat it as a likelihood.

Trump's main problem is that he doesn't seem to see that there is a difference between voicing certain thoughts as a citizen, and voicing them as the most powerful person in the US. His attacks on CNN, WaPo, and the FAILING NEW YORK TIMES are shocking, for example, because they're getting people acclimatised with a political leader attacking the press.

Though it seems he may have had a point about the New York Times 

edit: This goes for the broader picture, too. Thoughts and ideas and ideologies don't inhabit some other plane of existence.


----------



## CamillePunk

samizayn said:


> They certainly do. As a citizen in any kind of democracy, you must give weight to a leader's publicly voiced thoughts.


Yeah if they're voicing serious thoughts about a serious issue. Calling Rocket Man fat and short or making a joke about a white Senator who faked Native American ancestry is not in the category of serious thoughts worth giving any weight to. Its just outrage fodder, or for those of us with a sense of humor, jokes.


----------



## samizayn

^Sure. Especially since generally speaking in the public sphere if it can be made into an outrage, it will be. But I find excessive outrage far preferable to its alternative.


----------



## DOPA

Why am I not surprised people are saying a joke that was clearly aimed at that fraud Elizabeth Warren was racist? Did any of you actually watch the native american conference where this comment took place? The comment was clearly made at the expense of Warren and not directed at the Native Americans themselves. *Context* people, *context.* If this were a joke done at the expense of a Republican, the same people crying racist would be laughing their asses off.

The outrage culture over Trump is absurd. Plenty of issues to be mad about with him, this certainly isn't one of them. That sell out Warren deserves to be ridiculed.


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> ^Sure. Especially since generally speaking in the public sphere if it can be made into an outrage, it will be..* But I find excessive outrage far preferable to its alternative*


I know you're trying to say outrage vs apathy but seriously, given that the outrage is pretty much _entirely_ irrational and phobic, you ended up making it seem like you prefer outrage to rationality and common sense.

----



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935353435636908032

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935201052361674753
Very interesting development and perhaps change in immigration policy happening in France right now. Keeping my eyes on this. We thought that it was lost but maybe there is hope after all.

----


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935147767726448640
I do consider this a waste of tax payer money, but since I've come to realize that this is one of the primary roles (imo) of the American Executive Office (i.e. be a ceremonial position primarily for agenda and national mood setting), I have to admit that I love the incredible aesthetic of this year's decorations. 

It's a symbolic gesture and I appreciate it.

---



















The PoS fraud uses the Cherokee ancestory "proudly" blatantly ignores and refuses to meet with REAL Cherokees who refute her claim, because there is nothing more profitable in politics than lying. 

Warren is a snake. She deserves to be ridiculed and condemned at every possible opportunity.


----------



## Miss Sally

Warren is a fraud just like Shaun King is a fraud. People who fake their heritage for some sort of advantage are scummy.

Anyone with half a brain would know who Pocahontas was since Trump has been blasting her with that for a long time. 

Maybe to some people heritage means nothing but to Native Americans it means a lot. Warren is such a poser that there is no love for her in the community.

But leave it to the "Sisterhood of Perpetually Offended White People" to blow it out of proportion.



samizayn said:


> ^Sure. Especially since generally speaking in the public sphere if it can be made into an outrage, it will be. But I find excessive outrage far preferable to its alternative.


Excessive outrage leads to apathy. How many people take drama queens or hypochondriacs seriously? This is basically the boy who cried wolf, except replace it with outrage and eventually nobody cares. People can be roused to care when things matter but people who've had enough of the bullshit cannot be. Excessive outrage is far worse.


----------



## Art Vandaley

So would the people who believe this isn't racist believe it was if they believed Elizabeth Warren did have native american ancestry?


----------



## Draykorinee

I don't think he meant it to be racist, he's just a bumbling buffoon in this instance. This isn't a grab them by the pussy moment where he should be torn to pieces.
He's just not smart enough to put two and two together in this instance and realise it's in poor taste.
Theres not an ounce of malice behind this.


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> Warren is a fraud just like Shaun King is a fraud. People who fake their heritage for some sort of advantage are scummy.
> 
> Anyone with half a brain would know who Pocahontas was since Trump has been blasting her with that for a long time.
> 
> Maybe to some people heritage means nothing but to Native Americans it means a lot. Warren is such a poser that there is no love for her in the community.
> 
> But leave it to the "Sisterhood of Perpetually Offended White People" to blow it out of proportion.
> 
> 
> 
> samizayn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^Sure. Especially since generally speaking in the public sphere if it can be made into an outrage, it will be. But I find excessive outrage far preferable to its alternative.
> 
> 
> 
> Excessive outrage leads to apathy. How many people take drama queens or hypochondriacs seriously? This is basically the boy who cried wolf, except replace it with outrage and eventually nobody cares. People can be roused to care when things matter but people who've had enough of the bullshit cannot be. Excessive outrage is far worse.
Click to expand...

The largest native American advocacy group condemned his comments, not sure why you focus on white people.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> Warren is a fraud just like Shaun King is a fraud. People who fake their heritage for some sort of advantage are scummy.
> 
> Anyone with half a brain would know who Pocahontas was since Trump has been blasting her with that for a long time.
> 
> Maybe to some people heritage means nothing but to Native Americans it means a lot. Warren is such a poser that there is no love for her in the community.
> 
> But leave it to the "Sisterhood of Perpetually Offended White People" to blow it out of proportion.
> 
> 
> 
> Excessive outrage leads to apathy. How many people take drama queens or hypochondriacs seriously? This is basically the boy who cried wolf, except replace it with outrage and eventually nobody cares. People can be roused to care when things matter but people who've had enough of the bullshit cannot be. Excessive outrage is far worse.


So if Trump called Sean King the N word you would defend Trump and claim he was not using a racial slur and it wasn't a racist comment?


----------



## Reaper

If moonshine existed and sunshine called pink unicorns stinkypoopoo is sunshine sexist? Or is it a stardust agent colluding with bubbly bibblepop to become a Vagtating Shitler? 



draykorinee said:


> The largest native American advocacy group condemned his comments, not sure why you focus on white people.


Advocacy groups are very much full of white people. Even if they aren't, I don't really care much for what they think. There's a very prominent "advocacy group" in America that's putting out lists that have classical liberal reporters on them claiming that they're right-wing terrorists. 

Advocacy groups can be made to give out statements all the time. The next day a pro-republican advocacy group is gonna come out and endorse Trump as non-racist. Meanwhile people don't realize just how irrelevant these groups really are. 

Since you yourself believe that what Trump said wasn't racist, then what does the condemnation of any one else matter?

----


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935230976204165123
One of the kids in the background "OMG she's so beautiful, like an angel". :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

draykorinee said:


> The largest native American advocacy group condemned his comments, not sure why you focus on white people.


It's usually whiny white people making the biggest deals out of nothing.



birthday_massacre said:


> So if Trump called Sean King the N word you would defend Trump and claim he was not using a racial slur and it wasn't a racist comment?


This isn't the same thing and ****** would make more sense since Shaun is a fake black man. But if he did call him an "N Word" which wouldn't make any sense I would think it was in bad taste but again there isn't really a scenario in which this plays out. These two situations just aren't even the same. What Trump did was in bad taste but Warren is a fraud, it was targeted at Warren, it was specific to her, it wasn't encompassing the entire Native American peoples.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> It's usually whiny white people making the biggest deals out of nothing.


The Navajo Nation said it was a racial slur and incentive. 


https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/28/trump-native-americans-pocahontas-elizabeth-warren-262266

Navajo Nation president calls Trump's 'Pocahontas' quip an ethnic slur

he leader of the Navajo Nation said Tuesday that President Donald Trump used an ethnic slur when he called Sen. Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas” during a White House event honoring Native American veterans.

Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye told CNN that the president’s injection of a political attack during a ceremony honoring Navajo code talkers was “uncalled for.”

“This was a day to honor them, and to insert something like that — the word ‘Pocahontas’ as a jab to a senator — you know, that belongs on the campaign trail,” Begaye said. “That doesn’t belong in the room when our war heroes are being honored.”

Trump, standing in front of a painting of President Andrew Jackson, who signed the Indian Removal Act, thanked the code talkers on Monday for their contributions to World War II and acknowledged that Native Americans “were here long before any of us were here — although we have a representative in Congress who they say was here a long time ago. They call her Pocahontas.”

Warren (D-Mass.), who claims to have Native American heritage, called it “deeply unfortunate” that Trump couldn’t refrain from using “a racial slur” during the ceremony. The White House, however, disputed that characterization, with press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders telling reporters the notion that Trump used a racial slur is “ridiculous.”


But Begaye disagreed. “I feel that the way it was used, yes, it was” a racial slur, he told CNN. “Pocahontas is a real person. It’s not a caricature. It’s not something that’s just made up. This is a person, a young lady and Native American woman, that played a critical role in the life of this nation. And to use that person in that way is unnecessary and being culturally insensitive.”


----------



## Reaper

So you're saying that the Navajo speak for all natives and that we should accept that if one person from one tribe says that it's racist, therefore it's racist? 

How racist.

"I feel like when white people disagree with me since I'm not a white person, therefore they're using their colonial racial power especially if they're british makes then always racist because I'm a non-white person".

You can't utter any Pakistani names or make fun of any Pakistanis anymore even if they're not Pakistanis because your white tongue is disgusting and no I'm not racist at all. From now on anyone that ever cracks a joke about me or baits or insults me, they're racists towards all Pakistanis  

Sorry, this is horrible logic.


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> The Navajo Nation said it was a racial slur and incentive.
> 
> 
> https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/28/trump-native-americans-pocahontas-elizabeth-warren-262266
> 
> Navajo Nation president calls Trump's 'Pocahontas' quip an ethnic slur
> 
> he leader of the Navajo Nation said Tuesday that President Donald Trump used an ethnic slur when he called Sen. Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas” during a White House event honoring Native American veterans.
> 
> Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye told CNN that the president’s injection of a political attack during a ceremony honoring Navajo code talkers was “uncalled for.”
> 
> “This was a day to honor them, and to insert something like that — the word ‘Pocahontas’ as a jab to a senator — you know, that belongs on the campaign trail,” Begaye said. “That doesn’t belong in the room when our war heroes are being honored.”
> 
> Trump, standing in front of a painting of President Andrew Jackson, who signed the Indian Removal Act, thanked the code talkers on Monday for their contributions to World War II and acknowledged that Native Americans “were here long before any of us were here — although we have a representative in Congress who they say was here a long time ago. They call her Pocahontas.”
> 
> Warren (D-Mass.), who claims to have Native American heritage, called it “deeply unfortunate” that Trump couldn’t refrain from using “a racial slur” during the ceremony. The White House, however, disputed that characterization, with press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders telling reporters the notion that Trump used a racial slur is “ridiculous.”
> 
> 
> But Begaye disagreed. “I feel that the way it was used, yes, it was” a racial slur, he told CNN. “Pocahontas is a real person. It’s not a caricature. It’s not something that’s just made up. This is a person, a young lady and Native American woman, that played a critical role in the life of this nation. And to use that person in that way is unnecessary and being culturally insensitive.”


They can think that if they want but the entire point of calling her Pocahontas is because she's not Native American. I will agree it was insensitive, tho nobody seemed to take issue with it when he was mocking her with the term for the past year until now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> So you're saying that the Navajo speak for all natives and that we should accept that if one person from one tribe says that it's racist, therefore it's racist?
> 
> How racist.
> 
> "I feel like when white people disagree with me since I'm not a white person, therefore they're using their colonial racial power especially if they're british makes then always racist because I'm a non-white person".
> 
> You can't utter any Pakistani names or make fun of any Pakistanis anymore even if they're not Pakistanis because your white tongue is disgusting and no I'm not racist at all. From now on anyone that ever cracks a joke about me or baits or insults me, they're racists towards all Pakistanis
> 
> Sorry, this is horrible logic.


Keep making excuses and defending Trumps racist remarks. You could have all native Americans say it was racist and you would still make an excuse that it's not.




Miss Sally said:


> They can think that if they want but the entire point of calling her Pocahontas is because she's not Native American. I will agree it was insensitive, tho nobody seemed to take issue with it when he was mocking her with the term for the past year until now.


You don't know that she is not part native, and a racial slur is a racial slur. 

And people always took issue with her calling her that name. Stop lying, you are better than that.

I will ask you again if Trump called Shaun King the N word would you claim it's not a racial slur and he is not being racist?


----------



## DOPA

fpalm And it continues.

Was the joke from Trump in bad taste? Sure, it was pretty much inappropriate for the occasion. But this is Trump were talking about, the ultimate troll/shitposter in chief, nobody should be surprised by this. Was it racist? Fuck no.

It was a specific comment made aimed at a *white female senator* who *faked being a native american to get a scholarship.* The insult was clearly towards her and not to the Native Americans themselves. Anyone who either has half a brain or isn't completely biased can see this. It's dishonest claims like this which is part of the reason why Trump won to begin with and why most of the American people don't trust the Democrats or the left at the moment.

This brings me to a larger point which I've been thinking about today. It's actually hilarious that it's been over a year with Trump as president and his detractors particularly on the left *still* don't know how to handle him when he makes utterly absurd and ridiculous comments. Let's be honest here, Trump is an utter man child :lol. He's obsessed with getting attention on himself and better yet, he knows it works. All that Trump's detractors have to do in this situation is to ignore what he says, ignore the ridiculous comments and ignore his damn twitter feed. He's clearly not going to change, that much is obvious. Yet despite Trump saying some really ridiculous and absurd things, a significant portion of the American left wing somehow respond in an even more absurd way which just makes Trump look better :lmao. It's an incredible cycle which keeps repeating itself and it's brought out some utterly hilarious moments.

Another thing that's been hilarious and I don't think Trump has done this by design honestly, but it's been the way he's interacted with certain people. He'll throw jabs at people like Warren who he knows will take the bait and yet completely ignores Eminem which makes Em even more mad at him :lmao. Again, I think it's more likely Trump just decided not to bother with him but part of me hopes he's done it on purpose because that would be funniest shit imaginable.

Honestly I hope it continues and that the Trump detractors never get it or learn their lesson because it's the gift that keeps on giving. It's honestly been the best part about Trump's presidency thus far.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Only in trump world are racial slurs, not racial slurs. but keep defining his racism. The Navajo Nation said it was a racial slur FFS. 

And Dopa you think people trust the GOP and Trump?

And Dopa I will ask you, if Trump called Shaun King the N word would you claim it was not a racial slur and he was not making a racist comment?


----------



## Reaper

http://www.dailywire.com/news/24045...051717-news&utm_campaign=dwtwitter#exit-modal



> One of the World War II Navajo Code talkers honored by President Donald Trump on Monday weighed in on Trump’s decision to mock Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) at the event.
> 
> President Trump was in the middle of honoring the veterans when he said, “We have a representative in Congress who they say was here a long time ago. They call her Pocahontas.”
> 
> Trump's remark was obviously directed at Warren, whom he has mocked before for lying about her Native American ancestry so she could obtain a teaching position at Harvard, where she was paid $350,000 per year.
> 
> *CNN political analyst Joshua Green met with Thomas Begay – one of the veterans honored at the event – who said that while he was puzzled by the comment, he was not offended by it.
> *
> *“The Marines made us yell ‘Geronimo’ when we jumped out of planes, and that didn’t offend me either,” Begay said.
> *


:lmao 

Oh look, I can also trot out minorities who say they weren't offended and it isn't a racial slur. 

BM stop using easily offended minorities to push your agenda ... Because for every minority snowflake there's another one that isn't a snowflake. 

Your narrative is a bust. 

I only do this because you as a white man parade out minorities as though they validate your opinion even when they're wrong themselves. Well, two can play at this shitty game till it's a 0 sum game which it is. I mean, I can sit here and claim like sociologists do that white people are racist when they use minorities to push their political agendas. Doesn't mean I'm right. 

But I bet because this Navajo doeasn't agree with you (while the other does) you'll ignore THIS minority because THIS minority doesn't exist meanwhile the one that agrees with you speaks for ALL minorities.


----------



## samizayn

Merry Reaper said:


> I know you're trying to say outrage vs apathy but seriously, given that the outrage is pretty much _entirely_ irrational and phobic, you ended up making it seem like you prefer outrage to rationality and common sense.


Yeah that's what I'd like to emphasise. With the acknowledgement that the appropriate outrage is an impossible ideal, I prefer too much to not enough.



Miss Sally said:


> Excessive outrage leads to apathy. How many people take drama queens or hypochondriacs seriously? This is basically the boy who cried wolf, except replace it with outrage and eventually nobody cares. People can be roused to care when things matter but people who've had enough of the bullshit cannot be. Excessive outrage is far worse.


Yeah, definitely. We can see that happening right now, which is another thought for another time I suppose. But I feel like it's not just worry that people don't care, it's that it indicates a state of almost compliance, that makes me uneasy.



Merry Reaper said:


> http://www.dailywire.com/news/24045...051717-news&utm_campaign=dwtwitter#exit-modal
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao
> 
> Oh look, I can also trot out minorities who say they weren't offended and it isn't a racial slur.
> 
> BM stop using easily offended minorities to push your agenda ... Because for every minority snowflake there's another one that isn't a snowflake.
> 
> Your narrative is a bust.
> 
> I only do this because you as a white man parade out minorities as though they validate your opinion even when they're wrong themselves. Well, two can play at this shitty game till it's a 0 sum game which it is. I mean, I can sit here and claim like sociologists do that white people are racist when they use minorities to push their political agendas. Doesn't mean I'm right.
> 
> But I bet because this Navajo doeasn't agree with you (while the other does) you'll ignore THIS minority because THIS minority doesn't exist meanwhile the one that agrees with you speaks for ALL minorities.


Many Navajo found the remark to be offensive, but many also did not. I don't see the conflict here.


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> Yeah that's what I'd like to emphasise. With the acknowledgement that the appropriate outrage is an impossible ideal, I prefer too much to not enough.
> 
> 
> Yeah, definitely. We can see that happening right now, which is another thought for another time I suppose. But I feel like it's not just worry that people don't care, it's that it indicates a state of almost compliance, that makes me uneasy.


Disagreement with hystericism isn't compliance ... Even if it is compliance, for it to be a negative type of compliance it would mean that the hysteria is correct. 

Ultimately, you're still spinning this into attempting to make unjustified mass paranoia and a hysteria bubble justified. 

Hysterical outrage is _always _dysfunctional. Usually when it happens in families, we usually send the dysfunctional individual to therapists to get help. We don't enable them.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> http://www.dailywire.com/news/24045...051717-news&utm_campaign=dwtwitter#exit-modal
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao
> 
> Oh look, I can also trot out minorities who say they weren't offended and it isn't a racial slur.
> 
> BM stop using easily offended minorities to push your agenda ... Because for every minority snowflake there's another one that isn't a snowflake.
> 
> Your narrative is a bust.
> 
> I only do this because you as a white man parade out minorities as though they validate your opinion even when they're wrong themselves. Well, two can play at this shitty game till it's a 0 sum game which it is. I mean, I can sit here and claim like sociologists do that white people are racist when they use minorities to push their political agendas. Doesn't mean I'm right.
> 
> But I bet because this Navajo doeasn't agree with you (while the other does) you'll ignore THIS minority because THIS minority doesn't exist meanwhile the one that agrees with you speaks for ALL minorities.


Reaper you can defend racist comments and racism all you want. It just shows what kind of person you are. You will defend Trump on anything. You have no credibility when it comes to Trump.


----------



## samizayn

Merry Reaper said:


> Disagreement with hystericism isn't compliance ... Even if it is compliance, for it to be a negative type of compliance it would mean that the hysteria is correct.
> 
> Ultimately, you're still spinning this into attempting to make unjustified mass paranoia and a hysteria bubble.
> 
> Hysterical outrage is dysfunctional. Usually when it happens in families, we usually send the dysfunctional individual to therapists to get help. We don't enable them.


No, I'm not spinning anything. Look for opinion phrases such as "I feel" to see when somebody is expressing a viewpoint. Regardless you also misconstrued the comment.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Reaper you can defend racist comments and racism all you want. It just shows what kind of person you are. You will defend Trump on anything. You have no credibility when it comes to Trump.


But you trotted out a Navajo who said that it was an ethnic slur. I trotted out one that says it wasn't an ethnic slur. 

Your narrative is busted. You can continue to feel like Trump is a racist, nazi, hitler, russian agent, sexist, pedophile, misogynist (these are all adjectives you have used for him over the last year or so) and you've called anyone who disagrees with you the same. 

The fact is, that the amount of adjectives you keep piling on have now simply destroyed any acceptance of any actual and legit criticism you might have had. 



samizayn said:


> No, I'm not spinning anything. Look for opinion phrases such as "I feel" to see when somebody is expressing a viewpoint. Regardless you also misconstrued the comment.


I didn't misconstrue the statement, I simply cut to the core of what seems to me an attempt to avoid admitting that to some of us here what you said was outright wrong. You may not feel like you are, but to me you are and I've given you reasons why I think so. 

"Outrage" today is repeatedly making the same assertion over and over again which has little to no bearing in truth. To try to justify it in any way is to enable the continued propagation of falsehoods.


----------



## samizayn

^You did, though. Feel free to re-read but the comment was not that substantive, nor that interesting :shrug Am also wondering how I "avoided admitting" something I almost explicitly said not three lines into my post, butokaythen! :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> But you trotted out a Navajo who said that it was an ethnic slur. I trotted out one that says it wasn't an ethnic slur.
> 
> Your narrative is busted. You can continue to feel like Trump is a racist, nazi, hitler, russian agent, sexist, pedophile, misogynist (these are all adjectives you have used for him over the last year or so) and you've called anyone who disagrees with you the same.
> 
> The fact is, that the amount of adjectives you keep piling on have now simply destroyed any acceptance of any actual and legit criticism you might have had.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't misconstrue the statement, I simply cut to the core of what seems to me an attempt to avoid admitting that to some of us here what you said was outright wrong. You may not feel like you are, but to me you are and I've given you reasons why I think so.
> 
> "Outrage" today is repeatedly making the same assertion over and over again which has little to no bearing in truth. To try to justify it in any way is to enable the continued propagation of falsehoods.


The only thing that is busted is your ignorance, you can defend Trump all you want on his racism, and racist remarks, all of them, just because you want to pretend they are not, in your little Trump ignorant bubble, doesn't mean it's not racism and that Trump isn't a racist. 

You have denied all the facts and evidence, your credibility is shot to zero. But keep living in your little bubble.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> The only thing that is busted is your ignorance, you can defend Trump all you want on his racism, and racist remarks, all of them, just because you want to pretend they are not, in your little Trump ignorant bubble, doesn't mean it's not racism and that Trump isn't a racist.
> 
> You have denied all the facts and evidence, your credibility is shot to zero. But keep living in your little bubble.


And here comes the ad hominem. :lmao

We know BM. Everyone that disagrees with you is ignorant, sexist, misogynistic, racist, and homophobe. 

There's nothing new. For someone who rails about slurs and decorum and respect, you certainly lack having any for anyone that doesn't worship everything you say. 

You're more like Trump than you realize.


----------



## birthday_massacre

OH look Trump ignoring the law once again and getting away with it, with his hand picked judge

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...9345ced896d_story.html?utm_term=.886b3498eefb


Federal judge rules that Trump’s choice can remain at head of consumer watchdog bureau

A federal judge refused to block President Trump’s choice of budget director Mick Mulvaney from serving as acting director of the prominent federal consumer watchdog agency on Tuesday, denying a request by Leandra English, the No. 2 official at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to serve in his stead.

In denying English’s request for a temporary restraining order, U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly acknowledged that the case raised consitutional issues. Former CFPB litigation counsel Deepak Gupta, who represented English, said she would weigh her next step.
“There needs to be an answer from the courts,” he said after the ruling. “There needs to be a final answer.”

The Trump administration applauded the decision and said it supports its contention that Mulvaney is the rightful acting director.

“It’s time for the Democrats to stop enabling this brazen political stunt by a rogue employee and allow Acting Director Mulvaney to continue the Bureau’s smooth transition into an agency that truly serves to help consumers,” White House spokesman Raj Shah said in a statement.

Kelly, a Trump appointee who joined the federal court in Washington in September, ruled after departing chief Richard Cordray resigned Friday and promoted English, his chief of staff, to deputy director and named her his successor as acting director. Trump responded by naming Mulvaney, triggering an unusual power struggle after English filed a lawsuit late Sunday.

English argued that the 2010 Dodd-Frank act that established the agency after the financial crisis laid out a specific plan of succession authorizing the deputy director to take over until a White House nominee is confirmed by the Senate. English also argued that a sitting White House head of the Office of Management and Budget could not hold two hats by simultaneously heading the independent financial regulator.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate had argued that Trump had authority under an earlier law, the 1998 Presidential Vacancies Reform Act, and cited supporting opinions by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and the CFPB’s general counsel.

[CFPB official Leandra English sues to block Trump White House pick Mick Mulvaney]

The hearing followed two chaotic days when the rival appointees claimed to lead the bureau. On Tuesday, Mulvaney started a new Twitter account — @CFPBdirector — and posted a picture of himself at a desk with an American flag in the background. “Busy day at the @CFPB. Digging into the details,” the tweet says.

Meanwhile, English said too she was busy running the department. “Today, I plan on spending the day at CFPB headquarters taking calls and meetings with external stakeholders and bureau staff,” English said in a statement Tuesday.

The CFPB was created after the financial crisis to target unfair or abusive practices by financial institutions offering consumer products, including credit cards, mortgages and loans.

Republicans have sought to rein in the agency for years as part of efforts to roll back banking industry regulations, saying it is unaccountable to elected officials and harms economic growth by unfairly burdening companies.

The Trump administration got its chance to wrest control Friday, when longtime director Richard Cordray resigned and promoted his chief of staff, English to deputy director, saying she would serve as acting director until the Senate confirmed his permanent replacement.

Trump hours later announced that Mulvaney would take the job.

[ Waging fight over consumer watchdog agency with doughnuts, well-wishes, two acting directors try to take command]

Democrats and consumer advocates have supported the CFPB’s aggressive actions against big financial institutions, and in her lawsuit, English said Congress intended the bureau to be independent of political pressure from the White House.

Asked by Kelly on Monday why the court should undertake the “extraordinary remedy” of blocking the president from exercising the power of his office, English’s attorney said, “I don’t deny it’s extraordinary. This is an extraordinary case.”

English’s attorney, Gupta, formerly the bureau’s senior litigation counsel, argued that English properly took over under an explicit plan of succession set out by the Dodd-Frank law when it created the CFPB, providing for a deputy to serve as acting director until a successor is confirmed.

Appointing Mulvaney, a “sitting White House official” and an outspoken critic of the bureau, to lead the agency would run counter to Congress’s intent and explicit provisions, Gupta said.

Gupta said English was not requesting that the president be barred from appointing a new bureau director subject to Senate confirmation, but that he be blocked from “appointing or recognizing” a temporary chief, and that Mulvaney be prohibited from taking charge.

Local Crime & Safety Alerts
Breaking news about public safety in and around D.C.
Sign up
Gupta asked that the judge rule as “expeditiously as possible” in a way that could be immediately appealed. “Everyone needs to know who is director of the bureau,” Gupta said.

Gupta said that English also carried out bureau business Monday, going into the bureau Monday morning, emailing employees, and meeting with lawmakers including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) in her capacity as acting director through the afternoon.

Arguing for the government, Brett Shumate, deputy assistant attorney general for federal programs, said that the Federal Vacancies Act, enacted in 1988, gave the president the authority to appoint Mulvaney, citing a Friday memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, and a memo distributed Monday by the bureau’s current general counsel.

Mulvaney was at the bureau Monday, issuing orders, meeting with senior aides and reviewing transition briefing materials, Shumate said, and the imposition by a judge of a different leader would only sow more confusion and disruption.

Asked by Kelly if the government would agree that English would not be fired to remove some of the urgency from the matter, Shumate said, he could not “give any representation or assurance on that score.”


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> And here comes the ad hominem. :lmao
> 
> We know BM. Everyone that disagrees with you is ignorant, sexist, misogynistic, racist, and homophobe.
> 
> There's nothing new. For someone who rails about slurs and decorum and respect, you certainly lack having any for anyone that doesn't worship everything you say.
> 
> You're more like Trump than you realize.


Keep defending racism, its what you do best. You can continue to defend racism all you want but I will call you out on it. You think your little trolling comments like above will get me to stop calling you out when you defend racism, sexism or homophobes

Think again.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Keep defending racism, its what you do best. You can continue to defend racism all you want but I will call you out on it. You think your little trolling comments like above will get me to stop calling you out when you defend racism, sexism or homophobes
> 
> Think again.


Don't cry about cute comments when you insult people at every opportunity. You call people whatever the fuck you want with reckless abandon and then cry when called out on it.

Like I said you're a lot like Trump in this regard.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> Don't cry about cute comments when you insult people at every opportunity.


The only one here crying is you. 

Guess you are







.

You always have an excuse to defend Trumps racism and ignorance.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> The only one here crying is you.
> 
> Guess you are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> You always have an excuse to defend Trumps racism and ignorance.


Whiny as always. I don't agree with you so I'm ignorant etc etc. And then when I turn around and call you out on it I'm triggered. 

No ones triggered here. Except you're behaving exactly like Trump. I can see why you hate him so much


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> Whiny as always. I don't agree with you so I'm ignorant etc etc. And then when I turn around and call you out on it I'm triggered.
> 
> No ones triggered here. Except you're behaving exactly like Trump. I can see why you hate him so much


Someone who defends racism is being ignorant.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Someone who defends racism is being ignorant.


And someone who insults others who disagrees with them is doing exactly what Trump does. 

You trotted out a minority to support your argument. Trump did the same thing on the campaign trail. And now your argument is shattered so you're resorting to ad hominem which is a signature Trump move 

Congratulations. You're Trump's biggest fan. You even behave like him. :CENA


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> And someone who insults others who disagrees with them is doing exactly what Trump does.
> 
> You trotted out a minority to support your argument. Trump did the same thing on the campaign trail. And now your argument is shattered so you're resorting to ad hominem which is a signature Trump move
> 
> Congratulations. You're Trump's biggest fan. You even behave like him. :CENA


You are just going in circles. Only in your world is a racial slur not a radical slur. I'm done with you on this topic.


Go comment on the Mulvaney post, and tell me if you are ok with Trump ignoring the law on that


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> You are just going in circles. Only in your world is a racial slur not a radical slur.


I appreciate your right to be rude and insulting just like I appreciate Trump's right to be rude and insulting


----------



## virus21




----------



## birthday_massacre

virus21 said:


>


It's pretty sad at all the consequences we are now dealing with because of all that DNC fuckery in the primaries and them listening to people like Colbeck. Let him go to the GOP, the dems dont need him.


The DNC is to blame for everything that is happening right now with Trump and all he is doing. They let it happen.


----------



## Vic Capri

Liberal America 2017



> Very interesting development and perhaps change in immigration policy happening in France right now. Keeping my eyes on this. We thought that it was lost but maybe there is hope after all.


Macron's poll numbers must be tanking.

- Vic


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Merry Reaper said:


> So you're saying that the Navajo speak for all natives and that we should accept that if one person from one tribe says that it's racist, therefore it's racist?
> 
> How racist.
> 
> "I feel like when white people disagree with me since I'm not a white person, therefore they're using their colonial racial power especially if they're british makes then always racist because I'm a non-white person".
> 
> You can't utter any Pakistani names or make fun of any Pakistanis anymore even if they're not Pakistanis because your white tongue is disgusting and no I'm not racist at all. From now on anyone that ever cracks a joke about me or baits or insults me, they're racists towards all Pakistanis
> 
> Sorry, this is horrible logic.


It is quite simple, BM doesn't agree with you because he's obviously a racist. You're a minority, he's white. What other possible explanation could there be?


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *Pocahontas’ Actual Descendant’s Thoughts On Trump Aren’t What The Left Wishes They Were*
> 
> President Donald Trump’s loving nickname for Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, “Pocahontas,” is ruffling feathers. It’s been hailed as sexist, misogynist, and especially racist by all the people you’d expect, but not so much by someone you wouldn’t expect.
> 
> According to an interview with Sky News, Debbie “White Dove” Porreco isn’t taking any offense to Trump’s name for Warren, and she’s an actual descendant of Pocahontas herself.
> 
> In fact, not only is she not taking offense, she looks at Trump as a “hero.”
> 
> “*I know that he uses ‘Pocahontas’ sometimes with Elizabeth Warren,” said Porreco.* “*He said, ‘well does that offend you when I use that?’ And I told him no, it doesn’t offend me*.”
> 
> “*If Pocahontas were alive today, she would be very proud of President Trump,*” Porreco told Sky News. “*Just like Pocahontas was a heroine, Donald Trump is going to be our hero*.”
> 
> Sky News didn’t just stop with an interview with Pocahontas’s descendant, however. Spliced into the video was also an interview with Irene Bedard, the woman who voiced Pocahontas in the 1995 Disney movie of the same name.
> 
> “Do I think Pocahontas would be a fan of Trump? Oh no,” Bedard said. “Misogyny and bullying and name-calling at its finest. It is not intelligent discourse.”
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/906435198975303680


http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/28/descendant-of-pocahontas-not-offended-by-trump-video/

:lol


----------



## Reaper

This is why I consider people who feign outrage on the behalf of minorities not worth paying attention to. 

Their version of diversity is very stereotyped and racist as a result because to them minorities simply cannot have any reaction other than being offended and outraged themselves.

And if they don't agree then they're uncle toms or ignorant because you know a minority is just too stupid to respect the white man's point of view.

Love how the white master wants to define what racism is for us and the educate us on what we should consider racist.

All goes back to superiority complex.


----------



## yeahbaby!

I don't think Trump is specifically racist in this instance, unless you want to drag keeping alive stereotypes into that arena - but why even bring it up is the point. 

Just another example he's completely clueless, disrespectful and stupid. At the least the likes of L Dopa in here are happy to admit that.


----------



## CamillePunk

People thinking Trump doesn't know exactly how people are going to react when he says shit like this. :lol He pulled the curtain back with his tweet about maybe one day being friends with Kim Jong but people still can't see the entertainer at work.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> People thinking Trump doesn't know exactly how people are going to react when he says shit like this. :lol He pulled the curtain back with his tweet about maybe one day being friends with Kim Jong but people still can't see the entertainer at work.


Oh fucking bullshit, he's not planning this shit, he just doesn't care about what he says or who he says it to.

To act like all his gaffs are some kind of strategy is just dumb and giving him way too much credit.

Now please tell me how I'm stuck on the wrong movie....


----------



## CamillePunk

yeahbaby! said:


> Oh fucking bullshit, he's not planning this shit, he just doesn't care about what he says or who he says it to.
> 
> To act like all his gaffs are some kind of strategy is just dumb and giving him way too much credit.
> 
> Now please tell me how I'm stuck on the wrong movie....


I know you're not experiencing the same reality as me because you literally hallucinated something I didn't say. You probably still can't see that, which is fine. My movie is fairly comfortable and humorous. Yours sounds dangerous and scary. The lack of tangible bad things that have happened since Trump became president, despite all of the fear-mongering, tells me my movie is closer to reality. 

The media wants us to believe we're on the precipice of nuclear war and that we have an unstable, unpredictable madman at the helm who is overtly antagonizing another unstable, unpredictable madman. If this was really the case, we'd all be dead by now.

Trump counters this narrative with jokes and reassurances. The media responds with outrage, insisting that the dangerous movie is the one which is descriptive of reality. The problem, of course, is the evidence. I suppose if you live in the Pacific Ocean there's a lot of cause for concern, given the number of projectiles being launched at you. For land-dwelling creatures like me, I'm enjoying the humor and completely unconcerned for my safety vis-a-vis North Korea. 

I'm also fairly confident that insulting someone via Twitter is a lot less likely to trigger a war than implementing a policy of shooting down Russian planes, which was the position of the supposedly safe, rational, intelligent, _presidential_ candidate. :lol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935660952200138754
:lmao


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> I know you're not experiencing the same reality as me because you literally hallucinated something I didn't say. You probably still can't see that, which is fine. My movie is fairly comfortable and humorous. Yours sounds dangerous and scary. The lack of tangible bad things that have happened since Trump became president, despite all of the fear-mongering, tells me my movie is closer to reality.


That tired old chestnut from you again, that material is old now and I would've hoped beneath you by now.

You clearly implied Trump knows what he's doing or hatching some plan with your comment "People thinking Trump doesn't know exactly how people are going to react when he says shit like this." I simply echoed the same sentiment and refuted it. 

There is no plan, no dealing with any narrative apart from bleating about fake news and big-noting himself. You can watch all the Scott Adams you want but anyone with two eyes can see Trump has no clue about what comes out of his mouth.

It really doesn't matter though does it I suppose, the real point is apparently people are dumbed down to the point they don't demand much more than 1st grade level from the leader of the free world.


----------



## birthday_massacre

yeahbaby! said:


> That tired old chestnut from you again, that material is old now and I would've hoped beneath you by now.
> 
> You clearly implied Trump knows what he's doing or hatching some plan with your comment "People thinking Trump doesn't know exactly how people are going to react when he says shit like this." I simply echoed the same sentiment and refuted it.
> 
> There is no plan, no dealing with any narrative apart from bleating about fake news and big-noting himself. You can watch all the Scott Adams you want but anyone with two eyes can see Trump has no clue about what comes out of his mouth.
> 
> It really doesn't matter though does it I suppose, the real point is apparently people are dumbed down to the point they don't demand much more than 1st grade level from the leader of the free world.


Trump is playing 0D chess but his supporters think he is playing 4D chess. It's pretty obvious how incompetent Trump is. Trump speaks like a 4th grader and his supporters think Trump is this amazing speaker.

Trump is so dumb they have to dumb down his daily briefings and he likes charts on them. I still can't believe anyone can honestly think Trump is this mastermind. he is pretty much Dr Evil


----------



## yeahbaby!

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is playing 0D chess but his supporters think he is playing 4D chess. It's pretty obvious how incompetent Trump is. Trump speaks like a 4th grader and his supporters think Trump is this amazing speaker.
> 
> Trump is so dumb they have to dumb down his daily briefings and he likes charts on them. I still can't believe anyone can honestly think Trump is this mastermind. he is pretty much Dr Evil


That's not fair to Dr Evil


----------



## The Hardcore Show

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is playing 0D chess but his supporters think he is playing 4D chess. It's pretty obvious how incompetent Trump is. Trump speaks like a 4th grader and his supporters think Trump is this amazing speaker.
> 
> Trump is so dumb they have to dumb down his daily briefings and he likes charts on them. I still can't believe anyone can honestly think Trump is this mastermind. he is pretty much Dr Evil


Once you understand that too many people in this country only care about being trolls you get why their is no hope for the future of this place no matter what happens to Trump.


----------



## birthday_massacre

The Hardcore Show said:


> Once you understand that too many people in this country only care about being trolls you get why their is no hope for the future of this place no matter what happens to Trump.


it doesn't help when the president is the one leading the charge.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

birthday_massacre said:


> it doesn't help when the president is the one leading the charge.


True but at this point I think the US needs to become a toxic wasteland that no one wants anything or any part with before we wake the hell up and fix the things here that need to be fixed. 

There was a part of me that wanted to see Trump run this country into the ground and if it was what finally made people smell the coffee and if not then we have lost are place in the world for good.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

NK's true motive is becoming more and more obvious. It's not to defend themselves against the big bad US. It's to ransom American lives for concessions. There's only one way to handle this, and it isn't to give them what they want.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> NK's true motive is becoming more and more obvious. It's not to defend themselves against the big bad US. It's to ransom American lives for concessions. There's only one way to handle this, and it isn't to give them what they want.


NK motivation is to bait Trump into saying something or doing something so NK can launch missiles against the US.


----------



## stevefox1200

Stinger Fan said:


> http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/28/descendant-of-pocahontas-not-offended-by-trump-video/
> 
> :lol


I don' think Pocahontas would like man who compares himself to Andrew Jackson positively

and if she did I would think she was a fucking idiot

fuck I don't think anyone who compares a politician positively is playing with a full deck



birthday_massacre said:


> NK motivation is to bait Trump into saying something or doing something so NK can launch missiles against the US.


I don't think so, if anything I think the North Korean leadership loves Trump because he is willing to back and forth their threats in a way that makes the US look aggressive and makes it look like they are going to war 

It keeps them in the headlines and gives them more barter power, when their threats are ignored most of the world does the same.



CamillePunk said:


> People thinking Trump doesn't know exactly how people are going to react when he says shit like this. :lol He pulled the curtain back with his tweet about maybe one day being friends with Kim Jong but people still can't see the entertainer at work.


How the fuck does making your citizens panic and make them think your incompetent improve your domestic or foreign image? 

What is this master plan that so damn obvious to Trumps hardcore support that the rest of the world is not seeing?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> NK motivation is to bait Trump into saying something or doing something so NK can launch missiles against the US.


Jesus Christ, so you think Trump is a madman, and you think Kim is a madman. I bet you're a hoot at parties.

:bryanlol


----------



## Cabanarama

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Jesus Christ, so you think Trump is a madman, and you think Kim is a madman. I bet you're a hoot at parties.
> 
> :bryanlol


Pretty much anybody that isn't a complete idiot can see that both Trump and Kim are mentally very unstable...


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Jesus Christ, so you think Trump is a madman, and you think Kim is a madman. I bet you're a hoot at parties.
> 
> :bryanlol


Wait you don't think they are unstable?


----------



## yeahbaby!

Cabanarama said:


> Pretty much anybody that isn't a complete idiot can see that both Trump and Kim are mentally very unstable...


QFT - Of course the two aren't comparable in how they conduct 'business' or how their countries operate but both are completely off the fucking planet.


----------



## CamillePunk

stevefox1200 said:


> How the fuck does making your citizens panic and make them think your incompetent improve your domestic or foreign image?
> 
> What is this master plan that so damn obvious to Trumps hardcore support that the rest of the world is not seeing?


I don't recall mentioning domestic or foreign image or a master plan. 

Trump's domestic image is being Donald Trump and won't change based on anything he can realistically do as president. His foreign image is being the President of the United States, and foreign leaders don't seem to be treating him much differently than previous presidents. 



Cabanarama said:


> Pretty much anybody that isn't a complete idiot can see that both Trump and Kim are mentally very unstable...


Yet North Korea's government and the world in general seem very stable to me. :hmmm


----------



## stevefox1200

CamillePunk said:


> I don't recall mentioning domestic or foreign image or a master plan.
> 
> Trump's domestic image is being Donald Trump and won't change based on anything he can realistically do as president. His foreign image is being the President of the United States, and foreign leaders don't seem to be treating him much differently than previous presidents.
> 
> Yet North Korea's government and the world in general seem very stable to me. :hmmm


OK, fine I reshape the question

How does does Trump antics help anyone?

The only "positive" thing that I see is it keep attention on him but its is largely negative

I know you praised him earlier because "he takes his position as seriously as you do" but you, as anarchist, likely think his position shouldn't exist, so I assume that in your mind a good president is one who burns his position to the ground to the point that the public has no faith in him and government in general 

If that's the reason and you think he is intentionally doing that, I can understand it 

Is that it?


----------



## Cabanarama

stevefox1200 said:


> OK, fine I reshape the question
> 
> How does does Trump antics help anyone?
> 
> The only "positive" thing that I see is it keep attention on him but its is largely negative


Keep in mind you're talking to someone that doesn't know or give a shit about any actual issues and loves Trump solely for the entertainment value...


----------



## stevefox1200

Cabanarama said:


> Keep in mind you're talking to someone that doesn't know or give a shit about any actual issues and loves Trump solely for the entertainment value...


I am aware

but he also praises him for being able to control the narrative and being very smart 

I know a ton of people who love Trumps antics in an "drama" way but they don't stick up for his competence

Its more a "lol what did he say now, I hope he says something this outrageous tomorrow" not "TRUMP IS SO ALPHA WITH THIS WITTY RESPONSE AND THE MEDIA ARE JUST EATING OUT OF HIS HAND"


----------



## Art Vandaley

Christmas DOPAmine said:


> It was a specific comment made aimed at a *white female senator* who *faked being a native american to get a scholarship.*


1. She is 1/32 Native American.
2. She didn't get a scholarship on that basis. 

She was once listed as a "minority professor" and her campaign for the Senate made far too big a deal of her Native American ancestry, but yeah the scholarship thing is something the right made up.


----------



## Draykorinee

Cam thinks Trump is playing the blundering idiot on purpose? In what way does being perceived this way make for a positive? 

I understand that it feeds small sections of the electorate who seem to jack off to the left being insufferable but it diminishes America on the world stage and puts a lot of voters off. Guess it's a good thing if you want divisive politics.


----------



## CamillePunk

stevefox1200 said:


> How does does Trump antics help anyone?


They seem to help him control the media's attention pretty well. :draper2



> The only "positive" thing that I see is it keep attention on him but its is largely negative


Negative media attention isn't a negative for Donald Trump. :lol Did you follow the election at all? How can you not understand something so fundamental to his success after all this time? 



> I know you praised him earlier because "he takes his position as seriously as you do" but you, as anarchist, likely think his position shouldn't exist, so I assume that in your mind a good president is one who burns his position to the ground to the point that the public has no faith in him and government in general
> 
> If that's the reason and you think he is intentionally doing that, I can understand it
> 
> Is that it?


I think he takes his position pretty seriously actually - the parts that actually matter.



draykorinee said:


> Cam thinks Trump is playing the blundering idiot on purpose? In what way does being perceived this way make for a positive?


I don't recall saying he's playing a blundering idiot or anything similar to that effect.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935710736474451968
The Trump Effect.


----------



## Reaper

This woman is incredible.










Sanders for president in 2024 pls.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> stevefox1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does does Trump antics help anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> They seem to help him control the media's attention pretty well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only "positive" thing that I see is it keep attention on him but its is largely negative
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Negative media attention isn't a negative for Donald Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you follow the election at all? How can you not understand something so fundamental to his success after all this time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you praised him earlier because "he takes his position as seriously as you do" but you, as anarchist, likely think his position shouldn't exist, so I assume that in your mind a good president is one who burns his position to the ground to the point that the public has no faith in him and government in general
> 
> If that's the reason and you think he is intentionally doing that, I can understand it
> 
> Is that it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think he takes his position pretty seriously actually - the parts that actually matter.
> 
> 
> 
> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cam thinks Trump is playing the blundering idiot on purpose? In what way does being perceived this way make for a positive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall saying he's playing a blundering idiot or anything similar to that effect.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935710736474451968
> The Trump Effect.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you did, but we did and you said he's doing this routine on purpose. So you either acknowledge that a vast number of people think he's a blundering idiot and he's doing it on purpose to wind the media up or it's just how he is...either way that's no positives here from my pov.

Sarah Sanders is boring, she's far less entertaining than the last two.


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> I didn't say you did, but we did and you said he's doing this routine on purpose. So you either acknowledge that a vast number of people think he's a blundering idiot and he's doing it on purpose to wind the media up or it's just how he is...either way that's no positives here from my pov.
> 
> Sarah Sanders is boring, she's far less entertaining than the last two.


If by "routine" you mean "saying the funny stuff he wants to say, knowing how it'll be received, and not caring" then yes, he's doing this "routine", i.e being his entertainer self, on purpose. The idea that his every off-hand joke is a part of some master plan or is designed to benefit him is just a hyperbolic strawman by simpletons who can't argue against the things I say so they invent stuff to argue against.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> 1. She is 1/32 Native American.


The conversation needs to die here. 

I'm a direct descendant of Mohammad who was a direct descendant of Ibrahim, who was a direct descendant of Adam, but we're all Africans so we're all blacks. 

But of course, since she's a leftist SJW, the standards of scrutiny is significantly lower than they would be for anyone else. It's how partisanship works. 

No one has made a claim. She checked the box. The dispute is whether it was before or after. 

It's also incredibly arrogant of you guys to make this about left vs right meanwhile ignoring the actual Cherokee who demand proof from her. But yeah, the power dynamic and even discussion stays within the superior white race because the minorities are only tools. When they actually demand proof, they no longer exist because they are then removing themselves as tools of the white man's game of thrones.


----------



## CamillePunk

1/32 Native American. :lmao I'm more Native American than that.


----------



## Art Vandaley

The point is that she's never claimed to be any more Native American than that and hasn't used it to her advantage. 

She's never applied to be a Cherokee, that is a wild strawman argument as basically the entirety of the rights attack on Warren has been.


----------



## CamillePunk

Alkomesh2 said:


> The point is that she's never claimed to be any more Native American than that and hasn't used it to her advantage.


Except she totally has. 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...ike/QwbGsi49koIvsKcd83lr4M/story.html?camp=pm



> US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren said on Wednesday that she listed herself as a minority in directories of law professors in the hopes of networking with other “people like me” — meaning those with Native American roots.
> 
> Asked whether she considers herself to be a minority, the Democrat said, “Native American is part of my family. It’s an important part of my heritage.”
> 
> ..
> 
> The back and forth followed last week’s revelations that Warren — an Oklahoma-born professor of bankruptcy law — had been held up as an example of campus diversity by a Harvard Law School spokesman in the 1990s.
> 
> Last week, Warren said she had no idea that Harvard was touting her as a minority in the 1990s. But two days later, she acknowledged that for years before she joined the faculty at Harvard, she had been classifying herself as a minority professor in a directory of the Association of American Law Schools.
> 
> That directory included Warren on a list of minority professors from 1986 through 1995.
> 
> On Wednesday, she told reporters that she listed herself as such to connect with others like her, “people for whom native American is part of their heritage and part of their hearts. There aren’t a lot of people like me in law teaching. And so I just thought I might find some others. That’s evidently not a particularly good use for the directory because it never happened.”


She also told a story about how her father's parents didn't like that her mom was "part Cherokee". :lmao

1/32 is nothing. It's laughable to even bring it up as anything more than obscure trivia. She's a conwoman. It's fine. The vast majority of politicians are. She and her supporters probably shouldn't throw stones, though.


----------



## Banez

*Trump speaking to media*

"No worries fellas, we got this under control"

*Trump turns to aide*

"pssst.... we do have this under control right?"


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you did, but we did and you said he's doing this routine on purpose. So you either acknowledge that a vast number of people think he's a blundering idiot and he's doing it on purpose to wind the media up or it's just how he is...either way that's no positives here from my pov.
> 
> Sarah Sanders is boring, she's far less entertaining than the last two.
> 
> 
> 
> If by "routine" you mean "saying the funny stuff he wants to say, knowing how it'll be received, and not caring" then yes, he's doing this "routine", i.e being his entertainer self, on purpose. The idea that his every off-hand joke is a part of some master plan or is designed to benefit him is just a hyperbolic strawman by simpletons who can't argue against the things I say so they invent stuff to argue against.
Click to expand...

If you say he knows what he's doing and he's working the media/populace that's a plan. Sure masterplan is hyperbole, but if he's strategically choosing to say things that come across as bizarre, stupid, racist etc to a large number of people and media then you can't get too upset when people think there's a larger plan afoot.


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump retweeted our most racist of racist groups, unashamedly fascist to boot >< Such a bizarre choice of videos to retweet too, just some random Muslims being dicks. He knows what he's doing though.



> A more unlikely critic was Infowars conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson, who said that "retweeting Britain First is not great optics".


Giving a platform for racists in a different country, thanks Trump.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> just some random Muslims being dicks. He knows what he's doing though.


Yes he does. Making errors is different from the intent that led to the errors. 



> Giving a platform for racists in a different country, thanks Trump.


The fact that you called them "racists" means that they're likely not and are probably a pro-nationalist group with minority support as well. But again, for the white man that hates opposition to his personally held beliefs, the minorities who disagree with them simply do not exist, are ignorant, or uncle toms or race traitors. 

Pretty sure if I did some digging, this is exactly what I'll find as this has become pretty much the norm for _all_ nationalist groups. Just label them racist, homophobic, anti-woman and that's all it takes. It's become a useless affair now. Except within the leftist echo chamber, no one is listening to this crap anymore. 

We knew that when we elected Trump he was going to be harsh on Muslims and counter the pro-Muslim global leaders who use their platform to sway public opinion to one side despite the fact that consistently research has shown that the _majority_ of Muslims are dicks and the majority of Muslim beliefs are completely incompatible with the west. 

It's not like other leaders aren't pushing propaganda and the majority of it is also BS. They just push extreme far left ideas like open borders which are also cancerous to the world. 

Establishing this difference is one of the reasons why he was elected.


----------



## Rugrat

Merry Reaper said:


> The fact that you called them "racists" means that they're likely not and are probably a pro-nationalist group with minority support as well. But again, for the white man that hates opposition to his personally held beliefs, the minorities who disagree with them simply do not exist, are ignorant, or uncle toms or race traitors.


Far from a leftist, but Britain First is a toxic, trashy and racist party. There’s a reason why Nigel Farage called them nutters and wanted nothing to do with them.

They almost definitely don’t have much minority support at all


----------



## Reaper

A Rugrats Kwanzaa said:


> Britain First is a toxic racist party. There’s a reason why Nigel Farage called them nutters and wanted nothing to do with them.
> 
> They almost definitely don’t have much minority support at all


I'll do the digging and make up my own mind. The way I make up my mind is by immersion into the group itself. It's easy to do that directly nowadays. We'll see.


----------



## Rugrat

Merry Reaper said:


> I'll do the digging and make up my own mind. The way I make up my mind is by immersion into the group itself. It's easy to do that directly nowadays. We'll see.


I was informing you to save you the time, but whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Reaper

A Rugrats Kwanzaa said:


> I was informing you to save you the time, but whatever floats your boat.


It's time well spent


----------



## Vic Capri

Trump critic Matt Lauer got fired for sexual misconduct. Oops! 

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

- Vic


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Merry Reaper said:


> Yes he does. Making errors is different from the intent that led to the errors.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you called them "racists" means that they're likely not and are probably a pro-nationalist group with minority support as well. But again, for the white man that hates opposition to his personally held beliefs, the minorities who disagree with them simply do not exist, are ignorant, or uncle toms or race traitors.
> 
> Pretty sure if I did some digging, this is exactly what I'll find as this has become pretty much the norm for _all_ nationalist groups. Just label them racist, homophobic, anti-woman and that's all it takes. It's become a useless affair now. Except within the leftist echo chamber, no one is listening to this crap anymore.
> 
> We knew that when we elected Trump he was going to be harsh on Muslims and counter the pro-Muslim global leaders who use their platform to sway public opinion to one side despite the fact that consistently research has shown that the _majority_ of Muslims are dicks and the majority of Muslim beliefs are completely incompatible with the west.
> 
> It's not like other leaders aren't pushing propaganda and the majority of it is also BS. They just push extreme far left ideas like open borders which are also cancerous to the world.
> 
> Establishing this difference is one of the reasons why he was elected.


No you're dead wrong. Actually Britain First are both racists, and real Nazis. Paul Golding (their leader) has a history of bragging about owning Mein Kampf and wearing pro-Nazi clothing. The woman who Trump retweeted is awaiting trial for racially aggravated assault. They'd both give you personally untold amounts of hassle for being of Pakistani descent. Yes, some nationalist groups aren't racist. However, Britain First really fucking is.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> No you're dead wrong. Actually Britain First are both racists, and real Nazis. Paul Golding (their leader) has a history of bragging about owning Mein Kampf and wearing pro-Nazi clothing. The woman who Trump retweeted is awaiting trial for racially aggravated assault. They'd both give you personally untold amounts of hassle for being of Pakistani descent. Yes, some nationalist groups aren't racist. However, Britain First really fucking is.


I could be wrong. But I'll make up my own mind after doing the digging and talking to them directly. I've done that with a lot of groups.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Vic Capri said:


> Trump critic Matt Lauer got fired for sexual misconduct. Oops!
> 
> People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
> 
> - Vic


Sometimes I think you wished you lived in a world were everyone that does not like Trump or can't live under his rule was beaten half to death.


----------



## Reaper

The Hardcore Show said:


> Sometimes I think you wished you lived in a world were everyone that does not like Trump or can't live under his rule was beaten half to death.


:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Merry Reaper said:


> I could be wrong. But I'll make up my own mind after doing the digging and talking to them directly. I've done that with a lot of groups.


A good place to start would be their Facebook page which is literally rife with comments such as "Hitler had the right idea" "put them in the gas chambers" etc. There are generally 2 types of Nationalist group in the UK: The UKIP types, who are more like what you described and the actual racist far-right nazi types like Britain First, Combat 18 (named for Adolf Hitler's initials,) National Action (now a prescribed terrorist group in the UK) and "The Infidels" groups. These are people who train for combat, actually proactively promote racism and violent attacks (including the murder of one of our MP's) and cost our taxpayers literally millions in policing a year just to protect their "right to protest" because they cause so much destruction and problems at all of the towns they invade with their "marches." Don't apply the US view to the UK, the situation here is 100% different than the situation you have out there. Our far-right contingent is tiny all told (most marches struggle to get 100 people attending) but they're ACTUAL nazis, terrorists and dangerous people. They also have a horrific record of paedophiles in their ranks which is something I personally can't stand. But yeah, do the digging, I've done so much myself that if you come back with anything other than the conclusion that these people are dangerous and toxic then be aware that for the majority of people on here from the UK you will be revealing yourself as incredibly suspect. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> A good place to start would be their Facebook page which is literally rife with comments such as "Hitler had the right idea" "put them in the gas chambers" etc. There are generally 2 types of Nationalist group in the UK: The UKIP types, who are more like what you described and the actual racist far-right nazi types like Britain First, Combat 18 (named for Adolf Hitler's initials,) National Action (now a prescribed terrorist group in the UK) and "The Infidels" groups. These are people who train for combat, actually proactively promote racism and violent attacks (including the murder of one of our MP's) and cost our taxpayers literally millions in policing a year just to protect their "right to protest" because they cause so much destruction and problems at all of the towns they invade with their "marches." Don't apply the US view to the UK, the situation here is 100% different than the situation you have out there. Our far-right contingent is tiny all told (most marches struggle to get 100 people attending) but they're ACTUAL nazis, terrorists and dangerous people. They also have a horrific record of paedophiles in their ranks which is something I personally can't stand. But yeah, do the digging, I've done so much myself that if you come back with anything other than the conclusion that these people are dangerous and toxic then be aware that for the majority of people on here from the UK you will be revealing yourself as incredibly suspect. :shrug


Not dismissing anything you're saying but I swear for a second there I thought you were describing Muslims 

But yeah. We'll see. I've not made up my mind yet.


----------



## Draykorinee

Merry Reaper said:


> The fact that you called them "racists" means that they're likely not and are probably a pro-nationalist group with minority support as well. But again, for the white man that hates opposition to his personally held beliefs, the minorities who disagree with them simply do not exist, are ignorant, or uncle toms or race traitors.


I have to be honest, I had included PJW just to kind of give some credence to the idea that even the right shouldn't associate with these guys, because the term racist is thrown around way too much. I thought the fact I regularly defend Trump from accusations of racism would put me in good stead but alas, I guess you can lump me with the rest who just shout racist everytime. Even though I don't. Its probably the one label I avoid.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Merry Reaper said:


> :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


Or he's acting trollish.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> I have to be honest, I had included PJW just to kind of give some credence to the idea that even the right shouldn't associate with these guys, because the term racist is thrown around way too much. I thought the fact I regularly defend Trump from accusations of racism would put me in good stead but alas, I guess you can lump me with the rest who just shout racist everytime.


Hey no worries. The conversation needs to advance from this stand still we're at. 

One thing I will say in advance though is that Trump tweeting the content itself isn't bad. 

We have dozens of world leaders lauding members of CAIR, ISNA and other well know Islamist terror groups or groups that have had terror connections. We have leaders in the west saying that ISIS should be reintegrate into society. 

So leaders do get duped. Does that make them terrorist sympathisers?

They're human.


----------



## Rugrat

Yeah, the BNP were the main right wing party in the UK for most of the 1990’s and 2000’s. They were openly racist ruffians until Nick Griffin came and cleaned up their image, hence the “thugs in suits” moniker. The BNP collapsed at the 2010 election winning no seats, many of their supporters (along with some more right wing Labour and Conservative supporters) joined Farage’s UKIP which wasn’t racist and offered a more palatable immigration/euro-sceptic platform. The toxic supporters however who felt UKIP weren’t enough joined the trash like the EDL and BF. Should be an interesting read/research for you Reaper.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

A Rugrats Kwanzaa said:


> Yeah, the BNP were the main party in the UK for most of the 1990’s and 2000’s. They were openly racist ruffians until Nick Griffin came and cleaned up their image, hence the “thugs in suits” moniker. The BNP collapsed at the 2010 election winning no seats, many of their supporters (along with some more right wing Labour and Conservative supporters) joined Farage’s UKIP which wasn’t racist and offered a more palatable immigration/euro-sceptic platform. The toxic supporters however who felt UKIP weren’t enough joined the trash like the EDL and BF. Should be an interesting read for you Reaper.


Pretty much bang on the money. Let's also never forget that before he was in the BNP, "Patriot" Paul Golding was photographed showing off to his National Front (google them @Merry Reaper ) buddies on remembrance Sunday with a pair of panties on his head at the Cenotaph. With how much history there is about the National Front, anybody claiming that they and their members weren't/aren't racist is either full of shit, or sympathetic to their cause.


----------



## Rugrat

I am aware that leaders are human, but assuming you come to the same conclusion as me and Rick it does suggest he should be more careful with what he tweets. It isn’t the first time a poorly researched tweet has landed him in hot water.

I don’t see Theresa May dealing with him for a while after this.


----------



## Reaper

TBH, those two tweets were poor examples of what The Donald should have tweeted. I'll admit that much. 

With a daily pool of at least dozens of global atrocities committed - even by Muslims, picking up those two (one of which is actually fake) is _ridiculously _myopic.

He shouldn't have to go to extreme ultranationalists. Even if that's who made him aware of this, he should still have a process of extreme vetting of news stories in place. The same stories are run by middle of the ground normal folk as well.



The Hardcore Show said:


> Or he's acting trollish.


Your neverending supply of posts about how Trump supporters want anti-Trumpers dead, or beaten up, or leaving the country is far more ridiculously trollish and doesn't do your side and their current association with mass paranoia any favors.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Merry Reaper said:


> TBH, those two tweets were poor examples of what The Donald should have tweeted. I'll admit that much.
> 
> With a daily pool of at least dozens of global atrocities committed - even by Muslims, picking up those two (one of which is actually fake) is _ridiculously _myopic.


I think for me it shows more of a knee-jerk reaction to seeing them than any real association with Fransen, who is one hell of a nasty woman all told. It does fit his character too to have seen something he didn't like and instantly react to it. Now, if he's a follower of Fransen's which I wouldn't know tbh I'm not remotely Twitter savvy, but that could be a call for concern. Britain First are the sort who actually make it harder for those with legitimate concerns to be taken seriously. They're in that group of people who manipulate images and stories into something totally different to pass off as "news" about whichever group they're villifying (usual Muslims, but they're also known to target others.) They take fake news to a level above and beyond the nonsense like Breitbart and the Express and in comparison to the shit they post even the Daily Mail would appear to be a credible newspaper.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> I think for me it shows more of a knee-jerk reaction to seeing them than any real association with Fransen, who is one hell of a nasty woman all told. It does fit his character too to have seen something he didn't like and instantly react to it. Now, if he's a follower of Fransen's which I wouldn't know tbh I'm not remotely Twitter savvy, but that could be a call for concern.


There's several ways he could have been made aware of the tweet

1. Someone he follows liked the tweet even if _they _weren't followers
2. Someone sent it to him directly
3. Someone he follows retweeted and it showed up in his feed

It's possible that no one that he follows are even followers of the original woman that tweeted this. 



> Britain First are the sort who actually make it harder for those with legitimate concerns to be taken seriously. They're in that group of people who manipulate images and stories into something totally different to pass off as "news" about whichever group they're villifying (usual Muslims, but they're also known to target others.) They take fake news to a level above and beyond the nonsense like Breitbart and the Express and in comparison to the shit they post even the Daily Mail would appear to be a credible newspaper.


Brietbart isn't exactly fake news. Brietbart is a _propaganda outlet _because political propaganda is now legal in America. They make what I've come to believe to be _intentional_ "mistakes" so they post retractions (because they're aware that the original headline gets much more mileage). It is a common practice nowadays and with the internet allowing instant edits, ALL outlets are changing their headlines and news stories throughout the day --- but the initial headline is pretty much always ridiculous. Most of the Russia stories that get posted on here have headlines that have NOTHING to do with the content. Because again, propaganda works. 

Brietbart are however, pretty low on the fake news meter. But since propaganda was made legal, all outlets do this. The thing is that people have forgotten what it means to live in a world where propaganda exists. 

I would say the same about all other outlets that are considered "fake news" at this point. What I do is keep in mind that propaganda exists and therefore I go through a 5-step process of verifying news. 

But yeah. Knee-jerking is definitely an issue ... For all presidents and all leaders. It isn't exclusive to Trump.


----------



## Rugrat

It would be genuinely commendable and show humility if he apologised for the silly tweets and denounced Britain First. I believe he doesn’t know who Jayda Fransen is. If he did, he obviously wouldn’t be posting this.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

A Rugrats Kwanzaa said:


> It would be genuinely commendable and show humility if he apologised for the silly tweets and denounced Britain First. I believe he doesn’t know who Jayda Fransen is. If he did, he obviously wouldn’t be posting this.


Tbh, if he denounced Britain First it'd be good ammo to use when people try and paint him as a racist/nazi to denounce arguably Britain's most visible racists/nazis.


----------



## Miss Sally

The Hardcore Show said:


> Sometimes I think you wished you lived in a world were everyone that does not like Trump or can't live under his rule was beaten half to death.


I wish I lived in a world where it was legal to beat idiots to death. :sk


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Miss Sally said:


> I wish I lived in a world where it was legal to beat idiots to death. :sk


Too dangerous for American police


----------



## Reaper

Well, the first thing I found out was that there were 3 retweets and not 2 (my mistake). 

I think that the tweet about Islamists tossing a guy off a building has no place on a President's twitter (because of its violent nature), but at the same time, it's far too big of a common problem and more people do need to be made aware of it. So I'm split in between. I don't like sensationalized videos of extreme violence, but I do think that people have a right to know. These videos have festered about for far too long underneath the mainstream for far too long. 

It says nothing about all Muslims, but it says a lot about the state of civilians in Muslim majority countries - even IF the violent mob is a minority (and it isn't). The state of those countries is horrible for civilians overall. 

For example, in Pakistan which had a 4% population of Jews when it was first built now has *1* Jew left. The others escaped the country or were forcibly converted or butchered. 

Stuff like that needs to be made known and I think that it's part of the responsibility of world leaders to do so. The issue of global persecution by Muslims (where in a huge chunk of the world, they are oppressive majorities) has been ignored for far too long.

---

So Britain's First only "crime" is to spread news about global Muslim activities on social media, "hunt for people who look like Muslims" and "Enter Mosques to distribute propaganda". I don't even see inflammatory comments by the leaders of the party. Is sharing news and atrocities committed by a specific group (since they seem to be a one-agenda party) innately racist? I'm not quite following the train of thought that is associating them with outright racism here. Is it because Muslims are a "Race"? But they're not a race ... It's a religio-political ideology with violent membership .. Can they not report on their activities? I do see ultra-nationalism ... but I don't see a call for mass deportations, or jailings, or exterminations here. I do see a desire to close borders. Which is fine. Almost all ethnonatiolists want this. But where is the supremacist and racist content? 

Are there are other places I can go to see where they're provoking violence? Inciting people to be violent? Acting like thugs? What am I missing ...

I think they're a very limited and myopic nationalist group (but aren't they all), but I don't see any outward racism in particular. 

I have seen more racism and anti-semitism on a typical Paki group about Fashion tho. :Shrug


----------



## Rugrat

I would like questions to be asked of Islam from a neutral perspective. We had the Rotherham grooming gangs who got away with their crimes because they were Muslim, as people were worried about appearing racist. Only Britain First would really acknowledge it.

It seems that Muslims crimes either get ignored or ordinary Muslim folk get vilified by muppets like Paul Golding.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-pWDLmzf98 how about a video of Paul Golding saying "fuck off you foreign cunt" for a start. I'm actually in the middle of writing a report for a big meeting on Friday so I don't really have the time right now to pull up more examples. I'll get back to you @Merry Reaper


----------



## Reaper

A Rugrats Kwanzaa said:


> I would like questions to be asked of Islam from a neutral perspective. We had the Rotherham grooming gangs who got away with their crimes because they were Muslim, as people were worried about appearing racist. Only Britain First would really acknowledge it.


That's one of the more popular stories amongst the far right. I don't know how much of their being Muslim had to do with it, because sex crimes, human trafficking (which is currently being covered up by the EU) and other crimes have historically been covered up. 

One thing I want to ask you. What do you mean by a "neutral" perspective? 



> It seems that Muslims crimes either get ignored or ordinary Muslim folk get vilified by muppets like Paul Golding.


I don't like either of the two. I think they're myopic with their party overall and are a bunch of goons ... However, I don't disagree with their message. The way they're spreading it is just silly. It's not racist. It's not inflammatory. It's just ineffective persuasion. 

The only solution to the "Islamist problem" (OMG I'm a NAZI NOW!) is closed borders or some sort of middle ground where there's merit based immigration only. Like Macron was caught on video telling a Moroccon girl that she should visit her family, but that France no longer can sustain more immigration. That is a perfectly reasonable position to take. 

Current immigration levels are unsustainable from both an economic and cultural point of view in most of Europe. I'm sure it's not as bad in England right now, but I believe it was at some point which has led to so much cultural clash that's currently happening. 

People innately want sameness and unfortunately we've been programmed to believe that wanting sameness is the same as racism, which is not true. We are tribalistic in nature and no amount of force or shame can make this change happen unless it happens organically. I like to present my own case as an example. My marriage to a Pakistani girl was a COMPLETE disaster because we were different culturally even though I was born Paki. However, my marriage to an American girl has been HUGELY successful because our culture, beliefs and ideologies are fundamentally the same. However, that is not the case with the vast majority of immigrants.


----------



## Rugrat

@Merry Reaper

Good post. I feel by neutral perspective, I mean without the concept of there being right wing and left wing. An unbiased POV.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935933913704284160
:mj


----------



## Reaper

A Rugrats Kwanzaa said:


> @Merry Reaper
> 
> Good post. I feel by neutral perspective, I mean without the concept of there being right wing and left wing. An unbiased POV.


IMO, there is no _real_ left-wing perspective of Muslims other than the projected view of all minorities and that all minorities are innately oppressed therefore need to be under their umbrella of outward protections. 

The right wing perspective is also based on half-truths and certain glaring ommissions of context, knowledge and history. 

I'm not going to outright call either view completely wrong, because they're both not completely wrong. 

I've written about Muslims extensively on WF ... I'm kind of burnt out on it. But here's my _most_ neutral perspective in cliff notes:

1. All Muslims believe in an absolute morality. The morality that says that certain things are absolutely haram: sex before marriage, homosexuality, eating pork, drinking, disbelieving in Allah or having a god that's equal to allah, that insulting Mohammad and Allah is punishable by death. 

2. A SMALL minority of Muslims in Muslim dominated countries believe in Wahabism which is an ultra orthodox ideology which creates the Jihadi, the terrorist and the local group that murders anyone who disagrees with their version of Islam. 

3. The majority of Non-western Muslims have built societies based on their strict doctrine and they freely beat up, jail and murder those who disobey. However, the majority of non-western Muslims are non-violent. They believe in non-violent punishments. 

4. The Western Muslim was by and large westernized UNTIL the wahibist explosion in the middle east. The wahabis were ultra-rich sheikhs who managed to create a global network of extremism and have been working consistently to create ultra-orthodox mosques all over the west. These groups are sponsored by ultra-orthodox elites from all Muslim nations. 

5. The explosion of Wahabism has radicalized the second and third generation of Muslims in the west. 

6. America has been by and large protected from this radicalization and therefore the Muslim terrorist in America is different from the Muslim terrorist in Europe. The Muslim terrorist in Europe is the violent extremist. 
7 The non-violent eastern Muslims are mixed in with non-violent western Muslims and are rightfully preaching their brand of orthodox, but liberal Islam. However, they still subscribe to the attitudes described in #1 which is why the push to have any criticism of Islam labeled Islamophobia consistently gains so much traction in the West. They have strength in numbers for that particular cause. 

8. Now you also have a problem of ORGINAL non-violent Muslim PARENTS and GRANDPARENTS in the West who are largely unaware of their radicalized children and grandchildren who in the interests of raising in Muslim tradition were sent to Muslim schools and mosques - where they were radicalized without the knowledge of these non-violent Muslims ... and therefore got protection by proxy. 

9. The far-right _only_ focuses on the violent Muslims

10. The far left _only_ focuses on the non-violent Muslims

11. Reality is that they both exist and they BOTH take their cues from the text because the Quran teaches BOTH violence and non-violence at literally the same time. Also, when it comes to subverting western culture, they both feed off of each other. They both take different interpretations of the same doctrine too and they both cherry-pick because unfortunately, in its many contradictions the doctrine of Islam contains BOTH guidelines for violence and for peace. 

12. I was raised in the non-violent/peaceful traditions of Islam as was my entire family. BUT, Jihadists are raised in the violent traditions of Islam. They both exist in the same Quran and books of Hadith. This is why you will NEVER face the end of Islamist terror because it's in the doctrine. Islam was spread through violence and through peace. And Islam is still spreading through violence and peace. Muslims will never be either/or ... But they will always be both. 

"Fight with those that fight with you". This means that any day, any perceived threat will result in any Muslim taking up arms to defend his faith. This was and always has been a call to war. And for 1500 years Muslims have been at war. 

BUT

"It is better to forgive" - Is ALSO a popular hadith amongst Muslims which is the foundational philosophy of the non-violent sects. However, the call to war is a stronger message than the call for peace.

Now you've got two mixed messages. It depends on your personal conviction which one you become. If you're fed both messages, it comes down to who you are as a person - but that doesn't mean that the motives weren't placed in your brain by the doctrine itself. 

It's indeed a complex scenario. The people who can make the west understand the complexity of Muslim beliefs, sects, and their underlying motivations are people who have completely left Islam so they carry the knowledge as well as the neutreality to explore and contemplate. 

The people who ultimately reformed christianity were those who were allowed to criticize its worst aspects. Unfortunately, the people who CAN reform Islam (the ones who have left it) don't have a platform.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935864806682308609


----------



## Sensei Utero

Just came in to say fuck Jayda Fransen, Tommy Robinson, and Britain First. That is all.


----------



## Draykorinee

2 Ton 21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935864806682308609


Trumps tweet after this one was to take a dig at CNN for fake news...


----------



## virus21




----------



## DOPA

So disappointing to see Trump retweeting Jayda Fransen, the deputy leader of Britain First. For those who don't know, BF essentially comprise mostly of ex-BNP and ex-National Front members, both groups being neo-nazi political parties. The National Front and the BNP are essentially off shoots of each other, with NF being predominate in the 70's and 80's and the modernized at the time BNP being around in the 90's and 00's. The BNP are still around but they utterly collapsed towards the end of the 00's thankfully. We're not talking about UKIP here who are often portrayed as racist by the screeching left but are a respectable nationalist party or even the base of Trump's supporters who are essentially paleoconservative nationalists who again have been wrongly attributed as hateful and racist. These are actual neo-nazis were talking about here.

Trump needs to check through his sources better, especially because one of the stories was utterly fake as well. I can't imagine Trump knowing who Britain First actually are or what Jayda's character actually is, though it does bring about questions around how he got a hold of the tweets to begin with.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/432162706784022528









:mj4


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935933913704284160
> :mj


I'm sorry but an 11 year old child could tell you the MSM is going to report on every 'Presidential Tweet' to fill their 24 hour news cycle that's been going on since 9/11.

Are you happy having a prez that's more than happy to communicate false messages just to troll the media basically? Even Adams' admitted they were bullshit.


----------



## Rugrat

Trump isn't backing down on Twitter

He initially also tagged the wrong Theresa May account for like half an hour :lol. He's been caught with his foot in his mouth and his head in his arse. Embarrassing.


----------



## CamillePunk

yeahbaby! said:


> I'm sorry but an 11 year old child could tell you the MSM is going to report on every 'Presidential Tweet' to fill their 24 hour news cycle that's been going on since 9/11.


As usual, you and the point are distant strangers. 



> Are you happy having a prez that's more than happy to communicate false messages just to troll the media basically? Even Adams' admitted they were bullshit.


I'm not unhappy. I am amused though.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Rowdy Yates

RavishingRickRules said:


> No you're dead wrong. Actually Britain First are both racists, and real Nazis.


A real Nazi is someone who is a member of the National Socialist German Workers Party. Although Britain First are a bunch of cunts I am quite sure that non of its members hold dual membership




> Paul Golding (their leader) has a history of bragging about owning Mein Kampf and wearing pro-Nazi clothing


.

Please can you produce some actual evidence of this claim and by evidence I do not mean one picture of Paul Golding at a National Front march wearing a pair of underpants on his head, quite a silly thing to do yes but I was not aware putting a pair of y fronts on your head was a Nazi thing to do. Also I would like to see or hear the claim about him bragging that he owns Mein Kampf



> The woman who Trump retweeted is awaiting trial for racially aggravated assault


Wrong, She is awaiting trial after being charge with employing "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior. In 2016 she was charged with religiously aggravated harassment. She has never been arrested for or charged with assault. 



RavishingRickRules said:


> A good place to start would be their Facebook page which is literally rife with comments such as "Hitler had the right idea" "put them in the gas chambers" etc.


Are these the comments made by Britain first or just random comments made by backwards members of the public who visit their facebook site?. I can not find any such comments posted by the Britain First facebook page




> cost our taxpayers literally millions in policing a year just to protect their "right to protest" because they cause so much destruction and problems at all of the towns they invade with their "marches."


Are English citizens not allowed to hold marches against Muslim grooming gangs and immigration in their own country?. You might not agree with what they are marching about but believe it or not every citizen of such a democratic society like England has the "right to protest" as you put it. Also again I would be interested to see evidence of all the destruction and problems in all the towns and cities that these marchers invade 


> (most marches struggle to get 100 people attending)


The press will have you believe that barely anybody attends these marches























































A few pictures from different marches held by the likes of so called Nazi organization's in England like Britain First, EDL, and unite against terrorism. Marches attended by Muslims, Blacks, school teachers, Solicitors and employees of many other departments of the public sector. Lets not act like it is a tiny minority of people that agree with a lot of what these organizations stand for




> They also have a horrific record of paedophiles in their ranks


Again please provide some evidence of these horrific pedophile's in their ranks




> But yeah, do the digging, I've done so much myself that if you come back with anything other than the conclusion that these people are dangerous and toxic then be aware that for the majority of people on here from the UK you will be revealing yourself as incredibly suspect.


I would not for one second class anybody incredibly suspect for having a different political stance as my own 



> Fransen, who is one hell of a nasty woman all told.


Again please provide evidence of why she is one hell of a nasty women. Speaking her mind in public alone does not convince me of such a claim 



> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-pWDLmzf98[/url] how about a video of Paul Golding saying "fuck off you foreign cunt" for a start. I'm actually in the middle of writing a report for a big meeting on Friday so I don't really have the time right now to pull up more examples.


So the best bit of evidence you can provide as to what a horrible Nazi dangerous vile man Paul Golding is him telling somebody who is approaching him in a aggressive manor to "fuck off you foreign cunt" :lmao

And before you start labelling me as a racist Nazi I will tell you now I am not. I have quite a few mates who attend EDL marches but personally it is not for me. I have been invited to multiple events but always declined. I am just not willing to brand anybody who challenges things like terrorism and immigration as racist pieces of shit etc

The likelihood is that Trump has no idea who these people are and it was very stupid of him to go retweeting things without doing some research first but to claim he his supporting another far right party is just ridiculous

Seems how you have done so much research and are such a expert on the matter at hand I wait with baited breath this mountain of actual evidence you have to back up all your claims (Y)


----------



## Draykorinee

Rowdy Yates said:


> RavishingRickRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you're dead wrong. Actually Britain First are both racists, and real Nazis.
> 
> 
> 
> A real Nazi is someone who is a member of the National Socialist German Workers Party. Although Britain First are a bunch of cunts I am quite sure that non of its members hold dual membership
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Golding (their leader) has a history of bragging about owning Mein Kampf and wearing pro-Nazi clothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Please can you produce some actual evidence of this claim and by evidence I do not mean one picture of Paul Golding at a National Front march wearing a pair of underpants on his head, quite a silly thing to do yes but I was not aware putting a pair of y fronts on your head was a Nazi thing to do. Also I would like to see or hear the claim about him bragging that he owns Mein Kampf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The woman who Trump retweeted is awaiting trial for racially aggravated assault
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, She is awaiting trial after being charge with employing "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior. In 2016 she was charged with religiously aggravated harassment. She has never been arrested for or charged with assault.
> 
> 
> 
> RavishingRickRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good place to start would be their Facebook page which is literally rife with comments such as "Hitler had the right idea" "put them in the gas chambers" etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are these the comments made by Britain first or just random comments made by backwards members of the public who visit their facebook site?. I can not find any such comments posted by the Britain First facebook page
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cost our taxpayers literally millions in policing a year just to protect their "right to protest" because they cause so much destruction and problems at all of the towns they invade with their "marches."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are English citizens not allowed to hold marches against Muslim grooming gangs and immigration in their own country?. You might not agree with what they are marching about but believe it or not every citizen of such a democratic society like England has the "right to protest" as you put it. Also again I would be interested to see evidence of all the destruction and problems in all the towns and cities that these marchers invade
> 
> 
> 
> (most marches struggle to get 100 people attending)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The press will have you believe that barely anybody attends these marches
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A few pictures from different marches held by the likes of so called Nazi organization's in England like Britain First, EDL, and unite against terrorism. Marches attended by Muslims, Blacks, school teachers, Solicitors and employees of many other departments of the public sector. Lets not act like it is a tiny minority of people that agree with a lot of what these organizations stand for
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They also have a horrific record of paedophiles in their ranks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again please provide some evidence of these horrific pedophile's in their ranks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But yeah, do the digging, I've done so much myself that if you come back with anything other than the conclusion that these people are dangerous and toxic then be aware that for the majority of people on here from the UK you will be revealing yourself as incredibly suspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would not for one second class anybody incredibly suspect for having a different political stance as my own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fransen, who is one hell of a nasty woman all told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again please provide evidence of why she is one hell of a nasty women. Speaking her mind in public alone does not convince me of such a claim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-pWDLmzf98[/url] how about a video of Paul Golding saying "fuck off you foreign cunt" for a start. I'm actually in the middle of writing a report for a big meeting on Friday so I don't really have the time right now to pull up more examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the best bit of evidence you can provide as to what a horrible Nazi dangerous vile man Paul Golding is him telling somebody who is approaching him in a aggressive manor to "fuck off you foreign cunt"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And before you start labelling me as a racist Nazi I will tell you now I am not. I have quite a few mates who attend EDL marches but personally it is not for me. I have been invited to multiple events but always declined. I am just not willing to brand anybody who challenges things like terrorism and immigration as racist pieces of shit etc
> 
> The likelihood is that Trump has no idea who these people are and it was very stupid of him to go retweeting things without doing some research first but to claim he his supporting another far right party is just ridiculous
> 
> Seems how you have done so much research and are such a expert on the matter at hand I wait with baited breath this mountain of actual evidence you have to back up all your claims
Click to expand...

Woman convicted of verbally assaulting stranger in front of her family, needs proof she's nasty. PMSL.

Also Britain first do get tiny crowds at their events, you can't use a far right gathering of proof ffs, it's not them theyre their to see. You wouldn't get me using a visit to the Emirates by Yeovil town as proof of Yeovil being a well supported club...


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Christmas DOPAmine said:


> Trump needs to check through his sources better, especially because one of the stories was utterly fake as well.


Eveyone's 60/70 yo drunk and or racist uncle needs to check before they repost on Facebook from conspiracy pages or easily debunkable racists sites, but that won't happen with everyone'e uncle and it ain't gonna stop from Trump. You can't be a Manchild with no accountability to anyone for almost three quarters of a century and then one day be Presidential and realize everything you do has potential consequences that go beyond politcs and have the potential to effect the entire world.


----------



## CamillePunk

When you're a Democratic Senator and you've lost the fucking Daily Show. :lmao


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935919412212912129
Please put this absolute fraud on the ticket in 2020. :lol 

On that note, man is Trevor Noah horribly unfunny.


----------



## Reaper

The word racist has indeed lost all meaning. I feel sorry for those people whose entire existence is now defined by spotting racism and believing they're superheroes fighting against evil Nazis. It's their inability to grow up from having read too many comic books. The obsession with racism and fighting racism is pathological and I think should be in the DSM as some sort of Identity Disorder. 

So limiting of their actual capabilities. But oh well. Being delusional is still a life choice. 

--

I don't think the Britain First party are racists. I do think they're myopic and a little bit silly though. They're not danger to society. Good for a little mocking and avoidance. But at their core, their message is right. Close the borders and put the people of Britain first. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I have sympathy for the modern ultranationalists that are an obvious non violent reactionary force to the ultra Islamist radical - which is a FAR FAR worse kind of human being but his threat is consistently downplayed while the mere mention of ultranationalists makes certain people poop their pants in fear and they want every force of government as well the court of public opinion to crack down on the ultranationalist. These are the same people who remain silent when the discussion turns to the far-right Muslim ultranationalism that is creeping into their societies. And whether you accept it or not, the Islamist ultrantionalist state exists. It's called ISIS and the less bad version of it is Saudi Arabia. Islam is an Arab supremacist religion, but how many of you people have actually had the guts to call it what it is. Why is it so much easier to rant about one group of racists and ignore the other? What's with the selective outrage? 

All I see is one non-violent force reacted to a violent threat. That's the complete picture here. They're not just Islam "haters" without justifiable reason. 

I understand their fear. I respect their attachment to their ethnostate and I feel sorry that eastern cultures are indeed changing western societies in terrible ways. 

But I don't think they're racists.



draykorinee said:


> Woman convicted of verbally assaulting stranger in front of her family, needs proof she's nasty.


Verbal "assault" ... There is no such thing. It's so arbitrarily that I can define you and a few others constantly attacking my opinions as verbal assault. It's ridiculous. The fact that you guys even have laws about that sort of thing shows just how far down the rabbit hole England has sunk. 

Not making a good case here. Here in the States we call shit like this trumped up charges and police harassment. And that's why we have universal free speech so that the government cannot harass political opinions ( no matter how ridiculous and silly) into silence.


----------



## Draykorinee

Merry Reaper said:


> The word racist has indeed lost all meaning. I feel sorry for those people whose entire existence is now defined by spotting racism and believing they're superheroes fighting against evil Nazis. It's their inability to grow up from having read too many comic books. The obsession with racism and fighting racism is pathological and I think should be in the DSM as some sort of Identity Disorder.
> 
> So limiting of their actual capabilities. But oh well. Being delusional is still a life choice.
> 
> --
> 
> I don't think the Britain First party are racists. I do think they're myopic and a little bit silly though. They're not danger to society. Good for a little mocking and avoidance. But at their core, their message is right. Close the borders and put the people of Britain first. I don't see anything wrong with that.
> 
> I have sympathy for the modern ultranationalists that are an obvious non violent reactionary force to the ultra Islamist radical - which is a FAR FAR worse kind of human being but his threat is consistently downplayed while the mere mention of ultranationalists makes certain people poop their pants in fear and they want every force of government as well the court of public opinion to crack down on the ultranationalist. These are the same people who remain silent when the discussion turns to the far-right Muslim ultranationalism that is creeping into their societies. And whether you accept it or not, the Islamist ultrantionalist state exists. It's called ISIS and the less bad version of it is Saudi Arabia. Islam is an Arab supremacist religion, but how many of you people have actually had the guts to call it what it is. Why is it so much easier to rant about one group of racists and ignore the other? What's with the selective outrage?
> 
> All I see is one non-violent force reacted to a violent threat. That's the complete picture here. They're not just Islam "haters" without justifiable reason.
> 
> I understand their fear. I respect their attachment to their ethnostate and I feel sorry that eastern cultures are indeed changing western societies in terrible ways.
> 
> But I don't think they're racists.
> 
> 
> 
> Verbal "assault" ... There is no such thing. It's so arbitrarily that I can define you and a few others constantly attacking my opinions as verbal assault. It's ridiculous. The fact that you guys even have laws about that sort of thing shows just how far down the rabbit hole England has sunk.
> 
> Not making a good case here. Here in the States we call shit like this trumped up charges and police harassment. And that's why we have universal free speech so that the government cannot harass political opinions ( no matter how ridiculous and silly) into silence.


I thought I had edited that to verbal harrasment, evidently not and now I'm embarrassed.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> I thought I had edited that to verbal harrasment, evidently not and now I'm embarrassed.


:lol My point still stands :cudi 

Verbal harassment is a crime in the UK :hmmm 

Where do I go to report YOU for online harassment for consistently disagreeing with a minority by flexing your white man muscles (assuming you are a white man)? :CENA



> I mean, if you think its okay to walk up to strangers in front of their family and harangue them for muslim rape gangs just because you're a muslim then of course we'll not agree on what free speech is about.


It's a shitty thing to do, but there's no way it's a crime or can be defined as a crime. Hurt Feelings is not victimization. 



> Of course the US does not have universal free speech either, thats a fallacy. You have no right to slander people,


Most defamation cases are tossed because intentional malicious intent and desire to defame needs to exist in order for it to be proven. Slander (verbal) isn't a crime. Libel (written) isn't a crime either. Defamation is a tort (a civil wrong, not a criminal wrong) @FITZ can tell you how difficult it is to actually prove it. But since it's not a crime, what you're saying is wrong. 



> you can't promote child pornography,


Equating the promotion of child pornography (where the harm has ALREADY been done) to "speech" is an incredible reach. 



> universal speech is not allowed for obvious reasons.


It is though. The Supreme Court has _consistently _over-turned _all _lower-court "incitement to violence" convictions throughout the history of the USA. Incitement to violence as per consistent Supreme Court decisions is not a crime in the USA and will never be. They just re-affirmed their stance on universal free speech this year with a completely unanimous vote.

The one thing that Americans have gotten right to absolute perfection is our understanding of free speech.


----------



## Draykorinee

Scrub this I missed quote. You're always too quick! Thats what my misses says too.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Scrub this I missed quote. You're always too quick! Thats what my misses says too.


Yeah. Between 6 and 8 in the morning is my dedicated WF time :lol


----------



## Rowdy Yates

draykorinee said:


> Woman convicted of verbally assaulting stranger in front of her family, needs proof she's nasty. PMSL.





> Fransen admitted telling Ms Sharpe that Muslim men force women to cover up to avoid being raped "because they cannot control their sexual urges", adding "that's why they are coming into my country raping women across the continent".


This is verbally assaulting somebody is it :lmao. And comments like this make her such a nasty women eh. A £2000 fine and a day in court for that yet there is numerous occasions when British troops have been abused by Muslim men when returning home from overseas duties and not a single arrest was ever made













Again nothing was done about this, no arrests, nothing .



> Fransen said: "It was just absolutely absurd in the court. It was just a really clear display of Islamic appeasement."
> 
> She said "we have an establishment that is against anything patriotic in this country and is only concerned with appeasing the Muslim community".
> 
> Paul Golding, the leader of Britain first, said: "The fact of the matter is, it's one rule of law for Muslims, the protected species in this country, and another for British people."


I actually can not disagree with either of these comments. The PC brigade can get triggered all they want but i for one will not be falling for their utter BS anytime soon



draykorinee said:


> Also Britain first do get tiny crowds at their events, you can't use a far right gathering of proof ffs, it's not them theyre their to see. You wouldn't get me using a visit to the Emirates by Yeovil town as proof of Yeovil being a well supported club...


You obviously failed to read his comment. He said our far right contingent is tiny all told (most marches struggle to get 100 people attending). No specific mention of Britain First. The EDL are classed as far right are they not? I posted a few pics of so called far right marches when up to 10,000 and more attended. I am simply calling BS on fake news when I see it


----------



## Draykorinee

Merry Reaper said:


> It's a shitty thing to do, but there's no way it's a crime or can be defined as a crime. Hurt Feelings is not victimization.


I actually don't necessarily disagree, but I think people have the right to not be harrassed in the street as well, how do you prevent that without a restriction somewhere? Anyway, I don't have an opinion of freedom of speech per se, I think its a bad idea to allow someone to advocate Islamic extremism, I was just highlighting shes a nasty person by virtue of what she said to some random stranger, not the conviction itself.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> I actually don't necessarily disagree, but I think people have the right to not be harrassed in the street as well, how do you prevent that without a restriction somewhere? Anyway, I don't have an opinion of freedom of speech per se, I think its a bad idea to allow someone to advocate Islamic extremism, I was just highlighting shes a nasty person by virtue of what she said to some random stranger, not the conviction itself.


You can say things that are mean (doesn't everybody?), does it always make you a nasty person. :shrug

I mean, you've read the shit people say to each other on this site. Are we all nasty people?


----------



## Draykorinee

Rowdy Yates said:


> This is verbally assaulting somebody is it :lmao. And comments like this make her such a nasty women eh. A £2000 fine and a day in court for that yet there is numerous occasions when British troops have been abused by Muslim men when returning home from overseas duties and not a single arrest was ever made


Walking up to people in the street with their family and harranguing them is nasty, regardless of content. (I'm not actually advocating her conviction was just)



> You obviously failed to read his comment. He said our far right contingent is tiny all told (most marches struggle to get 100 people attending). No specific mention of Britain First. The EDL are classed as far right are they not? I posted a few pics of so called far right marches when up to 10,000 and more attended. I am simply calling BS on fake news when I see it


Actually fair dos, I'm wrong, you're right, he's way off if he thinks the far right is only a hundred. We have a good few thousand knuckledraggers who attend EDL marches, skinheaded, engerland yobbos. 

You can see the numbers here.


----------



## Draykorinee

Merry Reaper said:


> You can say things that are mean (doesn't everybody?), does it always make you a nasty person. :shrug


No. The whole package of this woman makes her a nasty person in my opinion. If somebody needs factual proof of what is fundamentally a subjective opinion, then having convictions for talking shit to random people is at least a start. Anybody who walks up to muslims with a white cross and shouts at them will also get a big middle finger from me, or is leader of a group who think burying pigs under mosques is a good idea. Lovely people.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> No. The whole package of this woman makes her a nasty person in my opinion. If somebody needs factual proof of what is fundamentally a subjective opinion, then having convictions for talking shit to random people is at least a start. Anybody who walks up to muslims with a white cross and shouts at them will also get a big middle finger from me, or is leader of a group who think burying pigs under mosques is a good idea. Lovely people.


Here's the difference. Doing and saying certain shitty things don't make someone as a whole a shitty person. At least in my subjective opinion. 

As an aside, how do you feel when people on here call me an Islamophobe that hates all muslims then (despite the fact that I have a muslim family)? Do I have grounds for having them fined or sent to jail? Are they nasty?


----------



## Draykorinee

Merry Reaper said:


> How do you feel when people on here call me an Islamophobe that hates all muslims then? Do I have grounds for having them fined or sent to jail?


No, because as I've said I'm no advocate of hurt feelings being a cause for conviction. However if people did that to you in the street in front of your kids in an angry way I would suggest those people are nasty and that potentially they should be fined for breach of the peace or something.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

draykorinee said:


> Actually fair dos, I'm wrong, you're right, he's way off if he thinks the far right is only a hundred. We have a good few thousand knuckledraggers who attend EDL marches, skinheaded, engerland yobbos.
> 
> You can see the numbers here.


No doubt a lot of people who attend EDL marches are indeed knuckledragging football hooligans but there is also a lot of decent law abiding people there as well who simply feel aggrieved and who agree with core sentiments of these organisations . I agree you can not brand all Muslims terrorists but surely it has to work both ways. Not all EDL, Britain First members and people who attend these marches are racist Nazis like they are portrayed to be


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> No, because as I've said I'm no advocate of hurt feelings being a cause for conviction. However if people did that to you in the street in front of your kids in an angry way I would suggest those people are nasty and that potentially they should be fined for breach of the peace or something.


It's next to impossible for me to relate because I've only ever lived in posh western neighborhoods where racism does not exist. Racism in America is deeply buried within largely abandoned rural areas or exists within inner cities that are overly crowded. I have never loved in either and I don't plan to either. The worst racially charged comments I had were from a drug-pushing dickhead in Canada (1997) who basically ended up looking like a fool to even his own friends because I ignored his existence. They eventually started laughing at him and his last comment was "are you too good for me?" and I was like to myself "yeah. I am". 

The other somewhat racially charged comment was directed towards my wife from an Indian Aunty who genuinely got freakishly shocked and surprised at the fact that my wife wanted to attempt to bake Naan at home. It was very awkward but understandable. It wasn't offensive. Just humorous. 

I understand that irl harassment is likely a bigger issue in congested British boroughs. But so is being in constant touch with Islamist extremists. I have a picture of the cultural climate that exists in part of the UK and I can see why you guys want to do something about it, but policing is giving rise to more divisiveness. Because the perception is that policing is unfair. 

The involvement and rise of the police state has the unintended consequence of increased divisiveness and fueling the culture war.


----------



## Rugrat

Paul Golding - their leader was part of the BNP and NF both of which openly admitted to being racist. It makes any suggestion that they’re not racist difficult.


----------



## Reaper

UK has a Muslim problem:










Meanwhile, also the UK: 










http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5027683/Council-house-bribes-UK-terror-suspects.html

I'm sorry. But this is irrationality and hypocricy and this is WHY ultranationalists exist. 

You have a PoS mayor consistently WHINING and MOANING about Islamophobia but also a government that's also willing to accept ISIS back. ISIS fighters. These are men who have raped, pillaged and murdered with reckless abandon. Where MASS graves of Yazidis, Christians, Jews and other Muslims who disagree with them are STILL being discovered after their decimation. 

I'm sorry, but worrying about non-violent ultranationalists while ignoring the potential of living right next to an ISIS jihadi is suicide.


----------



## Rugrat

Mail on Sunday isn’t a credible source


----------



## Reaper

A Rugrats Kwanzaa said:


> Mail on Sunday isn’t a credible source


Uh. That may be a conspiracy theory, fair enough. 

But if you think that the UK can catch all ISIS fighters returning home, you're mistaken - as most will easily pass off as "refugees" or just random people who are innocent and "just played video games" 

From officials themselves: 



> But EU officials admit the intelligence services, now operating at a central counter-terror group in the Hague, do not have the resources to retain eyes on all suspects.
> 
> The UK officers say that keeping tabs on the movements of many of the fighters will be a challenge, not just in the UK but in other countries such as Tunisia, Indonesia and Algeria, where the security apparatus is less sophisticated.
> 
> In total, 40,000 foreign fighters from more than 110 countries have gone to Syria and Iraq, the international development minister, Rory Stewart, confirmed this week. He warned that the speed with which these foreign fighters moved had caught the west offguard.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-fighters-returning-to-uk-pose-huge-challenge

The fact remains that people and politicians in the UK are pushing to have an open door policy for "migrants" and "refugees" meanwhile you have a screeching harpy mayor and a large contingent of the population (same people) that are focused on Trump and "islamophobia" and local "racism". 

The real issue facing UK and Europe are returning ISIS fighters. That's where the national agenda should be focused on right now. Not on Trump or fringe extremist parties.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

Merry Reaper said:


> UK has a Muslim problem:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, also the UK:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5027683/Council-house-bribes-UK-terror-suspects.html
> 
> I'm sorry. But this is irrationality and hypocricy and this is WHY ultranationalists exist.
> 
> You have a PoS mayor consistently WHINING and MOANING about Islamophobia but also a government that's also willing to accept ISIS back. ISIS fighters. These are men who have raped, pillaged and murdered with reckless abandon. Where MASS graves of Yazidis, Christians, Jews and other Muslims who disagree with them are STILL being discovered after their decimation.
> 
> I'm sorry, but worrying about non-violent ultranationalists while ignoring the potential of living right next to an ISIS jihadi is suicide.


Sadiq Khan. The piece of shit who invited ambassadors from a host of countries with appalling human rights records as well as countries who will not allow Israli Jewish immigrants entry including. Iraq, Iran, Libya and Yeman to London city hall says that the leader of the free world and one of the biggest allies to the U.K should not be welcome to visit the country :lmao. Hypocrisy of the highest order. How this man is in such a position as mayor of London is beyond baffling


----------



## Reaper

Rowdy Yates said:


> Sadiq Khan. The piece of shit who invited ambassadors from a host of countries with appalling human rights records as well as countries who will not allow Israli Jewish immigrants entry including. Iraq, Iran, Libya and Yeman to London city hall says that the leader of the free world and one of the biggest allies to the U.K should not be welcome to visit the country :lmao. Hypocrisy of the highest order. How this man is in such a position as mayor of London is beyond baffling


It's going to happen more and more in the west as the muslim population combined with Islam apologists grows. Having come from a Muslim run country, I shudder to think what's going to happen to Europe once they form major voting blocs in small towns and counties because they seem to congregate in the same time and don't spread out. 

We're seeing this in Canada already with the rise of Muslim MP's in their Parliament. The Ontario AG, Yasir Naqvi is a former member of the extremist MSA (which has been known to have several Jihadis and funded by The Muslim Brotherhood) and is currently charging people with Islamophobia pre-emptively while Iqra Khalid - who is closely associated with Pakistan's Jamaat - e - Islami as well as terrorist organizations CAIR and ISNA (JI is a religious extremist party even by Pakistan's standards) is trying to get the Islamophobia law passed with support from Trucuck.

They are attacking the heart of western freedoms right under their noses.


----------



## Draykorinee

Rowdy Yates said:


> Merry Reaper said:
> 
> 
> 
> UK has a Muslim problem:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, also the UK:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5027683/Council-house-bribes-UK-terror-suspects.html
> 
> I'm sorry. But this is irrationality and hypocricy and this is WHY ultranationalists exist.
> 
> You have a PoS mayor consistently WHINING and MOANING about Islamophobia but also a government that's also willing to accept ISIS back. ISIS fighters. These are men who have raped, pillaged and murdered with reckless abandon. Where MASS graves of Yazidis, Christians, Jews and other Muslims who disagree with them are STILL being discovered after their decimation.
> 
> I'm sorry, but worrying about non-violent ultranationalists while ignoring the potential of living right next to an ISIS jihadi is suicide.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadiq Khan. The piece of shit who invited ambassadors from a host of countries with appalling human rights records as well as countries who will not allow Israli Jewish immigrants entry including. Iraq, Iran, Libya and Yeman to London city hall says that the leader of the free world and one of the biggest allies to the U.K should not be welcome to visit the country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Hypocrisy of the highest order. How this man is in such a position as mayor of London is beyond baffling
Click to expand...

Who were these ambassadors and what was the reason for the invites?


----------



## Reaper

People ITT are peddling the myth that Warren is 1/32 Native, but Pocahontas isn't because the same group that made the claim recanted it (in 2012 as well) .. apparently the liberal media failed to record this little article in their records (of course): 

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_op...ety_no_proof_warren’s_cherokee_heritage_found



> The New England Historical Genealogical Society, which originally announced they found evidence of Elizabeth Warren’s Native American heritage, said today they have discovered no documentation to back up claims that she is 1/32 Cherokee.
> 
> “NEHGS has not expressed a position on whether Mrs. Warren has Native American ancestry, nor do we possess any primary sources to prove that she is,” said Tom Champoux, spokesman for the NEHGS. “We have no proof that Elizabeth Warren’s great great great grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith either is or is not of Cherokee descent.”


This cultural identity thief really should run in 2020. I hope she does and it would be amazing to watch her get destroyed for cultural appropriation.

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-run/articles/2017-11-28/elizabeth-warrens-pocahontas-pickle



> In the meantime, someone is monetizing the kerfuffle on Warren's behalf.
> 
> *Visit the website Pocahontas.com and you will be redirected to Warren's campaign page for her 2018 reelection, where a request for a donation pops open.*
> 
> A representative for Warren tells U.S. News her office was not responsible for the redirect and is unaware of who is.


:ha :ha :ha


----------



## stevefox1200

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...t-with-cia-chief-new-york-times-idUSKBN1DU23F

Rex might be removed and be replaced by the current head of the CIA who will likely be a very aggressive Secretary of State 

I must say that Rex has been a much better Secretary than most people would have thought


----------



## Reaper

Maybe one of the democrats in here can explain to me why Pelosi is ignoring white Al Franken and demanding black Conyers' resignation?

Yes. This is a question Ann Coulter also asked on Twitter.


----------



## Logfish

Rowdy Yates said:


> No doubt a lot of people who attend EDL marches are indeed knuckledragging football hooligans but there is also a lot of decent law abiding people there as well who simply feel aggrieved and who agree with core sentiments of these organisations . I agree you can not brand all Muslims terrorists but surely it has to work both ways. Not all EDL, Britain First members and people who attend these marches are racist Nazis like they are portrayed to be


Not all people who support racist nazi groups are racist nazis? Now I've heard everything.

Absolutely disgusting fascist apologia.


----------



## Reaper

Meanwhile, more Newsweek :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao












Spoiler: :lmao



:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *GERMAN JEWS STOP WEARING KIPPOT DUE TO MUSLIM ATTACKS*
> 
> Members of the small Jewish community in the West German city of Bochum announced that they will no longer wear kippot because of attacks on them by Muslim youths.
> 
> Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday, “Germans, more than any other people in Europe, should understand what starts with the Jews never ends with the Jews. When I raised the issue brought to Germany by many Arab and Muslim immigrants with the German justice minister, I was told this issue would be dealt with in the context of the German authorities’ efforts to integrate newcomers into German life and values.”
> 
> He added, “The German authorities, Church leadership and NGOs have a moral obligation to ensure 21st century German Jews will never have to hide their Jewish identities on the streets of Germany.”
> 
> Cooper said that he has not heard of any government efforts to rope in antisemitism among Muslim communities in the Federal Republic since his 2014 meeting with the justice minister.
> 
> The news outlet Radio Bochum first reported that a representative of the community said members will stop wearing kippot in public because they are routinely faced with insults on public streets when they are recognized as Jews.
> 
> “Muslim youths attacked people of the Jewish faith,” the segment said.
> 
> Bochum is an industrial city in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia with a population of nearly 365,000. Bochum’s Jewish community, which includes the towns of Herne and Hattingen, numbers over 1,000.
> 
> Esther Schapira, a German journalist and expert in the field of modern antisemitism, tweeted on Tuesday, “It is often the small [news] items, in which the scandal is hidden, which for most people is not a scandal: Antisemitism in everyday life.”
> 
> Schapira along with the journalist Georg M. Hafner wrote one of the authoritative books on contemporary antisemitism in Germany, titled Israel is Blamed for Everything: Why the Jewish state is so hated.
> 
> Commenting on the Radio Bochum story, Ali Utlu, a Turkish ex-Muslim activist in Germany, sent a tweet to his over 19,000 followers, stating: “What a disgrace 72 years after the Shoah.”
> 
> Bochum has been a hotspot for anti-Israel hatred. In 2014, some 120 activists marched to Bochum’s city hall chanting “Israel, child murderers” and “Allahu Akbar.” The anti-Israel demonstrators protested Israel’s war to stop the Islamic organization Hamas’s rocket attacks on Israeli territory.
> 
> Starting in 1941, most of Bochum’s Jews were murdered by the Nazis in Theresienstadt and Auschwitz.


www.jpost.com/Diaspora/German-Jews-stop-wearing-Kippot-amid-Muslim-attacks-515457

It's quite sad that Jews have to hide their faith


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> Maybe one of the democrats in here can explain to me why Pelosi is ignoring white Al Franken and demanding black Conyers' resignation?
> 
> Yes. This is a question Ann Coulter also asked on Twitter.


Because she is senile and an establishment hack. She needs to go. She is easily the worst democratic congressperson in the country.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE




----------



## Reaper

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkp...lizabeth-warren-is-not-cherokee-c1ec6c91b696/

Looks like the American far left is starting to turn on Warren as well. 

I believe this is good news because the Democrats are overrun by fakers and this cultural thief needs to be tossed by the wayside. 

This article elaborates why white people shouldn't speak over minorities either. They don't know. The outrage on behalf of minorities must end. Read this woman's article and please learn and grow instead of just blindly defending everyone without thinking.


----------



## birthday_massacre

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/362497-art-of-the-deal-ghostwriter-trump-losing-his-grip-on-reality

‘Art of the Deal’ co-author: Trump ‘losing his grip on reality’


‘Art of the Deal’ co-author: Trump ‘losing his grip on reality’
© Getty
Tony Schwartz, the co-author of President Trump’s book “The Art of the Deal,” said in an interview Wednesday that the president is “losing his grip on reality.”

“But what it means in simple terms is he’s losing his grip on reality,” Schwartz told MSNBC’s “The Beat with Ari Melber” when asked about Trump’s reported suggestion that the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape may not be real.

“His reality testing is really poor and I believe that’s exactly what’s going on,” Schwartz added.

Schwartz described “a dramatic change” in Trump from when he co-authored the book with him to how the president speaks now.
“He is more limited in his vocabulary. He is further from, as I say, this connection to what is factual and real. He is more impulsive. He is more reactive. This is a guy in deep trouble,” said Schwartz.

He also said that many employees at the White House are “hostages to a cult leader.” 

“When you watch Sarah Huckabee Sanders right now, you really feel as if you’re watching somebody who is being brainwashed, or has been brainwashed,” Schwartz said, referring to the White House press secretary


----------



## Rowdy Yates

draykorinee said:


> Who were these ambassadors and what was the reason for the invites?


Ambassadors from countries who forbid entry to Israli passport holders who attended the event

Algeria- Amar Abba
Bangladesh- Mohammed Nazmul Quaunine
Iran- Hamid Baeidinejad
Iraq- Dr Saih Husain Ali
Kuwait- Khaled Al Duwaisan
Lebanon- Inaam Osseiran
Libya Mahmud Mohammed Nacua
Pakistan- Syed Ibne Abbas
Sudan- Mohammed Abdalla Ali Eltom
UAE- Suiaiman Hamid Almazrou
Yeman- Dr Yassi Saeed Ahmed Noma

The diplomatic reception was held at London City Hall 31st January 2017. The reason for the reception as far as I can gather was for a set of cunts to be wined and dined at the expence of the taxpayer while Sadiq Khan spouted his hatred towards Donald Trump 

During the address Khan said



> The international community has a responsibility to show moral leadership and should join me in speaking out against the ban. The government should rescind its offer of a full state visit for President Trump while the ban remains in place. You don't need me to tell you that theres no contradiction between subscribing to western values of human rights, democracy, the rule of law and freedom of speech and being a muslim
> 
> Nor do you need me to tell you that targeting people for no reason other than their faith or country of birth is cruel, prejudiced and counterproductive
> 
> The executive order signed by president Trump will not only see the us turn its back on its obligation to refugees fleeing persecution at a time when great nations around the world should be doing more, not less-it risks playing straight into the hands of terrorists and extremists whose goal is to divide people and deceive them into believing that Islam is incompatible with western values.
> 
> Ive been clear that president Trumps actions are unacceptable for a liberal open democracy like America and we can not be seen to be endorsing them in any way
> 
> As an international community, I believe we have the responsibility to show moral leadership and so my ask of you tonight is this, join me in speaking out against this ban and condemning it for what it really is, discriminatory, self-defeating and completely un-American


So basically it is o.k for all these Muslim countries to ban Isralis and they will be accepted with open arms to such events but the minute Muslims are banned it is not acceptable. How this piece of shit is allowed to spout blatant hatred like this is a total disgrace and the fact he is in a job of such power in a country like England shows how pathetic and spineless this country has become







Logfish said:


> Not all people who support racist nazi groups are racist nazis? Now I've heard everything.
> 
> Absolutely disgusting fascist apologia.


One of my pals who is a EDL member works as a furniture delivery driver and has done for 12 years, his boss who is also a good pal of his is Muslim, He has never been arrested or been in trouble with the law, he lives next door to Muslims who he gets on with fine yet I am meant to believe he is a racist Nazi? :lmao. He wants control over immigration and wants the country to stop being so spineless when it comes to dealing with radical islamists. He does not want harm bringing to the decent Muslim who he works with and lives beside in peace everyday. You really need to give your head a wobble and see the difference.

If it is o.k for you to brand every member of groups like EDL and Britain First racist Nazi scum then it is o.k for him to brand every Muslim a terrorist. Great thought process you have there. One which will no doubt bring peace and equality to the world (Y)


----------



## DOPA

Stinger Fan said:


> www.jpost.com/Diaspora/German-Jews-stop-wearing-Kippot-amid-Muslim-attacks-515457
> 
> It's quite sad that Jews have to hide their faith


It seems as though at the same time, we have rising anti-semitism from both the alt right and the fundamentalist Muslims. The anti-semitism from the Muslim fundamentalists is the much bigger problem though because whilst the alt right is outright rejected by everyone, the far left continues to embrace people like Linda Sarsour with open arms.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/opinion/womens-march-progressives-hate.html



> A mere half-year ago, before collusion and Comey, before Mika’s face and Muslim bans and the Mooch, there was a shining moment where millions of Americans flooded the streets in cities across the country to register their rage that an unapologetic misogynist had just been made leader of the free world.
> 
> Donald Trump’s election was a watershed moment. Even those like me, who had previously pulled levers for candidates of both parties, felt that Mr. Trump had not only violated all sense of common decency, but, alarmingly, that he seemed to have no idea that there even existed such an unspoken code of civility and dignity. Now was the time to build a broad coalition to resist the genital-grabber with the nuclear codes.
> 
> The Women’s March moved me. O.K., so Madonna and Ashley Judd said some nutty things. But every movement has its excesses, I reasoned. Mr. Trump had campaigned on attacking the weakest and most vulnerable in our society. Now was the time to put aside petty differences and secondary issues to oppose his presidency.
> 
> That’s certainly what the leaders of the Democratic Party, who applauded the march, told us. Senator Charles Schumer called the protest “part of the grand American tradition.” The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, offered her congratulations to the march’s “courageous organizers” and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand gushed about them in Time, where they were among the top 100 most influential people of 2017. “The Women’s March was the most inspiring and transformational moment I’ve ever witnessed in politics,” she wrote. “And it happened because four extraordinary women — Tamika Mallory, Bob Bland, Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour — had the courage to take on something big, important and urgent, and never gave up.”
> 
> The image of this fearsome foursome, echoed in more than a few flattering profiles, was as seductive as a Benetton ad. There was Tamika Mallory, a young black activist who was crowned the “Sojourner Truth of our time” by Jet magazine and “a leader of tomorrow” by Valerie Jarrett. Carmen Perez, a Mexican-American and a veteran political organizer, was named one of Fortune’s Top 50 World Leaders. Linda Sarsour, a hijab-wearing Palestinian-American and the former head of the Arab-American Association of New York, had been recognized as a “champion of change” by the Obama White House. And Bob Bland, the fashion designer behind the “Nasty Women” T-shirts, was the white mother who came up with the idea of the march in the first place.
> 
> Continue reading the main story
> RECENT COMMENTS
> 
> Erika August 2, 2017
> I was born after 1980 and I, along with many other black people, know about Louis Farrakhan. The amount of people who supported Farrakhan...
> Al August 2, 2017
> Sorry ms Weiss when you are arrested for supporting black lives matter then come back and write an article.When you have your life...
> Wayne Howell Clemmons August 2, 2017
> Assata Shakur was not "a domestic terrorist", she was a freedom fighter and a political prisoner framed for the murder of a police officer. ...
> SEE ALL COMMENTS
> What wasn’t to like?
> 
> A lot, as it turns out. The leaders of the Women’s March, arguably the most prominent feminists in the country, have some chilling ideas and associations. Far from erecting the big tent so many had hoped for, the movement they lead has embraced decidedly illiberal causes and cultivated a radical tenor that seems determined to alienate all but the most woke.
> 
> ***
> 
> Start with Ms. Sarsour, by far the most visible of the quartet of organizers. It turns out that this “homegirl in a hijab,” as one of many articles about her put it, has a history of disturbing views, as advertised by . . . Linda Sarsour.
> 
> There are comments on her Twitter feed of the anti-Zionist sort: “Nothing is creepier than Zionism,” she wrote in 2012. And, oddly, given her status as a major feminist organizer, there are more than a few that seem to make common cause with anti-feminists, like this from 2015: “You’ll know when you’re living under Shariah law if suddenly all your loans and credit cards become interest-free. Sound nice, doesn’t it?” She has dismissed the anti-Islamist feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the most crude and cruel terms, insisting she is “not a real woman” and confessing that she wishes she could take away Ms. Ali’s vagina — this about a woman who suffered genital mutilation as a girl in Somalia.
> 
> Ms. Sarsour and her defenders have dismissed all of this as a smear campaign coordinated by the far right and motivated by Islamophobia. Plus, they’ve argued, many of these tweets were written five years ago! Ancient history.
> 
> But just last month, Ms. Sarsour proved that her past is prologue. On July 16, the official Twitter feed of the Women’s March offered warm wishes to Assata Shakur. “Happy birthday to the revolutionary #AssataShakur!” read the tweet, which featured a “#SignOfResistance, in Assata’s honor” — a pink and purple Pop Art-style portrait of Ms. Shakur, better known as Joanne Chesimard, a convicted killer who is on the F.B.I.’s list of most wanted terrorists.
> 
> Like many others, CNN’s Jake Tapper noticed the outrageous tweet. “Shakur is a cop-killer fugitive in Cuba,” he tweeted, going on to mention Ms. Sarsour’s troubling past statements. “Any progressives out there condemning this?” he asked.
> 
> In the face of this sober criticism, Ms. Sarsour cried bully: “@jaketapper joins the ranks of the alt-right to target me online. Welcome to the party.”
> 
> There’s no doubt that Ms. Sarsour is a regular target of far-right groups, but her experience of that onslaught is what makes her smear all the more troubling. Indeed, the idea that Jake Tapper is a member of the alt-right is the kind of delirious, fact-free madness that fuels Donald Trump and his supporters. Troublingly, it is exactly the sentiment echoed by the Women’s March: “Our power — your power — scares the far right. They continue to try to divide us. Today’s attacks on #AssataShakur are the latest example.”
> 
> Since when did criticizing a domestic terrorist become a signal issue of the far right? Last I checked, that position was a matter of basic decency and patriotism.


So once again, we have calls from the left wing parties in the UK to ban Trump from having a state visit. I didn't like and was disappointed in the retweets as much as anyone but for crying out loud, we've had much worse visit the UK in the past as far as political leaders go so it would be utter hypocrisy to ban Trump for some bad retweets. Furthermore, this is the United States, our closest ally and a relationship which dates back much further than just one sitting president. It would be incredibly short sighted and thankfully I think Theresa May knows this.

Plus, if Brexit is going to be so bad, surely we need to have the US president visiting to work out some much needed trade talks? Which is it? Do we need the US for post-brexit because it's so dire or don't we need them and can afford to block Trump from coming? The lack of consistency is hilarious :lmao.


----------



## Reaper

Slight correction. There is no "rise" in antisemticism from Muslims. Muslims have been wiping out Jews from their countries for 100's of years. 

https://www.thoughtco.com/muslim-views-of-jews-2076073










*No, they don't express their unfavorable opinion of Jews because of the permission to lie in order to infliterate and eventually dominate. Once they realize that they are in greater numbers, they will start attacking Jews. Right now they hate Jews silently. 

You don't need to call them radicals, or fundamentalists. Normal, average Muslims will drink beer before they give up their hatred for Jews. 

Carry on.


----------



## Cabanarama

Christmas DOPAmine said:


> It seems as though at the same time, we have rising anti-semitism from both the alt right and the fundamentalist Muslims. The anti-semitism from the Muslim fundamentalists is the much bigger problem though because whilst the alt right is outright rejected by everyone, the far left continues to embrace people like Linda Sarsour with open arms.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/opinion/womens-march-progressives-hate.html


There are a lot of places where the far left and far right meet, and one of the main things they have in common is anti-semitism
There are five ways off the top of my head (but I could probably come up with more if given more time):
1. They're both anti-establishment/ anti-government
2. They both spout crazy conspiracy theories
3. They both gravitate towards totalitarianism and authoritarianism
4. They both had an utter disdain towards elites (although their definition of elites differ)
5. They both hate the Jews

The thing is, the right goes overboard with their fear of Muslims, and thus their Islamophobia (along with more rampant bigotry against ethnic groups in general) overshadows their anti-Semitism, while the left goes overboard with their message of tolerance so that anti-Semitism seems to be the only acceptable form of bigotry so it stands out more.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Christmas DOPAmine said:


> It seems as though at the same time, we have rising anti-semitism from both the alt right and the fundamentalist Muslims. The anti-semitism from the Muslim fundamentalists is the much bigger problem though because whilst the alt right is outright rejected by everyone, the far left continues to embrace people like Linda Sarsour with open arms.


Unfortunately, it seems like even the LGBT is starting to take Palestine's and therefore Muslims side over Jews and Israel. It's baffling to me 

Also, what the article you linked completely ignored about Sarsour is that she actually embraced an Anti-Semitic terrorist Rasmea Odeh who killed 2 Jews injuring 9 others and bombed a British consulate. The fact that she aligns herself with known terrorists is telling of the person she is. Shes' right about the fact that had she not worn a hijab, no one would give a shit about her...fuck her.


----------



## DesolationRow

A solid examination of the present standoff between "The Donald" and "Little Rocket Man." 



> Little Rocket Man's Risky Game
> By Patrick J. Buchanan
> 
> Friday - December 1, 2017
> 
> In the morning darkness of Wednesday, Kim Jong Un launched an ICBM that rose almost 2,800 miles into the sky before falling into the Sea of Japan.
> 
> North Korea now has the proven ability to hit Washington, D.C.
> 
> Unproven still is whether Kim can put a miniaturized nuclear warhead atop that missile, which could be fired with precision, and survive the severe vibrations of re-entry. More tests and more time are needed for that.
> 
> Thus, U.S. markets brushed off the news of Kim's Hwasong-15 missile and roared to record heights on Wednesday and Thursday.
> 
> President Donald Trump took it less well. "Little Rocket Man" is one "sick puppy," he told an audience in Missouri.
> 
> U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley told the Security Council that "if war comes ... the North Korean regime will be utterly destroyed." She then warned Xi Jinping that "if China does not halt the oil shipments" to North Korea, "we can take the oil situation into our own hands."
> 
> Is Haley talking about bombing pipelines in North Korea — or China?
> 
> The rage of the president and bluster of Haley reflect a painful reality: As inhumane and ruthless as the 33-year-old dictator of North Korea is, he is playing the highest stakes poker game on the planet, against the world's superpower, and playing it remarkably well.
> 
> Reason: Kim may understand us better than we do him, which is why he seems less hesitant to invite the risks of a war he cannot win.
> 
> While a Korean War II might well end with annihilation of the North's army and Kim's regime, it would almost surely result in untold thousands of dead South Koreans and Americans.
> 
> And Kim knows that the more American lives he can put at risk, with nuclear-tipped missiles, the less likely the Americans are to want to fight him.
> 
> His calculation has thus far proven correct.
> 
> As long as he does not push the envelope too far, and force Trump to choose war rather than living with a North Korea that could rain nuclear rockets on the U.S., Kim may win the confrontation.
> 
> Why? Because the concessions Kim is demanding are not beyond the utterly unacceptable.
> 
> What does Kim want?
> 
> Initially, he wants a halt to U.S.-South Korean military exercises, which he sees as a potential prelude to a surprise attack. He wants an end to sanctions, U.S. recognition of his regime, and acceptance of his status as a nuclear weapons state. Down the road, he wants a U.S. withdrawal of all forces from South Korea and international aid.
> 
> Earlier administrations — Clinton, Bush II, Obama — have seen many of these demands as negotiable. And accepting some or even all of them would entail no grave peril to U.S. national security or vital interests.
> 
> They would entail, however, a serious loss of face.
> 
> Acceptance of such demands by the United States would be a triumph for Kim, validating his risky nuclear strategy, and a diplomatic defeat for the United States.
> 
> Little Rocket Man would have bested The Donald.
> 
> Moreover, the credibility of the U.S. deterrent would be called into question. South Korea and Japan could be expected to consider their own deterrents, out of fear the U.S. would never truly put its homeland at risk, but would cut a deal at their expense.
> 
> We would hear again the cries of "Munich" and the shade of Neville Chamberlain would be called forth for ritual denunciation.
> 
> Yet it is a time for truth: Our demand for "denuclearization of the Korean peninsula," is not going to be met, absent a U.S. war and occupation of North Korea.
> 
> Kim saw how Bush II, when it served U.S. interests, pulled out of our 30-year-old ABM treaty with Moscow. He saw how, after he gave up all his WMD to reach an accommodation with the West, Moammar Gadhafi was attacked by NATO and ended up being lynched.
> 
> He can see how much Americans honor nuclear treaties they sign by observing universal GOP howls to kill the Iranian nuclear deal and bring about "regime change" in Tehran, despite Iran letting U.N. inspectors roam the country to show they have no nuclear weapons program.
> 
> For America's post-Cold War enemies, the lesson is clear:
> 
> Give up your WMD, and you wind up like Gadhafi and Saddam Hussein. Build nuclear weapons that can threaten Americans, and you get respect.
> 
> Kim Jong Un would be a fool to give up his missiles and nukes, and while the man is many things, a fool is not one of them.
> 
> We are nearing a point where the choice is between a war with North Korea in which thousands would die, or confirming that the U.S. is not willing to put its homeland at risk to keep Kim from keeping what he already has — nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them.


----------



## Draykorinee

I would love Trump to come here, that would be an historic moment. I can assure you that would be the biggest protest seen in the UK for a long time. I'm getting excited about all the fake news Twitter posts already.


----------



## CamillePunk

Not much reason for the President of the United States to visit a minor power like the UK tbh. He should focus on building friendships with China and Russia, aka countries of consequence which aren't currently sacrificing their identity and culture at the altar of social justice and Islam. Plenty of other countries are more than pleased to have him visit them anyway.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Not much reason for the President of the United States to visit a minor power like the UK tbh. He should focus on building friendships with China and Russia, aka countries of consequence which aren't currently sacrificing their identity and culture at the altar of social justice and Islam. Plenty of other countries are more than pleased to have him visit them anyway.


Great bait mate. Fifth largest economy in the world and a military partner for a hundred years. Russia isn't even close.


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> Great bait mate. Fifth largest economy in the world and a military partner for a hundred years. Russia isn't even close.


Not even the best economy among the other minor powers. Ouch. 

Nobody said the UK wasn't a loyal friend (I value loyalty myself, am a huge dog person in general), but they seem to want to change that for the sake of protecting Muslims from criticism. Sad.


----------



## Laughable Chimp

CamillePunk said:


> Not even the best economy among the other minor powers. Ouch.
> 
> Nobody said the UK wasn't a loyal friend (I value loyalty myself, am a huge dog person in general), but they seem to want to change that for the sake of protecting Muslims from criticism. Sad.


Lol wat? 

Fifth biggest economy in the world is still fifth biggest economy in the world. Are the US really that gigantic that the UK is that irrelevant to them?


----------



## Reaper

Laughable Chimp said:


> Are the US really that gigantic that the UK is that irrelevant to them?


Yeah, they are, unfortunately. 

The Aussie and Brit obsession with America is not reciprocated.


----------



## Draykorinee

Laughable Chimp said:


> Lol wat?
> 
> Fifth biggest economy in the world is still fifth biggest economy in the world. Are the US really that gigantic that the UK is that irrelevant to them?


We import maybe $50 billion from them, it's not a large amount, I was only scoffing at cam trying to make it Russia would be a better partner when their economy is a shambles, they share zero cultural or historical similarities and they openly trust each other about as much as I trust a vocal male feminists around my wife. An absurd notion only said to bait, which he did, so congrats Cam!


----------



## Draykorinee

Merry Reaper said:


> Yeah, they are, unfortunately.
> 
> The Aussie and Brit obsession with America is not reciprocated.


It's not an obsession, being interested in the most powerful country in the world, a country that heavily influenced our culture is just basic logic. Don't mistake people like me being the norm, most Brits don't care much about Americans or American politics. We just absorb your culture the way you absorb ours (music, film etc do heavily influence America), we're only more interested in what you do politically because it actually affects us massively.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> It's not an obsession, being interested in the most powerful country in the world, a country that heavily influenced our culture is just basic logic.


As a matter of opinion, I don't really think it did. It's more the other way round as the Brit culture of liberty, freedom and the capitalist work ethic of the 18th century is still deeply interwoven in American culture. In fact, what America is today is the epitome of the logical conclusion of British civil society and morality. Brits moved towards the totalitarian state, while the American revolution led us towards more limited forms of government. 

While we are becoming an authoritarian state, I still believe our entire Constitution is based on the ideals of liberty that the Brits and other free world Europeans brought here with them in the first place. 

It's easy to forget that the American colonists while revolting against the Brits were still Brits and your "old values" are ingrained in our society. 



> Don't mistake people like me being the norm, most Brits don't care much about Americans or American politics. We just absorb your culture the way you absorb ours (music, film etc do heavily influence America), *we're only more interested in what you do politically because it actually affects us massively.*


It only did for that short time when the fucker Blair was duped to declare war on Saddam and what has followed since has been a disaster for everyone - except the neocons who salivate at the opportunity of pushing and supporting as many wars as they can. 

I do respect though that the perpetual fear of another coalition invasion is probably more pervasive now than ever, but with Trump I find it unlikely that we're going to go to war. His current base is more anti-war than it is pro-war. 

The American economy is going through a massive boom period right now so and consumer confidence is the highest it's been in 16 years or so, so I believe that that is where the world will benefit from tremendously. 

I really do think that America is done waging war. ISIS is decimated and I'm not hearing any consequential war rhetoric from the administration. Just the usual and very normalized posturing.


----------



## Empress

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/847766558520856578

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/936604394661007360

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/936600654109278209

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/936607426312331266

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/936613651502510080


----------



## Stinger Fan

ReignDeer said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/847766558520856578
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/936604394661007360
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/936600654109278209
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/936607426312331266
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/936613651502510080


Should be interesting to see what he has to say and exactly what he's guilty of


----------



## The Hardcore Show

No Trump supporters believe anything attached the Russia investigation. No matter were it goes or who runs it they don't think any part of it is true. Which is why if something is brought up against Trump or he is impeached you will have to worry about Trump supporters starting shit.


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> Should be interesting to see what he has to say and exactly what he's guilty of


He's guilty of what he was fired for originally in February. Lying to the White House and the same lie he told the FBI. 

He was expected to go down but his "crime" is minimal - nothing that would indicate collusion as per the kind of collusion people are hoping that it would be. Or any "collusion" at all. 

This "crimes" are available online for all to see. Just too lazy to post right now. Most people won't even be able to make heads or tails of the charges because the context is missing. The fact that whether he was within in his rights to talk to whomever he talked to is missing because if he wasn't then that would be the charge ... the charge is that he said something to some russians but told the FBI that he didn't say those things. What he said to the Russians was probably within his legal authority to do so, otherwise THAT would have been the charge. 

It's crowd-pleasing hype. Neither side wins nor loses anything. Another big fat 0 and millions of tax dollars wasted to achieve nothing.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Merry Reaper said:


> He's guilty of what he was fired for originally in February. Lying to the White House and the same lie he told the FBI.
> 
> He was expected to go down but his "crime" is minimal - nothing that would indicate collusion as per the kind of collusion people are hoping that it would be. Or any "collusion" at all.
> 
> This "crimes" are available online for all to see. Just too lazy to post right now. Most people won't even be able to make heads or tails of the charges because the context is missing.
> 
> It's crowd-pleasing hype. Neither side wins nor loses anything. Another big fat 0 and millions of tax dollars wasted to achieve nothing.


If Flynn were to talk or they nabbed Trump on anything at all at this point would you believe it?


----------



## Reaper

The Hardcore Show said:


> If Flynn were to talk or they nabbed *Trump on anything at all* at this point would you believe it?


If you think that's what the investigation is about at all, then you've been misled or are intentionally allowing yourself to travel down a rabbit hole.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Merry Reaper said:


> If you think that's what the investigation is about at all, then you've been misled or are intentionally allowing yourself to travel down a rabbit hole.


The way I view it the biggest thing they are trying to investigate and prove is if Trump obstructed justice by the way he fired the FBI director, the way he pressured people in congress to drop the whole Russia investigation etc.

What I am saying is if they prove that point or Bob Mueller writes in his report that Congress should look at impeaching Trump would you believe any bit of it?


----------



## Reaper

The Hardcore Show said:


> The way I view it the biggest thing they are trying to investigate *and prove is if Trump obstructed justice by the way he fired the FBI director,* the way he pressured people in congress to drop the whole Russia investigation etc.


It's not. 



> What I am saying is if they prove that point or Bob Mueller writes in his report that Congress should look at impeaching Trump would you believe any bit of it?


He's not investigating Trump in any way, shape or form. He's investigating Russian interference into the election. 

So his indictments will be on rando bots who got caught lying, or russians themselves. 

There is nothing and will be nothing directed at the President or his current administration. At most someone else might get caught in telling a lie, but not committing any act of treason as is widely fetishized at this point. We have been allies of Russia for far too long and have had financial relations with them with eased up government legislation since the early 90's. There is a lot of legally allowable contact between officials or even would be officials of the two governments. 

We're not at war with them fam. They're our allies :lol


----------



## krtgolfing

draykorinee said:


> Great bait mate. Fifth largest economy in the world and a military partner for a hundred years. Russia isn't even close.


Didn't y'all lose the Revolutionary war against a pre - United States of America. :justsayin


----------



## stevefox1200

Merry Reaper said:


> It's not.
> 
> 
> 
> He's not investigating Trump in any way, shape or form. He's investigating Russian interference into the election.
> 
> So his indictments will be on rando bots who got caught lying, or russians themselves.
> 
> There is nothing and will be nothing directed at the President or his current administration. At most someone else might get caught in telling a lie, but not committing any act of treason as is widely fetishized at this point. We have been allies of Russia for far too long and have had financial relations with them with eased up government legislation since the early 90's. There is a lot of legally allowable contact between officials or even would be officials of the two governments.
> 
> We're not at war with them fam. They're our allies :lol


We're investing a lot time of time and sanctions to make sure that economy is wrecked by sanctions and all their allies being declared as terrorist states 

not super allish and I don't think Russia and the US has deployed troops on the same side or backed the same side since the Iran-Iraq war


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> We're investing a lot time of time and sanctions to make sure that economy is wrecked by sanctions and all their allies being declared as terrorist states


Obama did that AFTER his administration tried their second straight overthrow in the middle east (third overall) after over-throwing Saddam and Gaddafi - and went after Assad and Russia finally said no. 

The consequence of Obama's decisions to keep America on a consistent war path to over-throw foreign regimes puts America on the wrong side of the sanctions as a bitter response to someone saying no to them. 

Which then since you like conspiracies so much should make you question the Democrat motive behind making sure America and Russia don't see eye to eye because regime change in the middle-east is currently a US neo-con approach to middle easy foreign policy. 



> not super allish and I don't think Russia and the US has deployed troops on the same side or backed the same side since the Iran-Iraq war


US interfered with what was an internal Russian issue with Ukraine. The US over-threw Gaddafi and the US was trying to over-throw Assad. 

How many wars does an ally follow blindly before realizing that in order to have stablity in the region you have to start opposing America's neo-con polilcy? 

The current US vs Russia climate is a consequence of our government's own wrong-doings. The Russian investigation is merely a long-term plan to try to put Democrats back in control in 2020 at the earliest so they can continue their war-mongering in the middle east because nothing about America's foreign policy at this point is positive - and much of it was led by established politicians. Up until the Ukraine situation (where we now have proof of America's propagandist ways), Russia and America were doing very well.


----------



## stevefox1200

Merry Reaper said:


> Obama did that AFTER his administration tried their second straight overthrow in the middle east (third overall) after over-throwing Saddam and Gaddafi - and went after Assad and Russia finally said no.
> 
> The consequence of Obama's decisions to keep America on a consistent war path to over-throw foreign regimes puts America on the wrong side of the sanctions as a bitter response to someone saying no to them.
> 
> Which then since you like conspiracies so much should make you question the Democrat motive behind making sure America and Russia don't see eye to eye because regime change in the middle-east is currently a US neo-con approach to middle easy foreign policy.
> 
> 
> 
> US interfered with what was an internal Russian issue with Ukraine. The US over-threw Gaddafi and the US was trying to over-throw Assad.
> 
> How many wars does an ally follow blindly before realizing that in order to have stablity in the region you have to start opposing America's neo-con polilcy?
> 
> The current US vs Russia climate is a consequence of our government's own wrong-doings. The Russian investigation is merely a long-term plan to try to put Democrats back in control in 2020 at the earliest so they can continue their war-mongering in the middle east because nothing about America's foreign policy at this point is positive - and much of it was led by established politicians. Up until the Ukraine situation (where we now have proof of America's propagandist ways), Russia and America were doing very well.


The Yugoslav wars? 

the Russian Georgian war?


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> The Yugoslav wars?
> 
> the Russian Georgian war?


Vodka?

(*in case you don't get what I mean by the above post ... It simply means - "deflection" based on historical event irrelevance to current state of affairs that have much more relevance based on recency).


----------



## stevefox1200

Merry Reaper said:


> Vodka?
> 
> (*in case you don't get what I mean by the above post ... It simply means - "deflection" based on historical event irrelevance to current state of affairs that have much more relevance based on recency).


The Russian Georgian war was less than 10 years ago with the Russian leader still being in power and the Georgian leader's term ending in 2016

The Yugoslav wars is considered by political commentators as the wars that showed the future NATO/Russia relations


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> The Russian Georgian war was less than 10 years ago with the Russian leader still being in power and the Georgian leader;s term ending in 2016


I fail to see the relevance of that to the current russkophobic narrative about Trump colluding with Russia or that somehow that makes us and them enemies or something.



> The Yugoslav wars is considered by political commentators as the wars that showed the future NATO/Russia relations


And in 2004 Putin said he was against America's invasion of Iraq based on the false narrative of WMD's. Guess who turned out to be right? So, he's right about Iraq. He watches as we devastate Libya where Africans are now sold as slaves. He puts a stop to our intervention in Syria and stopping us from leaving another country in ruins. Maybe it's time we started paying attention to our own global atrocities. 

It's fairly sad that you consistently ignore making any comments about American involvements in our very tragic wars but keep pushing the anti-Russia rhetoric based on theirs. 

If anything, we're both the same in a lot of ways, so that makes us natural allies


----------



## stevefox1200

Merry Reaper said:


> I fail to see the relevance of that to the current russkophobic narrative about Trump colluding with Russia or that somehow that makes us and them enemies or something.
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2004 Putin said he was against America's invasion of Iraq based on the false narrative of WMD's. Guess who turned out to be right? So, he's right about Iraq. He watches as we devastate Libya where Africans are now sold as slaves. He puts a stop to our intervention in Syria and stopping us from leaving another country in ruins. Maybe it's time we started paying attention to our own global atrocities.
> 
> It's fairly sad that you consistently ignore making any comments about American involvements in our very tragic wars but keep pushing the anti-Russia rhetoric based on theirs.
> 
> If anything, we're both the same in a lot of ways, so that makes us natural allies


The Yugoslave wars happened a decade before Iraq

Its fairly sad that you consistently ignore any comments about the hostility Russia shows to the former Warsaw pact nations who dared to go independent as well as invading and reclaiming "historical land".


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> The Yugoslave wars happened a decade before Iraq
> 
> Its fairly sad that you *consistently ignore any comments about the hostility Russia shows to the former Warsaw pact nations *who dared to go independent as well as invading and reclaiming "historical land".





> If anything, *we're both the same in a lot of ways*, so that makes us natural allies


:hmmm

I can criticize America as a patriot. I criticize Russia obviously. I just don't think what you're saying about their war-mongering ways has anything at all to do with how we can't be allies or aren't allies. We've had significant trade relations with them for decades. We were developing very good diplomatic relations as well with them before both countries went on a war-path and eventually collided head on. 

It also does not mean that we can't be allies. Russian "aggression" can go fuck itself. But so should ours. You really think that the parts of the world we've "liberated with bombs" see us as anything but aggressors? You really think that random african slave #34565 is thanking Obama and Hillary? 

That said, it's not like that has any bearing on us not being able to continue to work together on common ground. It's not like you fill these threads with Sino-phobia considering that China has done similar wrongs to their neighbors. Your selective outrage over Russia has always come across as very selective and prejudicial in the sense of myopic to me. 

It also has absolutely no bearing on the Trump/Russia "collusion" hysteria bubble either.


----------



## Draykorinee

krtgolfing said:


> Didn't y'all lose the Revolutionary war against a pre - United States of America. :justsayin


Yes, and y'all lost to some Vietnamese. :justsayin


----------



## DOPA




----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Just reading politics on the internet and stumbled upon this...



> https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...c2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.520198e954f4
> 
> National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say
> 
> National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.
> 
> Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.
> 
> Flynn on Wednesday denied that he had discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Asked in an interview whether he had ever done so, he twice said, “No.”
> 
> On Thursday, Flynn, through his spokesman, backed away from the denial. The spokesman said Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”
> 
> Officials said this week that the FBI is continuing to examine Flynn’s communications with Kislyak. Several officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed, they did not see evidence that Flynn had an intent to convey an explicit promise to take action after the inauguration.
> 
> Flynn’s contacts with the ambassador attracted attention within the Obama administration because of the timing. U.S. intelligence agencies were then concluding that Russia had waged a cyber campaign designed in part to help elect Trump; his senior adviser on national security matters was discussing the potential consequences for Moscow, officials said.
> 
> The talks were part of a series of contacts between Flynn and Kislyak that began before the Nov. 8 election and continued during the transition, officials said. In a recent interview, Kislyak confirmed that he had communicated with Flynn by text message, by phone and in person, but declined to say whether they had discussed sanctions.
> 
> The emerging details contradict public statements by incoming senior administration officials including Mike Pence, then the vice president-elect. They acknowledged only a handful of text messages and calls exchanged between Flynn and Kislyak late last year and denied that either ever raised the subject of sanctions.
> 
> “They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” Pence said in an interview with CBS News last month, noting that he had spoken with Flynn about the matter. Pence also made a more sweeping assertion, saying there had been no contact between members of Trump’s team and Russia during the campaign. To suggest otherwise, he said, “is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy.”
> 
> Neither of those assertions is consistent with the fuller account of Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak provided by officials who had access to reports from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies that routinely monitor the communications of Russian diplomats. Nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
> 
> All of those officials said .Flynn’s references to the election-related sanctions were explicit. Two of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president.
> 
> “Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time,” said a former official.
> 
> A third official put it more bluntly, saying that either Flynn had misled Pence or that Pence misspoke. An administration official stressed that Pence made his comments based on his conversation with Flynn. The sanctions in question have so far remained in place.
> 
> The nature of Flynn’s pre-inauguration message to Kislyak triggered debate among officials in the Obama administration and intelligence agencies over whether Flynn had violated a law against unauthorized citizens interfering in U.S. disputes with foreign governments, according to officials familiar with that debate. Those officials were already alarmed by what they saw as a Russian assault on the U.S. election.
> 
> U.S. officials said that seeking to build such a case against Flynn would be daunting. The law against U.S. citizens interfering in foreign diplomacy, known as the Logan Act, stems from a 1799 statute that has never been prosecuted. As a result, there is no case history to help guide authorities on when to proceed or how to secure a conviction.
> 
> Officials also cited political sensitivities. Prominent Americans in and out of government are so frequently in communication with foreign officials that singling out one individual — particularly one poised for a top White House job — would invite charges of political persecution.
> 
> Former U.S. officials also said aggressive enforcement would probably discourage appropriate contact. Michael McFaul, who served as U.S. ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration, said that he was in Moscow meeting with officials in the weeks leading up to Obama’s 2008 election win.





> Former U.S. officials also said aggressive enforcement would probably discourage appropriate contact. Michael McFaul, who served as U.S. ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration, said that he was in Moscow meeting with officials in the weeks leading up to Obama’s 2008 election win.





> Michael McFaul, who served as U.S. ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration, said that he was in Moscow meeting with officials in the weeks leading up to Obama’s 2008 election win.





> said that he was in Moscow meeting with officials in the weeks leading up to Obama’s 2008 election win.





> in the weeks leading up to Obama’s 2008 election win.





> leading up to Obama’s 2008 election win.


:StephenA7


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Notice all the Trump supporters in here spend more time talking about culture war fight's with SJW,Russia and foreign relations then trying to defend the actual legislation passed by the President's party just that will get signed into law that was literally being rewritten hours ago. Politicians are not even pretending this isn't an Ogliarchy anymore cause Trump knows how to distract and just give red meat bait culture war stuff to his base and also the ADD inflicted left and media pearl clutching when he lies about less important things to distract from actual policy.


----------



## Beatles123

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Notice all the Trump supporters in here spend more time talking about culture war fight's with SJW,Russia and foreign relations then trying to defend the actual legislation passed by the President's party just that will get signed into law that was literally being rewritten hours ago. Politicians are not even pretending this isn't an Ogliarchy anymore cause Trump knows how to distract and just give red meat bait culture war stuff to his base and also the ADD inflicted left and media pearl clutching when he lies about less important things to distract from actual policy.


I mean...do you WANT us to defend those things, or do you just want to laugh over us defending those things? We can defend all you want. What you think of it wouldn't change.

What exactly has debating both sides accomplished thus far for either side?


----------



## Reaper

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Notice all the Trump supporters in here spend more time talking about culture war fight's with SJW,Russia and foreign relations then trying to defend the actual legislation passed by the President's party just that will get signed into law that was literally being rewritten hours ago. Politicians are not even pretending this isn't an Ogliarchy anymore cause Trump knows how to distract and just give red meat bait culture war stuff to his base and also the ADD inflicted left and media pearl clutching when he lies about less important things to distract from actual policy.


Or maybe instead of making snarky, bait-filled posts, you could actually post what legislation you're talking about and we'll discuss its merits instead of taking pot-shots at one another.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

About the tax bill; is anyone else bothered by the process? 500 pages and no one had time to read it, parts of it scribbled in chicken scratch, and no real debates held. I understand they wanted to pass it before the winter break, but this is echoing the ACA's passing.


----------



## Empress

2 Ton 21 said:


> About the tax bill; is anyone else bothered by the process? 500 pages and no one had time to read it, parts of it scribbled in chicken scratch, and no real debates held. I understand they wanted to pass it before the winter break, but this is echoing the ACA's passing.


The ACA at least had 18 months of debate and conversation before it was passed; courtesy extended to Republicans to offer input and there was a genuine desire to help people. The tax bill is solely designed and being rushed to offer a legislative win win for Trump and a tax break for the rich. Trump spends his days attacking members of his own party and these spineless cowards fall into line. John McCain is the most egregious example; he's battling cancer on tax payer dime but just signed off on a deal that would gut similar grace to average Americans. 

In other news, Mueller just dismissed a FBI agent who had anti Trump views from the Russia investigation. He seems to want no room for error or credible claims of bias.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/937000920436617216


----------



## Vic Capri

Flynn is just another nothing burger. Haters will be disappointed again just like with Comey's testimony.



> About the tax bill; is anyone else bothered by the process? 500 pages and no one had time to read it, parts of it scribbled in chicken scratch, and no real debates held. I understand they wanted to pass it before the winter break, but this is echoing the ACA's passing.


Karma for Nancy "We have to pass the bill so you can find out whats in it" Pelosi.

- Vic


----------



## stevefox1200

2 Ton 21 said:


> About the tax bill; is anyone else bothered by the process? 500 pages and no one had time to read it, parts of it scribbled in chicken scratch, and no real debates held. I understand they wanted to pass it before the winter break, but this is echoing the ACA's passing.


No one in my family or I have ever made enough to qualify for any major tax cuts

I don't even understand why politicians promote them as a policy


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Christmas DOPAmine said:


>


I like when he does the rare shitpost on his main channel. :lol I'm also looking forward to his next installment of All Cultures Are Beautiful. 8*D


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

2 Ton 21 said:


> About the tax bill; is anyone else bothered by the process? 500 pages and no one had time to read it, parts of it scribbled in chicken scratch, and no real debates held. I understand they wanted to pass it before the winter break, but this is echoing the ACA's passing.


They've most certainly been debating it in the Senate, and the House spent months going over it. If you're salty about the fact that the Dems aren't involved in the process, then blame them. They're the one's that seem intent on vetoing anything coming from Trump, rather than doing their jobs and trying to work on negotiating bills to help their constituents.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> They've most certainly been debating it in the Senate, and the House spent months going over it. If you're salty about the fact that the Dems aren't involved in the process, then blame them. They're the one's that seem intent on vetoing anything coming from Trump, rather than doing their jobs and trying to work on negotiating bills to help their constituents.




You are not defending this bill are you? Do you think the bill is good?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> You are not defending this bill are you? Do you think the bill is good?


Stick to the topic of conversation, BM. I know that's hard for you because you love making wild generalizations about what people are thinking based off of a single post, but do try won't you?


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Stick to the topic of conversation, BM. I know that's hard for you because you love making wild generalizations about what people are thinking based off of a single post, but do try won't you?


Its apart of the conversation. I am asking you, do you agree with the bill and think its good.

You said "They're the one's that seem intent on vetoing anything coming from Trump,"

It's a logical question since you said the demos want to veto anything that comes from Trump.

So should the dems have been against this bill or not?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Its apart of the conversation. I am asking you, do you agree with the bill and think its good.
> 
> You said "They're the one's that seem intent on vetoing anything coming from Trump,"
> 
> It's a logical question since you said the demos want to veto anything that comes from Trump.
> 
> So should the dems have been against this bill or not?


No, it isn't. He made a statement that there's been little debate on the bill. I told him that there's been plenty of debate between different branches of the Republican party, in both the House and Senate. I don't believe me saying that fact also equates to me saying that I agree with the build, nor if I do agree with the bill does it invalidate the stated fact that Republicans have been debating the bill.

So, again, my thoughts on the bill has nothing to do with the conversation being had.

As for the dems being against the bill. An elected officials job is to try and get the best deal they can for their constituents. The tax bill can pass without their input. The Republicans want the bill to pass, so it would be in the Dems interest to try and get some concessions in the bill that help their constituents, in exchange for votes. Refusing to even come to the table to debate is a failure on their part. They can't complain when this bill passes because they didn't even try to debate it. All they did was say it was shit, as if that would somehow force the Republicans to scrap the bill. Shit doesn't work like that. Sure, them doing that will feed the hateful wing of their party, which is comprised of someone like you, but it won't help dem voters at all.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> No, it isn't. He made a statement that there's been little debate on the bill. I told him that there's been plenty of debate between different branches of the Republican party, in both the House and Senate. I don't believe me saying that fact also equates to me saying that I agree with the build, nor if I do agree with the bill does it invalidate the stated fact that Republicans have been debating the bill.
> 
> So, again, my thoughts on the bill has nothing to do with the conversation being had.


The GOP refuses to work with the DNC, that is why the DNC had no input on it. 

You can never answer a simple question. 

Just answer the question already. Do you like the bill that was passed. Yes or no.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oh and look at this 

Sen. Rubio tells a secret: After giving a tax cut to the rich, GOP will cut Social Security and Medicare

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gop-social-security-20171130-story.html

Advocates for seniors and the middle class have been warning for weeks that the Republican drive to cut taxes for the wealthy is the prelude to a larger attack on Social Security and Medicare.

In a videotaped interview with two Politico reporters Wednesday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said the quiet parts out loud. Asked by interviewers Anna Palmer and Jake Sherman how to address the federal deficit, he replied: “We have to do two things. We have to generate economic growth which generates revenue, while reducing spending. That will mean instituting structural changes to Social Security and Medicare for the future.” (A video of Rubio’s appearance is here, with his remarks on Social Security and Medicare beginning at the 21:45 mark.)

The only thing that’s new here is the explicit admission by a Republican officeholder that this is the GOP’s master plan to eviscerate the welfare and retirement of American workers. Budget analysts have seen it coming with all the subtlety of a freight train. As we reported earlier this month, the damage begins with the so-called Paygo law (for “pay as you go”), which requires Congress to offset any increase in the federal deficit with spending cuts. The law limits Medicare cuts to 4% of its budget per year, or $25 billion of its $625-billion budget. Because the tax cut proposals the Senate was preparing to vote on late Friday would expand the deficit by about $1.5 trillion over 10 years, it’s likely to trigger the cuts.

The driver of our debt is the structure of Social Security and Medicare for future beneficiaries.
— Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) conveniently forgets that GOP tax cuts will create $1.5 trillion in new debt
But $25 billion a year is a drastic cut that “would undermine the delivery of care to the 57 million seniors and disabled Americans who depend on the program,” Max Richtman, head of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, said a couple of weeks ago.

The progressive Center on Budget and Policy Priorities observed that the Senate’s plan, which would add $1.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years, would “create pressure for future cuts.” That’s confirmed by Rubio’s remarks to Palmer and Sherman.

Asked to justify the deficit increase caused by the proposed tax cuts, Rubio replied, “The argument would be, ‘We can’t cut taxes because that would drive up the deficit.’ That assumes that somehow we can fix the deficit through higher taxes, and we can’t.”

Suddenly, the GOP tax bill has morphed into an attack on your healthcare
“Right,” Sherman interjected.

Actually, the proper response would have been “Wrong.” If a tax cut can generate a deficit of $1.5 trillion, then plainly the federal deficit is sensitive to tax revenues. The root of today’s deficit is the sharp run-up in federal spending that began under George W. Bush, without a commensurate tax increase.

Rubio delivered his statements in full earnest-wonk mode, all but shaking his head in regret at the painful reality he claimed to be outlining. But his demeanor concealed that he was blowing smoke. His prescription involves two options — generating economic growth and cutting spending. Actually, there are three options — raising taxes is the third. And both of the others are less cut and dried than Rubio suggests. For one thing, economic growth at the moment is near a recent historical high; most serious economists don’t expect the GOP’s tax cuts for the rich and for corporations to have any significant further impact.

For another, even if one is cutting spending, that leaves open the question: which spending? Rubio’s argument that it has to be through cuts to Social Security and Medicare is GOP doctrine because it strikes at the middle and working classes and leaves the wealthy alone, cradling their huge tax cuts.

The chained CPI: Another secret tax hike for the middle class slipped into the GOP tax bills
“The driver of our debt is the structure of Social Security and Medicare for future beneficiaries,” Rubio said. Also wrong. The driver of the $1.5-trillion deficit over the next 10 years would be the Republican tax cuts, if they’re enacted.

“We still have time to responsibly structure those programs,” he said of Social Security and Medicare, “in a way that doesn’t impact current retirees or people about to retire, but in a way that would probably impact it for me and people younger than me.” (He’s 46.) This could be done “in ways you wouldn’t really notice and wouldn’t really object to.”

No one should be fooled by this argument. Rubio is pursuing the classic strategy of the enemies of social insurance programs to make them increasingly irrelevant to future generations by promising cuts that the affected beneficiaries “wouldn’t really notice.” This only eases the path toward eliminating those programs outright.

But members of those future generations should take notice. Like today’s beneficiaries and those of the past, they’re paying for their future benefits with every paycheck, and they should be profoundly aware that Rubio and his fellow Republicans are merely preparing to rip them off.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> The GOP refuses to work with the DNC, that is why the DNC had no input on it.
> 
> You can never answer a simple question.
> 
> Just answer the question already. Do you like the bill that was passed. Yes or no.


:triggered


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/937007006526959618
I'm sure many will hope that Flynn pled down and he'll shed light on other improprieties.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

TheNightmanCometh said:


> They've most certainly been debating it in the Senate, and the House spent months going over it. If you're salty about the fact that the Dems aren't involved in the process, then blame them. They're the one's that seem intent on vetoing anything coming from Trump, rather than doing their jobs and trying to work on negotiating bills to help their constituents.


They may have debated parts of it, but they didn't debate the new things they wrote in with a pen last night. There was a huge amount of horse trading to get it done last night.

Forget Ds and Rs. A bill this important and encompassing shouldn't be passed in this manner.

I'd like it done this way. A final bill is presented. Then a one week moratorium on changes is set forcing every sen./rep. and their staff to read it and allowing the press and public the opportunity to read it as well. Then after a week they can vote or withdraw it and go back to the planning stages.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

2 Ton 21 said:


> *They may have debated parts of it, but they didn't debate the new things they wrote in with a pen last night. There was a huge amount of horse trading to get it done last night.*
> 
> Forget Ds and Rs. A bill this important and encompassing shouldn't be passed in this manner.
> 
> I'd like it done this way. A final bill is presented. Then a one week moratorium on changes is set forcing every sen./rep. and their staff to read it and allowing the press and public the opportunity to read it as well. Then after a week they can vote or withdraw it and go back to the planning stages.


You can't debate a bill forever. Eventually, everyone is going to find a place where they're happy with the bill for their side. I'm fine with your timeline, but things, historically, haven't worked that way, so maybe instead of saying that the way this bill was debated is wrong, maybe you should be arguing that you're tired of bills being passed quickly, before people have the chance to see what's in it. It's not like this bill is an outlier. Like I said, historically, this is how things have worked.


----------



## Reaper

Big government doing big government things. I don't need to look inside the bill to know that there are probably dozens of provisions in there that either don't go far enough, or find loopholes to favor republican cronies in some way etc etc. The speed at which it passed as well as no republicans at all opposed this is not a good sign. I'm probably going against the grain here of typical right wing republican supporters, but of course there's always reasons to be concerned about. 

It's pretty obvious where I stand on the issue of taxation so these are my only comments on this. Trump's administration has stuck to the promise of tax cuts, meanwhile as far as the budget is concerned they're at similar spending levels as any other big government. So essentially I believe that they've probably found a way to shift the tax burden somewhere down the pipeline because as far as I can tell no attempt has been made to curtail government spending itself. They've continued to pass bipartisan budgets since forming their government. 

So, keeping in mind that taxation is theft, there is no tax "cut" that will ever go far enough imo. Saying that you're going to _let _people keep their own money is like burglars taking away your fridge and then coming back and dropping off the food at your doorstep reminding you of how amazing and kind they are.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

TheNightmanCometh said:


> You can't debate a bill forever. Eventually, everyone is going to find a place where they're happy with the bill for their side. I'm fine with your timeline, but things, historically, haven't worked that way, so maybe instead of saying that the way this bill was debated is wrong, maybe you should be arguing that you're tired of bills being passed quickly, before people have the chance to see what's in it. It's not like this bill is an outlier. Like I said, historically, this is how things have worked.


There's always been horse trading for votes, but I think overall it's getting worse. I think desperation is the problem. I'll lump the ACA passage and then the failed ACA repeal in with it. You have them going "Just pass it! Just pass anything!" because they want/need the win so much and it's leading to worse and worse bills that are patchwork, Frankenstein creations.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

2 Ton 21 said:


> There's always been horse trading for votes, but I think overall it's getting worse. I think desperation is the problem. I'll lump the ACA passage and then the failed ACA repeal in with it. You have them going "Just pass it! Just pass anything!" because they want/need the win so much and it's leading to worse and worse bills that are patchwork, Frankenstein creations.


I don't disagree with that at all. Another part of that train of thought, is that the public complains about the political process taking too long. So, it behooves politicians to pass bills quickly, even when bills should be debated vigorously.

But, again, this is par for the course. ACA and this tax bill stick out because they're big deals, but this happens all the time.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I don't disagree with that at all. Another part of that train of thought, is that the public complains about the political process taking too long. So, it behooves politicians to pass bills quickly, even when bills should be debated vigorously.
> 
> But, again, this is par for the course. ACA and this tax bill stick out because they're big deals, but this happens all the time.


That's a good point about public pressure to speed it up. Part of the reason the desperation is growing is the bases' growing discontent. Politicians are getting frantic because they're afraid of getting primaried.

Personally I don't mind taking time to get things right. Not that you can work on something forever of course.

We have these ridiculous standards e.g. a president's first hundred days and what they accomplish in that time. All this shit that must be done in three months and a week. Why? Why rush through policies and legislation when the president is just getting his seas legs in the office? To set a tone? I think it's bullshit.


----------



## samizayn

Republicans: Taxbillpasssaywhat?
Democrats: What?


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> That's a good point about public pressure to speed it up. Part of the reason the desperation is growing is the bases' growing discontent. Politicians are getting frantic because they're afraid of getting primaried.
> 
> Personally I don't mind taking time to get things right. Not that you can work on something forever of course.
> 
> We have these ridiculous standards e.g. a president's first hundred days and what they accomplish in that time. All this shit that must be done in three months and a week. Why? Why rush through policies and legislation when the president is just getting his seas legs in the office? To set a tone? I think it's bullshit.


Its not the public that is pressuring them to speed it up, its the donors.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

birthday_massacre said:


> Its not the public that is pressuring them to speed it up, its the donors.


Not the whole public, but I'd say right now Steve Bannon is whipping up a segment of the base to speed it up. He's doing it on behalf of donors though.


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> Not the whole public, but I'd say right now Steve Bannon is whipping up a segment of the base to speed it up. He's doing it on behalf of donors though.


Well right, but those people in the public just want Trump to get a win and don't really care what is in the bill. And like you said the donors are behind it.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/936688444046266368


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/936688444046266368


LOL at him claiming America is highly respected again. America is a laughing stock and embarrassment because of Trump. 

Also just more proof how bitch made Trump is by having to put in parentheses he makes the final call. He is such a joke


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at him claiming America is highly respected again. America is a laughing stock and embarrassment because of Trump.


To you, and those who think like you, but he'll have to, of course, drag you, and those who think like you, along to prosperity, while you, and those who think like you, cry like babies.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> To you, and those who think like you, but he'll have to, of course, drag you, and those who think like you, along to prosperity, while you, and those who think like you, cry like babies.


Not just to me but to the rest of the world as well. But ignore the facts like you always do. Trump isn't even popular in the US, he has the lowest approval rating ever for a president at this point


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> To you, and those who think like you, but he'll have to, of course, drag you, and those who think like you, along to prosperity, while you, and those who think like you, cry like babies.


BM has special access to a Dossier that contains a perception poll taken by World Leaders and 7 billion people where they confess to laughing at Trump behind his back.

As far as my very muslim, very Pakistani social circle is concerned, they're all now praising him for finally decimating the ISIS :trump

My mum and her friends are wowing at the White House christmas decor and no one is insulted that a Christian president of a Christian majority country is actually celebrating Christmas because "everyone celebrates their own culture in their own countries".  

It's all about perspective.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> BM has special access to a Dossier that contains a perception poll taken by World Leaders and 7 billion people where they confess to laughing at Trump behind his back.
> 
> As far as my very muslim, very Pakistani social circle is concerned, they're all now praising him for finally decimating the ISIS :trump
> 
> My mum and her friends are wowing at the White House christmas decor and no one is insulted that a Christian president of a Christian majority country is actually celebrating Christmas because "everyone celebrates their own culture in their own countries".


Pew Research has that. 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/17/9-charts-on-how-the-world-sees-trump/


If you really think the rest of the world respect the US more because of Trump you are more delusional than I thought


----------



## stevefox1200

TheNightmanCometh said:


> To you, and those who think like you, but he'll have to, of course, drag you, and those who think like you, along to prosperity, while you, and those who think like you, cry like babies.


Napoleon was arrested and banished to a prison island by his own people

not the best comparison


----------



## Reaper

Your survey was done in Spring. 

It's already outdated. 

Also, it does not address the claim that "america is an embarrassment and laughing stock of the world". 

It addresses favorability when he took office - and even at that point the favorability is around 49%. It's less than Obama, but where does any of this indicate that even in Spring America is an "embarrassment and laughing stock".

---










Looks like ABC got caught pushing fake news. This time people are taking this more seriously than others because it resulted in a temporary stock market crash during the time they pushed the fake news and eventually posted a retraction.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> Your survey was done in Spring.
> 
> It's already outdated.
> 
> Also, it does not address the claim that "america is an embarrassment and laughing stock of the world".
> 
> It addresses favorability when he took office - and even at that point the favorability is around 49%. It's less than Obama, but where does any of this indicate that even in Spring America is an "embarrassment and laughing stock".
> 
> ---


Have you seen twitter, facebook or anyone else talk about Trump from outside the country?

You really think they view Trump and the US more favorably now?

Seriously dude, you really will ignore all facts to defend Trump.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Have you seen twitter, facebook or anyone else talk about Trump from outside the country?


Yes, the 100's of people I personally follow all speak favorably of Trump because guess what, it's an echo chamber. I've got a couple of people who drag him consistently just so I'm at least aware of what the other side is saying and sometimes I agree with them. 

Meanwhile, for you he's a sexist, rapist, transphobic, gay-hating, russian spy agent traitor, laughing stock and embarrassment. For others, he's a fascist, dictator and Hitler. The credibility goes out the window. 

I've consistently criticised Trump however. My credibility on issues revolving Trump is in much better standing. 



> You really think they view Trump and the US more favorably now?


I never even said that. I said that the elite that _I _hang out which is my social circle that aren't hysterical partisans have appreciate the decimation of ISIS and are enjoying his wife's Christmas decor. Expanding this to something else is you creating something I never said. 

More people hate him but it's because many of them think about him like you do. All these adjectives consistently tossed about in the media (especially foreign media) who have their own big government/partisan agendas will obviously result in a negative attitude. 

People even hate Gandhi and Mother Theresa and it's really bad in certain echo chambers. 



> Seriously dude, you really will ignore all facts to defend Trump.


Nope. I'm just refuting your claim that hasn't been addressed in the study you posted. You make a claim, prove your claim. This is how this works.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> Yes, the 100's of people I personally follow all speak favorably of Trump because guess what, it's an echo chamber. I've got a couple of people who drag him consistently just so I'm at least aware of what the other side is saying and sometimes I agree with them.
> 
> Meanwhile, for you he's a sexist, rapist, transphobic, gay-hating, russian spy agent traitor, laughing stock and embarrassment. For others, he's a fascist, dictator and Hitler. The credibility goes out the window.
> 
> I've consistently criticised Trump however. My credibility on issues revolving Trump is in much better standing.
> 
> 
> .


You defend Trump on all those things you mentioned even though he is all of those but you ignore the facts and evidence, just like you do with almost everything with Trump. Only in your Trump bubble would you think you have more credibility on issues revolving Trump, when in reality you have zero. But keep defending Trump, you pretty much have zero credibility when it comes to him now. 




Merry Reaper said:


> More people hate him but it's because many of them think about him like you do. All these adjectives consistently tossed about in the media (especially foreign media) who have their own big government/partisan agendas will obviously result in a negative attitude.
> .


Trump is all fo those things, yet you ignore all the evidence and examples even the ones coming from Trumps own mouth in videos and audio clips. 



Merry Reaper said:


> Nope. I'm just refuting your claim that hasn't been addressed in the study you posted. You make a claim, prove your claim. This is how this works.
> .


You can refute it all you want, it doesn't make it any less true. Only a delusional Trump supporters thinks the US is more respected under Trump.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> You defend Trump on all those things you mentioned even though he is all of those but you ignore the facts and evidence, just like you do with almost everything with Trump. Only in your Trump bubble would you think you have more credibility on issues revolving Trump, when in reality you have zero. But keep defending Trump, you pretty much have zero credibility when it comes to him now.


I literally just criticized the Tax cuts on the other page. This thread is littered with my criticisms of his polices. You only read what you want and your create stereotypes of people in your head. :lmao 



> Trump is all fo those things, yet you ignore all the evidence and examples even the ones coming from Trumps own mouth in videos and audio clips.


You have a very low standard for "evidence" when it comes to your prejudicial thinking. We've already established that. 



> You can refute it all you want, it doesn't make it any less true. Only a delusional Trump supporters thinks the US is more respected under Trump.


No BM, it doesn't work like that. Your belief isn't everyone else's belief. Here's an example of your very low standard of evidence. You can't even back up a claim you made.


----------



## Stephen90

Merry Reaper said:


> Yes, the 100's of people I personally follow all speak favorably of Trump because guess what, it's an echo chamber. I've got a couple of people who drag him consistently just so I'm at least aware of what the other side is saying and sometimes I agree with them.
> 
> Meanwhile, for you he's a sexist, rapist, transphobic, gay-hating, russian spy agent traitor, laughing stock and embarrassment. For others, he's a fascist, dictator and Hitler. The credibility goes out the window.
> 
> I've consistently criticised Trump however. My credibility on issues revolving Trump is in much better standing.
> 
> 
> 
> I never even said that. I said that the elite that _I _hang out which is my social circle that aren't hysterical partisans have appreciate the decimation of ISIS and are enjoying his wife's Christmas decor. Expanding this to something else is you creating something I never said.
> 
> More people hate him but it's because many of them think about him like you do. All these adjectives consistently tossed about in the media (especially foreign media) who have their own big government/partisan agendas will obviously result in a negative attitude.
> 
> People even hate Gandhi and Mother Theresa and it's really bad in certain echo chambers.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I'm just refuting your claim that hasn't been addressed in the study you posted. You make a claim, prove your claim. This is how this works.


Yes it's the media's fault nothing Trump never does anything wrong.


----------



## Reaper

Stephen90 said:


> Yes it's the media's fault nothing Trump never does anything anything wrong.


Your side deals in absolutes. I don't.

It's fascinating how despite my repeated criticisms of certain things Trump has done as well as his policies, you guys have to create the fantasy of me NEVER criticizing him. What sort of agenda does that indicate? Does it make you feel like a superhero fighting against a supervillain? 

---

Meanwhile Chelsea Clinton's blog : 










IMPEACH! :mj4


----------



## Stephen90

Merry Reaper said:


> Your side deals in absolutes. I don't.
> 
> It's fascinating how despite my repeated criticisms of certain things Trump has done as well as his policies, you guys have to create the fantasy of me NEVER criticizing him. What sort of agenda does that indicate? Does it make you feel like a superhero fighting against a supervillain?
> 
> ---
> 
> Meanwhile Chelsea Clinton's blog :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMPEACH! :mj4


Do you think all people love the Clinton's? Is that all you Trump supporters can talk about is the Clinton family?


----------



## Reaper

Stephen90 said:


> Do you think all people love the Clinton's? Is that all you Trump supporters can talk about is the Clinton family?


Calling "The Hill" The Chelsea Blog is an inside joke. Lighten up :mj4


----------



## Nolo King

Holy shit, I swear, if my investments got fucked up over this false news report by ABC, I'm gonna be pissed as hell.

Since Trump took office I've been seeing healthy growth in my investments and the recent stock market dip is really concerning me. 

Amazes me how people can still blindly trust these news organizations when they keep getting caught with this bullshit.


----------



## Reaper

Nolo King said:


> Holy shit, I swear, if my investments got fucked up over this false news report by ABC, I'm gonna be pissed as hell.
> 
> Since Trump took office I've been seeing healthy growth in my investments and the recent stock market dip is really concerning me.
> 
> Amazes me how people can still blindly trust these news organizations when they keep getting caught with this bullshit.


Would not worry about it too much. It recovered soon after. Monday will be an absolute fucking rocket-sized BOOM and it will more than recover. 

Be patient young sir. I am ultra-cautious with my money, otherwise I would be investing right now too. I know I'm missing out, but I'd still rather be safe than sorry.


----------



## DOPA

Nolo King said:


> Holy shit, I swear, if my investments got fucked up over this false news report by ABC, I'm gonna be pissed as hell.
> 
> Since Trump took office I've been seeing healthy growth in my investments and the recent stock market dip is really concerning me.
> 
> Amazes me how people can still blindly trust these news organizations when they keep getting caught with this bullshit.


Honestly out of all the fake news stories this year, this may have been one of the more irresponsible because of how much the stock market tanked and the effect it had on the economy. I mean the mere false reports of a possible Flynn testimony that would have threatened Trump being impeached caused a huge scare in the market. All because a reporter wanted to push an agenda.

Incredibly bad to say the least.


----------



## Stephen90

Merry Reaper said:


> Calling "The Hill" The Chelsea Blog is an inside joke. Lighten up :mj4


Oh I am. Between you Trump supporters you and Hillary's non-stop excuses. I wish they would go away.


----------



## Reaper

Stephen90 said:


> Oh I am. Between you Trump supporters you and Hillary's non-stop excuses. *I wish they would go away.*


You coming into this thread and making this statement ITT is like a child who puts his hand in fire and says "I wish it wouldn't burn". 

:mj4



Christmas DOPAmine said:


> Incredibly bad to say the least.


Looks like major investors that also have stake in CNN and Washington Post have lost money in this because both those companies are now ripping ABC apart :ha


----------



## Stephen90

Merry Reaper said:


> You coming into this thread and making this statement ITT is like a child who puts his hand in fire and says "I wish it wouldn't burn".
> 
> :mj4


Says the Trump supporter who blames everyone but Trump for his failures.


----------



## Reaper

Stephen90 said:


> Says the Trump supporter who blames everyone but Trump for his failures.


I'm glad you're obsessed enough to have read 209 posts of mine ITT as well thousands in the other two :trump

What is it about the weekend that brings out people who just want to fight and be rude on the internet ?


----------



## Dr. Middy

Regardless of sides or what have you, I'm not the biggest fan of putting together any sort of bill that contains hastily scribbled notes about policy changes on it. Feels kinda like rushing a group project in college where your making changes right up to the moment of presenting. Also not really a fan of having such a monumental bill that effects every citizen and company so directly be voted for in a complete one sided affair. 

I'm happy that for filing for myself that I'll get a nice chunk of change back, so that's a plus. I've been reading over the stuff on how it would effect graduate students and the like a lot as well, and I'm not crazy about the idea of getting rid of tuition waivers as I've read. I'm curious if it does effect things like Teaching and Research Assistantships, and those I knew in college who became RAs to help their financial situations, since that it also considered a tuition waiver. Seems like they'd kinda get fucked by this if all that gets eliminated. Might make me have to re-tool on where I decide to go to grad school for Environmental Science. 

The real kick in the gut for me was the bill placed on the back of this whole tax act, where it would allow oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. On one hand, I can kinda begrudgingly accept it when considering that as a whole, it's better for a country like the US to be the one doing more oil and gas exploration, given our technological advantages, and that most likely as a first world nation we'd be more environmentally cautious than poorer nations. But I really REALLY don't want to have such a vast wilderness area which in scope really is one of a kind, marred by any drilling which could have consequences attached to it.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

stevefox1200 said:


> Napoleon was arrested and banished to a prison island by his own people
> 
> not the best comparison


Meh, it was a picture I found on the internet that had Trump looking glorious. Any under-lying meaning was unintended.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Merry Reaper said:


> I'm glad you're obsessed enough to have read 209 posts of mine ITT as well thousands in the other two :trump
> 
> What is it about the weekend that brings out people who just want to fight and be rude on the internet ?


Ya, Monday morning is gonna see a new record, I bet. News of the tax plan passing has a lot of people excited. It could have been better, but it's a small step in a positive direction.


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Ya, Monday morning is gonna see a new record, I bet. News of the tax plan passing has a lot of people excited. It could have been better, but it's a small step in a positive direction.


Secretly the wealthy democrats are salivating which is why you saw such a strong leftist backlash against ABC at the first hint of fake ews impacting real money, but publicly they'll pretend that it's the rapture.

I'm happier about my wife's 401k. It's booming atm.

Personally I'm an old school investor so I'm going to stick my money into property.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Merry Reaper said:


> Secretly the wealthy democrats are salivating which is why you saw such a strong leftist backlash against ABC at the first hint of fake ews impacting real money, but publicly they'll pretend that it's the rapture.
> 
> I'm happier about my wife's 401k. It's booming atm.
> 
> Personally I'm an old school investor so I'm going to stick my money into property.


Ya, my mom's retirement has gone way up since Trump's election. Say what you will about that man, but he does inspire confidence, when it comes to stock market speculation.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Ya, Monday morning is gonna see a new record, I bet. News of the tax plan passing has a lot of people excited. It could have been better, but it's a small step in a positive direction.


then like always in a few months the economy will tank like it always does with tax cuts like these just like under Bush and just like under Regan.

Prepare for another recession.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> then like always in a few months the economy will tank like it always does with tax cuts like these just like under Bush and just like under Regan.
> 
> Prepare for another recession.


Economists have been calling a recession for at least 2 years now. I'm not gonna put a recession on this new tax plan because what ever eventually sparks the next recession has already long begun.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Economists have been calling a recession for at least 2 years now. I'm not gonna put a recession on this new tax plan because what ever eventually sparks the next recession has already long begun.


LOL oh, look at that that built-in excuse already for when Trump and the GOP tank the economy because of this tax plan.

When the economy tanks within the next year it will be because of this tax plan, don't even try to make excuses. It will just follow the pattern of every time the GOP make these huge tax cuts we get a recession. But sure make excuses, according to the GOP this is supposed to be a huge boom for the economy. So of course if it did boom, you would give all the credit to the tax bill.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL oh, look at that that built-in excuse already for when Trump and the GOP tank the economy because of this tax plan.
> 
> When the economy tanks within the next year it will be because of this tax plan, don't even try to make excuses. It will just follow the pattern of every time the GOP make these huge tax cuts we get a recession. But sure make excuses, according to the GOP this is supposed to be a huge boom for the economy. So of course if it did boom, you would give all the credit to the tax bill.


https://www.moneyweb.co.za/news/int...onomists-expect-to-see-the-next-us-recession/



> Here's When Economists Expect to See the Next U.S. Recession
> A downturn may be in the cards before the decade is out
> 
> 
> September 11, 2015, 5:49 AM PDT


http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2015/02/when-will-the-u-s-have-its-next-recession/



> When Will The U.S. Have Its Next Recession?
> Posted February 26, 2015 by Ben Carlson


That should shut you up now, right?


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> https://www.moneyweb.co.za/news/int...onomists-expect-to-see-the-next-us-recession/
> 
> 
> 
> http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2015/02/when-will-the-u-s-have-its-next-recession/
> 
> 
> 
> That should shut you up now, right?


Ignore the facts like you always do. what causes those recessions? its the GOP implementing their huge tax cuts for the rich. 

You are acting like recessions are just random based on how much time passes. It just shows how clueless you are.

There is a reason why Regan, and the Bush's caused recessions and now why Trump will too. But sure its not because of their massive tax cuts that always tank the economy, its just the passage of time right lol


Here is an article for ya

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...epression-1929-robert-mcelvaine-a8086781.html
Donald Trump's tax bill could cause a recession, warns Great Depression expert
Economic historian Robert McElvaine says Republican plans will be 'catastrophic' for the US economy

Donald Trump’s flagship tax reform bill could cause a severe recession, an economic historian has warned. 

Professor Robert McElvaine, a leading expert on the Great Depression, said the Republicans are “sprinting towards an economic cliff” as they attempt to introduce sweeping tax cuts that will be “catastrophic” for the US economy.

The Republicans’ Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is currently being debated by the Senate and could be approved this week. The changes constitute a key part of Mr Trump's agenda and he has repeatedly boasted of his plans to cut taxes.

Supporters say the bill will generate economic growth and create thousands of jobs but critics, including Professor McElvaine, have highlighted a Congressional Budget Office finding that people earning less than $100,000 will see their taxes rise while the super-rich, including Mr Trump, will pay less. 


READ MORE
Donald Trump’s 'working visit' to UK postponed, reports say
The history professor said the provisions in the Act are similar to those passed by the Republicans in the years prior to the Great Depression. The 1929 crash was caused by the GOP’s “trickle-down policies”, including significant tax cuts for the rich, he added.

Claiming that Republicans have failed to recognise “that the trickle-down approach has never worked”, Professor McElvaine wrote in an article for the Washington Post: “The party is now trying to pass a scam that throws a few crumbs to the middle class (temporarily — millions of middle-class Americans will soon see a tax hike if the bill is enacted) while heaping benefits on the super-rich, multiplying the national debt and endangering the American economy.

“As a historian of the Great Depression, I can say: I’ve seen this show before.”

He added: “Republican policies in the ’20s…pushed to concentrate more of the income at the top. Nine decades later, Republicans are rushing to do it again — and they are sprinting toward an economic cliff. Another round of Government of the People, by the Republicans, for the super-rich will be catastrophic. The American people must call a halt before it’s too late.”

Professor McElvaine said Mr Trump “and other fabulously rich people” will benefit from the bill far more than almost every ordinary American will.

Criticising measures in the Act, he attacked Mr Trump’s plans to repeal inheritance tax, stop authorities taking into account the state taxes people already pay when determining their national tax bill, and repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax that ensures rich people always pay a certain amount.

He also said plans to stop large medical expenses, student loan payments and educational supplies being tax deductible would be “disastrous” for the American people.

Parts of the bill that reform the Affordable Care Act will see 13 million Americans lose their health insurance, the academic added


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

I didn't know you can be banned from a thread. What perks do you get for being a lifetime member, again? I gotta know because I'm not seeing any perks here. It appears to me paying no money for being a lifetime member is the real perk.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Ignore the facts like you always do. what causes those recessions? its the GOP implementing their huge tax cuts for the rich.
> 
> You are acting like recessions are just random based on how much time passes. It just shows how clueless you are.
> 
> There is a reason why Regan, and the Bush's caused recessions and now why Trump will too. But sure its not because of their massive tax cuts that always tank the economy, its just the passage of time right lol
> 
> 
> Here is an article for ya


What does that have to do with my claim that economists have been predicting a recession for years now? And I didn't act like anything. Do you realize how terrible you are at holding even a simple conversation? It's well known that recessions are cyclical. One of the articles I posted even pointed that out, which you would have noticed if you had actually clicked on the links.

And just to show you how little you know on the topic, Bush didn't cause the recession in the early-2000's. The recession hit all developed countries in the world. This recession was predicted by economists, because the boom and bust of the dot.com industry. This is common knowledge, BM. The Great Recession was caused by the housing bubble bursting, which was due to Democrats approving subprime mortgages when they passed the Community Reinvestment Act. The National Bureau of Economic Research stated exactly that. 



> a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, “Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks.”
> 
> Added NBER: “There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts,” or predominantly low-income and minority areas.


https://www.investors.com/politics/...unity-reinvestment-act-cra-mortgage-defaults/

They just happen to be the largest economic research organization in the United States, and well respected to boot.

But what do they know, right?


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> What does that have to do with my claim that economists have been predicting a recession for years now? And I didn't act like anything. Do you realize how terrible you are at holding even a simple conversation? It's well known that recessions are cyclical. One of the articles I posted even pointed that out, which you would have noticed if you had actually clicked on the links.
> 
> And just to show you how little you know on the topic, Bush didn't cause the recession in the early-2000's. The recession hit all developed countries in the world. This recession was predicted by economists, because the boom and bust of the dot.com industry. This is common knowledge, BM. The Great Recession was caused by the housing bubble bursting, which was due to Democrats approving subprime mortgages when they passed the Community Reinvestment Act. The National Bureau of Economic Research, the largest economic research organization in the United States, stated exactly that. But what do they know, right?


They have predicted it for years and it has not happened so they were wrong. Trump's tax plan will tank the economy and put us in a recession but you are just looking for excuses not to blame him. When ever there is huge tax cuts like this, it always ruins the economy. But keep ignoring that facts, its what you do best. Live in your little fantasy world all you want. 

You are clueless when it comes to these things. All of Bush's degradations and tax cuts were the major cause of the recession. And Trump is following suit. Its always the GOP who tank the economy then the Democrats have to come in and pick up the pieces. Its always been that cycle. Ignore history all you want.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> They have predicted it for years and it has not happened so they were wrong. Trump's tax plan will tank the economy and put us in a recession but you are just looking for excuses not to blame him. When ever there is huge tax cuts like this, it always ruins the economy. But keep ignoring that facts, its what you do best. Live in your little fantasy world all you want.
> 
> You are clueless when it comes to these things.


Ya, BUT NOW THEY'RE RIGHT CAUSE THEY SAID TRUMP DID IT!!!!

:ha


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Ya, BUT NOW THEY'RE RIGHT CAUSE THEY SAID TRUMP DID IT!!!!
> 
> :ha



Your trolling is getting old. The articles you posted was well there will be a recession at some point because recessions happen from time to time. Where as the article I posted said the tax cuts will be the cause of the recession, and it's not just some random thing like in your articles.

If you knew your history, then you know, huge tax cuts like Trump and the GOP just signed, always crash the economy into a recession. You really do have trouble dealing with facts and logic. just ignore the reasoning behind the recession, and just go by your logic, oh it happens every so often so that is why it's going to happen and not because of huge tax cuts which always precedes recessions


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

I am curious about the logic of how reducing rates on Capital Gains will suddenly cause Mega Corp's to invest more in jobs, when the stock market is already at records rates and they are swimming in profits. Middle and lower class wages remain stagnant,if they wanted to invest more in worker's wouldn't they already be doing that now.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Your trolling is getting old. The articles you posted was well there will be a recession at some point because recessions happen from time to time. Where as the article I posted said the tax cuts will be the cause of the recession, and it's not just some random thing like in your articles.
> 
> If you knew your history, then you know, huge tax cuts like Trump and the GOP just signed, always crash the economy into a recession. You really do have trouble dealing with facts and logic. just ignore the reasoning behind the recession, and just go by your logic, oh it happens every so often so that is why it's going to happen and not because of huge tax cuts which always precedes recessions


I posted a link that predicted a recession because of A, and that prediction is wrong. You posted a link that predicted a recession because of B, and that prediction is right. How does that work?

And recessions do happen from time to time. There have been 47 recessions is the countries beginning, or about 1 every 6 years. This isn't an opinion, this is a fact. There have been 5 recessions from 1980 to 2010, this is not an opinion, this is a fact; and look what's been predicted for the last 5 years? Another recession. 

These aren't opinions, BM, these are facts. You can't sit here and say they're wrong because if you do then you proscribe to this thing called "alternative facts" and do you know what "alternative facts" are? They're opinions, so while I'm here citing facts, you're citing opinions; and the funny part is, you're telling me I ignore facts. LOL

I'll give you this, BM, you certainly are unique. I've never met a person as obtuse as you.

:applause


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I posted a link that predicted a recession because of A, and that prediction is wrong. You posted a link that predicted a recession because of B, and that prediction is right. How does that work?
> 
> And recessions do happen from time to time. There have been 47 recessions is the countries beginning, or about 1 every 6 years. This isn't an opinion, this is a fact. There have been 5 recessions from 1980 to 2010, this is not an opinion, this is a fact; and look what's been predicted for the last 5 years? Another recession.
> 
> These aren't opinions, BM, these are facts. You can't sit here and say they're wrong because if you do then you proscribe to this thing called "alternative facts" and do you know what "alternative facts" are? They're opinions, so while I'm here citing facts, you're citing opinions; and the funny part is, you're telling me I ignore facts. LOL
> 
> I'll give you this, BM, you certainly are unique. I've never met a person as obtuse as you.
> 
> :applause


Keep making excuses for when this huge tax bill crashes the economy and we go into a recession just so you can claim it was not Trump or the GOPs fault.

I already explained to you why your A was wrong. Your A basically says well we have not had a recession in a while so we are due one, and B is saying, this tax plan is going to cause the recession. If B did not pass then we wouldn't have a recession and the economy wouldn't crash like it always does when these kinds of plans are passed

Here is an analogy to your logic.

At street some street corner you say well someone is going to get hit by a car at some point over the next few years.
And then someone says they are going to run out into traffic without looking at that same street corner. and I say, you are going to get hit by a car doing that.

And you saying, the person running out into traffic without looking isn't what caused him to get hit by the car since someone was going to get hit by a car at that corner at some point.

Keep ignoring history when bills like this are passed but sure this won't be the reason why the economy crashes and we go into another recession, it was just going to happen at some point anyway so you won't blame this bill which the GOP and Trump claim will boom the econ yet it will do the exact opposite.

You have a built in excuse for everything when it comes to Trump.


----------



## Kabraxal

Inching ever closer to leaving the UN... if Trump actually does ot I might actually applaud the man for the single smartest thing a president has ever done. And what a boon for this nation to stop burning money for that corrupt hellhole.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Kabraxal said:


> Inching ever closer to leaving the UN... if Trump actually does ot I might actually applaud the man for the single smartest thing a president has ever done. And what a boon for this nation to stop burning money for that corrupt hellhole.


I can see why some would view the UN as a shithole but Trump pretty much wants to put a dome over the entire US. 

He wants to make us a complete isolationist country.


----------



## Cabanarama

BoFreakinDallas said:


> I am curious about the logic of how reducing rates on Capital Gains will suddenly cause Mega Corp's to invest more in jobs, when the stock market is already at records rates and they are swimming in profits. Middle and lower class wages remain stagnant,if they wanted to invest more in worker's wouldn't they already be doing that now.


The fact that people still buy in into the trickle down economics crap after it's been proven to be a failure time and time again baffles me

To be fair, the UN has been mostly a failed 70 year experiment and a mostly useless organization. So I would have zero problem with a UN withdrawal. 
We should, at the very least, stop giving any money to them (which they rely on considering we pay for 22% and the next highest country is Japan with less than 10%), until they stop their anti-Semitic/ anti-Israel bias


----------



## Kabraxal

The Hardcore Show said:


> I can see why some would view the UN as a shithole but Trump pretty much wants to put a dome over the entire US.
> 
> He wants to make us a complete isolationist country.


I feel it more like taking the reigns back after a globalist disaster has stymied this country for decades. I am wholly against globalism and have been exhausted from the idiocy of throwing so much money to the rest of the world.

I hope he goes further. Pull out of the UN, pull out of NAFTA, and scale back our military presence overseas so this country can start focusing on itself instead of try to be the world’s nanny and ATM. Globalism has been such a maddening failure that I would gladly take isolationism over it.


----------



## Laughable Chimp

Kabraxal said:


> I feel it more like taking the reigns back after a globalist disaster has stymied this country for decades. I am wholly against globalism and have been exhausted from the idiocy of throwing so much money to the rest of the world.
> 
> I hope he goes further. Pull out of the UN, pull out of NAFTA, and scale back our military presence overseas so this country can start focusing on itself instead of try to be the world’s nanny and ATM. Globalism has been such a maddening failure that I would gladly take isolationism over it.


Globalism would theoretically be better looking at the whole, but isn't necessarily better for individual countries.


----------



## Kabraxal

Laughable Chimp said:


> Globalism would theoretically be better looking at the whole, but isn't necessarily better for individual countries.


It hasn’t worked as a whole yet. The EU is crippling Europe, the middle east is still burning, Africa is still a shit hole, and the US has hamstrung itself trying to prop everyone else up.


----------



## birthday_massacre

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ps-tweet-could-lead-to-obstruction-of-justice

*Legal experts: Trump's tweet could lead to obstruction of justice charges*

President Trump's tweet suggesting that he knew former national security adviser Michael Flynn had lied to the FBI at the time of his firing has prompted ethics experts and political observers to question whether Mueller could probe the president for obstruction of justice.

Walter Shaub, the former director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, said Saturday that Trump’s tweet would have been enough to end past administrations.

And Richard Painter, the top ethics lawyer during former President George W. Bush’s administration, said that Trump “could be Tweeting himself into an obstruction of justice conviction.”

rump implied that he knew about Flynn’s false statements in a tweet Saturday.

“I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies,” Trump tweeted.

“It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!”

Others quickly weighed in, including former Obama Department of Justice spokesman Matthew Miller.

“Oh my god, he just admitted to obstruction of justice,” Miller tweeted. “If Trump knew Flynn lied to the FBI when he asked Comey to let it go, then there is your case.” 

And frequent Trump critic Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) said that Trump’s tweet was proof of obstruction of justice.

"THIS IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. @potUS now admits he KNEW Michael Flynn lied to the FBI. Yet Trump tried to influence or stop the FBI investigation on Flynn," Lieu tweeted.

Former senior Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer also chimed in, tweeting that "If Trump keeps admitting to obstructing justice, Ty Cobb might be right that the Mueller investigation may wrap up sooner than we think."

Trump’s tweet and the subsequent fallout comes just one day after Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about his conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Flynn reached a plea deal with Mueller’s team and faces up to five years in prison on the charge.



http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-trump-lawyer-should-be-disbarred-if-he-wrote

*Bush ethics lawyer: Trump lawyer should be disbarred if he wrote Flynn firing tweet*

The top ethics lawyer in President George W. Bush’s administration said that President Trump’s lawyer should be disbarred if he wrote Trump’s tweet suggesting the president knew Michael Flynn had lied to the FBI.

“A lawyer who writes a Tweet like that incriminating a client should be disbarred. He can tell Mueller he wrote it,” Richard Painter tweeted.

Trump’s personal lawyer John Dowd has said that he wrote a tweet Trump sent Saturday. The tweet claimed Trump knew before he fired his former national security adviser that Flynn lied to FBI agents about his contacts with Trump officials.
"I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies," Trump tweeted on Saturday.

Dowd said that he had written the tweet and that it was “my mistake.” 

“I’m out of the tweeting business. I did not mean to break news,” Dowd told Axios.

Trump's tweet came one day after Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about his contacts with Russian officials.


----------



## Reaper

Cabanarama said:


> The fact that people still buy in into the trickle down economics crap after it's been proven to be a failure time and time again baffles me
> 
> To be fair, the UN has been mostly a failed 70 year experiment and a mostly useless organization. So I would have zero problem with a UN withdrawal.
> We should, at the very least, stop giving any money to them (which they rely on considering we pay for 22% and the next highest country is Japan with less than 10%), until they stop their anti-Semitic/ anti-Israel bias


Trickle down economics is not real economics. It's a leftist straw man.

*sigh*

Every year. Year after year. People who have no education in any economist school except anti-capitalism continue to spout this nonsense over and over again as though repitition alone makes it the truth. 

Wages have not "stagnated". Wage growth is between 1.5 - 4.0% *average* (but it's not really good to look at averages because certain industries show more growth than others which is the nature of things). This in line with inflation. 

At the same time, PURE wage "growth" isn't the only factor that's important because you can have stagnant wages, but declining inflation in certain key commodities like food, clothing and gas that makes your living conditions better. As we have seen in the last two years now with continued declining gas prices while wages may not have grown "as much" (and how much growth do people even want in wages anyways?), the amount of things people can afford has gone up significantly as they need to pay less for gas to which everything is intertwined. Everything is intertwined. These talking points are based on very weak understanding of economics as a whole. 

Just as wages have "stagnated" (which is a ridiculous lie in the first place), so has inflation. That is another statistical fallacy based on selective agenda pushing which has been pushed since the 70's. It's flat out wrong. 

Wages are industry dependent. Some industries have low profits hence low wage growth (food industry). Other industries have higher profits, hence higher wage growth (tech industries) Some industries are highly competitive therefore their wages as well as their profits don't show much growth, therefore the tax burden has a greater impact on consumer affordability. Whereas other industries show a different pattern of growth and therefore are helped more through tax "benefits".

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-investors-can-profit-from-the-stagnant-wages-myth-2016-04-06



> *Opinion: How investors can profit from the ‘stagnant wages’ myth*
> 
> One of the worst investing mistakes you can make is to add politics to your portfolio.
> 
> Mixing your political beliefs with your economic analysis will only mess up your thinking and cause unforced errors.
> 
> Want an example? I have many conservative friends who missed much of the rally since March 2009 because they dislike President Obama, the Federal Reserve and government involvement in the economy so much they couldn’t bear to admit that the economy was improving — until it was too late.
> 
> Likewise, there’s now a myth circulating that may be equally corrosive to your returns, if you embrace it. This one afflicts investors on both the right and the left.
> 
> It’s the myth of “stagnant” wages. Investors on the right embrace this myth because it’s yet another way to criticize Obama. Investors on the left like this one because it appeals to their notion that the government has to intervene more to boost wages and narrow the widening wealth gap.
> 
> I’m not disputing that there is a growing wealth divide. To the extent that this creates even more divisiveness, or dispirits workers closer to the bottom, it’s bad for our democracy and our economy.
> 
> But “wage stagnation” is a bunch of malarkey.
> 
> If I am right that a lot of investors embrace this false belief despite the facts, which may be understandable given how much presidential candidates on the left and right harp on it, there are two key investing takeaways here.
> 
> Consumers are a lot stronger than investors think. Therefore:
> 
> 1. The economy is stronger than a lot of people believe, given that consumer spending drives about two-thirds of GDP. So a market-tanking recession is not on the horizon.
> 
> 2. Retail stocks may be undervalued.
> 
> At the bottom of this column, I’ll cite five retail stocks that look interesting on the basis of the system I use in my stock newsletter, Brush Up on Stocks, and input from Morningstar analysts.
> 
> But, first, let’s take a quick look at the numbers that show why “wage stagnation” is just a political hoax, designed to get you to support your favorite candidate — on the right or the left.
> 
> Payroll tracking
> 
> Probably the cleanest way to show that wage growth is robust is to look at numbers produced by Moody’s Analytics based on data from Automatic Data Processing (ADP). ADP handles payroll processing for a broad swath of U.S. companies. Moody’s Analytics looks at ADP payroll records for 24 million employees, or about 20% of the workforce. This is a very large sample size.
> 
> *According to this analysis, wages grew 4.1% last year. That’s already a big number, and this growth is far from “stagnant,” by any measure. But it’s even bigger when you consider that, for much of last year, inflation was near zero, thanks to the decline in energy and commodity prices.
> *
> Who got the biggest pay gains? Millennials, women, workers at small companies, and people in the leisure, hospitality, manufacturing and information-services sectors, says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. But the gains were really broad-based, across nearly the entire labor market. This tells us job growth and the economy are fairly sound.
> 
> The other good news here is that robust wage growth is likely to continue because labor markets have tightened so much, says Zandi. This is one reason he is optimistic about the consumer. Some other reasons: Consumers have record-low debt payments, home prices are going up, hiring is strong, and credit is getting easier to obtain.
> 
> *Lies, politicians and government statistics
> *
> If pay raises are so good, how can politicians get away with claiming wages are stagnant? It might be tempting to say they are merely lying. *But, in reality, they’re relying on government statistics, which don’t always paint the full picture.*
> 
> The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has been reporting wage gains in the 2%-plus range for a lot of this recovery. That’s still not bad, considering that inflation has been so low — often near zero for much of the recovery.
> 
> But BLS wage numbers have a downward bias that distorts the picture. Over time, for example, highly paid baby boomers retire, and younger workers who earn less join the workforce. This pushes down the aggregate wage growth tracked by BLS, even as younger workers enjoy those 4% wage gains.
> 
> The BLS also includes the wage gains of job changers, which tend to be smaller, around 2%-plus recently. In contrast, Moody’s tracks the pay of the same workers in the same jobs over time, which arguably makes it a better measure of the actual pay increases people are getting. That’s because people who stay in the same job make up the lion’s share of the workforce. The portion changing jobs is fairly low, at around 20%-25%.
> 
> But the real culprit from the myriad of government pay stats in the “stagnant wage” debate is the household-income analysis produced by the Census Bureau. These numbers do indeed show that inflation-adjusted median household income has been virtually flat for the past 20 years, up a mere 5.2% from 1994 through 2014.
> 
> Politicians like to cite those numbers, but there are two main problems here.
> 
> *First, the number of households that have people living alone — or otherwise have one wage earner — has increased sharply. This puts downward pressure on household income. The percentage of singles in the adult population, for example, has soared to about 50% from 37% in 1976.
> 
> The other big problem is that the Census Bureau numbers exclude many types of income people enjoy in the form of government benefits, points out Ed Yardeni, of Yardeni Research. Think Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, housing subsidies and the earned income tax credit.
> 
> If you include all of those, real personal income is up 41% over the past 20 years to a record high of $120,690 per household as of the end of last year, says Yardeni, citing Bureau of Economic Analysis numbers. Real disposable income is up 40% to a record $105,270 per household. Lo and behold, those trends are confirmed by a comparable 42% gain in real personal consumption per household over the past 20 years, to a record $96,500.*
> 
> Indeed, you get a confirmation of all of this just by looking around at what is going on in the economy. Car sales have rebounded sharply. And many retail stocks have done well. “Personal consumption has been leading the economy for the past few years,” says Jim Paulsen, an economist and market strategist with Wells Capital Management. This confirms that wage growth and purchasing power growth are OK. “That might be the best evidence there is,” he says.
> 
> Favored consumer stocks
> I can’t prove it, but I’m willing to bet that a lot of consumer-facing stocks aren’t as high as they should be, because too many investors embrace the “stagnant wage” myth, drummed into their heads by politicians.
> 
> Here are five attractive consumer-oriented companies whose shares have recently been weak at least in part because of concerns about wage growth and the economy. They should get a boost as tight labor markets bring follow-through on wage hikes over the next year or two, which will not only dispel the “stagnant wage” myth but also boost consumers’ spending power.
> 
> I recently suggested the mattress company Tempur Sealy International Inc. TPX, -0.78% in my stock newsletter, Brush Up on Stocks. The stock has fallen sharply to around $60 from above $82 last November. In the weakness, there was sizeable purchase by the CEO. The stock looks relatively cheap here. Besides jobs and wage strength, Tempur Sealy should get a boost from continued housing market strength, new product launches, international expansion and cost cutting.
> 
> Consumer-facing companies with protective economic moats now trading at reasonable valuations following sell-offs, according to Morningstar analysts, include Walt Disney Co. DIS, +0.41% and Tiffany & Co. TIF, +2.91% In apparel, Morningstar analysts cite V.F. Corp. VFC, -1.60% and L Brands Inc. LB, -0.39%
> 
> At the time of publication, Michael Brush had no positions in any stocks mentioned in this column. Brush has suggested TPX in his stock newsletter, Brush Up on Stocks. Brush is a Manhattan-based financial writer who has covered business for the New York Times and The Economist group, and he attended Columbia Business School in the Knight-Bagehot program.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Trickle down economics has never worked. repear is the only undefeated one here on this matter

Just use Kanas as the most recent example

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...611861a988f_story.html?utm_term=.967339f2bbfb

Trickle-down economics is a nightmare. Kansas proved it.

The Republican gospel of cutting taxes and government services to the bone doesn’t lead to economic growth; it leads to crisis and decline. Just ask the people of Kansas, who finally have seen the light.

If House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) don’t heed the Kansas lesson, they deserve to have their majorities stripped away in next year’s midterms. And they won’t be able to claim they weren’t warned.

The states are supposed to be laboratories for testing government policy. For five years, Kansas’s Republican governor, Sam Brownback, conducted the nation’s most radical exercise in trickle-down economics — a “real-live experiment,” he called it. He and the GOP-controlled legislature slashed the state’s already-low tax rates, eliminated state income tax for most owner-operated businesses and sharply reduced vital government services. These measures were supposed to deliver “a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy,” Brownback said.

subscribe
The story must be told.
Your subscription supports journalism that matters.
Try 1 month for $1
It ended up being a shot of poison. Growth rates lagged behind those in neighboring states and the nation as a whole. Deficits mounted to unsustainable levels. Services withered. Brownback had set in motion a vicious cycle, not a virtuous one.

Last week, finally, the legislature — still controlled by Republicans — overrode Brownback’s veto of legislation restoring taxation to sane levels. The nightmare experiment is coming to an end.

2:22
How Sam Brownback’s tax 'experiment' failed

Kansas Republicans voted June 5 to reverse deep tax cuts enacted by Gov. Sam Brownback (R). Here's how his tax "experiment" failed. (Amber Ferguson/The Washington Post)
The return to sane taxation will go a long way toward erasing a billion-dollar deficit. More revenue-raising measures may be needed, however, because education funding under Brownback was reduced to levels that the state Supreme Court recently ruled unconstitutional. It is unclear whether a $488 million increase for the schools over the next two years — which Brownback may still veto, or try to — is enough to satisfy the court.

Republican leaders in Congress will probably try to ignore the Kansas fiasco or say Brownback’s implementation was flawed. But that would be unfair. All Brownback did was apply what passes for mainstream Republican orthodoxy these days: Cut taxes, eliminate regulation, shrink government, then stand back and watch as economic growth soars.

It just didn’t work.

It never works. Republicans cannot point to an instance in which this prescription has led to the promised Valhalla of skyrocketing growth. Before Kansas, they could at least argue that the program had only been attempted partially and piecemeal, never in full and unadulterated form. After Kansas, that excuse is gone.

Eliminating business income taxes for owner-operated companies was supposed to induce entrepreneurs to move to Kansas from other states. It didn’t. It turned out that business owners take more than taxes into account when they decide where to locate. They want good health care and first-rate schools for themselves and their employees. They want modern, well-maintained infrastructure. In short, they want a healthy, functioning public sector.

It also turns out that business owners do not decide whether to expand capacity or add employees based solely on the tax rate they must pay. Much more important is whether there is enough demand to justify such growth. If there is not — and the Kansas economy under Brownback was woefully sluggish — then tax savings will not be put to productive use.

The Kansas Republicans who voted to abandon Brownback’s dead-end policies have been described in news stories as “moderate,” but many are actually quite conservative. They just decided to put reality before ideology.

President Trump and the Republican-led Congress, however, threaten to run Brownback’s experiment on a national scale, with predictably disastrous consequences. White House budget director Mick Mulvaney proposes amputational cuts to the social safety net and bureaus such as the State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency. And Trump’s “tax reform” plan proposes, among other cuts, to slash the top tax rate for “pass-through” businesses — basically, owner-operated firms such as the Trump Organization — from 39.6 percent to 15 percent.

Claims that such action will lead to a surge in economic growth never had much credibility. Now, after the Kansas experiment, they have zero.

It’s tempting to say fine, go for it, let the whole country see that the policy prescriptions championed by the Republican Party lead to nothing but a world of pain — except for the wealthy, who get to pad their bank accounts. But this is no academic exercise. Real people will suffer needlessly.

The GOP trembles before tax-cut guru Grover Norquist, who wants to reduce government “to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” But it is failed trickle-down ideology that deserves to be snuffed out. And not just in Kansas.


----------



## birthday_massacre

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/03/trump-twitter-flynn-advisers-277296

*Trump's uncontrollable tweeting triggers deeper anxiety among advisers
By Sunday, the president had already claimed Michael Flynn was fired in part for lying to the FBI and had moved on to accusing the nation’s top law-enforcement agency of being “in tatters.”*


It took nearly 24 hours for President Donald Trump to tweet about the news that his former national security adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents — a delay that Trump's advisers said was not uncommon for the president, who often tweets after catching up on cable news.

Many Republicans at first saw the radio silence as a welcome sign of restraint.

But by Sunday, the notoriously hot-headed president had already claimed Flynn was fired earlier this year in part for lying to the FBI and had moved on to accusing the nation’s top law-enforcement agency of being “in tatters.”

“Worst in History! But fear not, we will bring it back to greatness,” he tweeted.

The tweets all combined to reignite fears among people close to Trump that the president is not taking the special counsel’s investigation seriously enough and is getting bad advice from his legal team.

Trump supporters, former campaign aides and former administration officials are beginning to privately raise red flags that the White House can’t keep up with the president’s own tweets and doesn’t have a coherent messaging strategy on the Russia investigation, according to interviews with a half-dozen people close to the president.


The people close to the president stressed that they are not worried that special counsel Robert Mueller will ensnare the president or find evidence of collusion. But they nonetheless fear that the near-daily revelations about the investigation will overtake Trump’s presidency.

“There’s no quarterback. There’s no strategy. They’re literally making it up as they go along,” said one of the people. “We’re in very dangerous territory.”

A White House spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.

In New York this weekend, where the president headlined three fundraisers, Trump’s tweets were a frequent topic of conversation, with some donors privately raising concerns that the investigation could shift attention from tax reform, according to donors close to the administration.

“As a Trump supporter, I think that the president tweeting about Mueller’s investigation absolutely distracts his administration and the public from the mission at hand, which is to get tax reform done before the end of the year,” said Houston-based energy executive Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor. “His tweeting certainly shows he isn’t listening to the advice of counsel, which must be telling him to say nothing publicly or privately.”

Senior White House officials, taking their cues from chief of staff John Kelly, insist that they can’t — and won’t — control what the president does on social media. Asked earlier this week what he does when Trump unleashes provocative tweets, one senior White House official said simply, “Ignore them.”

Another senior administration official said efforts to exert control over Trump's tweeting were a "lost cause," adding that aides have also had little success limiting the president's tv-watching habit. "TV is what it is," the official said.

Trump’s anger with the Russia investigation is nothing new; he has called it a “witch hunt,” and he insisted as far back as last year that there was no collusion between his team and Moscow.

But Trump's allies are warning in public and in private that he shouldn't dismiss underestimate the impact of the investigation.


Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy, a Trump friend who speaks to him frequently, said on ABC News' "This Week" Sunday that the Mueller investigation "poses an existential threat to the Trump presidency."

“He thinks there’s nothing to it, and that says collusion never took place,” Ruddy, who said he hadn’t spoken to Trump this weekend, said in an email to POLITICO. “I think he’s 100 percent right, there was no collusion. But Mueller is looking for much more than collusion, the indictments and pleas to date demonstrate that.”

White House lawyer Ty Cobb has repeatedly promised the president that Mueller's investigation will be over soon, a pledge that outside Trump advisers worry is divorced from reality. Nonetheless, Trump has internalized Cobb's comments, telling friends that he isn't worried about the probe.

Over the last week, the president has made a round of calls to friends and outside advisers in which he insisted that the probe will wrap up quickly, two people familiar with the conversations said.

Trump's friends and allies have cautioned the president against attacking Flynn and Mueller directly, instead encouraging him to focus on Hillary Clinton, recent erroneous reporting from ABC News’ Brian Ross and the news that an FBI officer working with Mueller was removed after sending anti-Trump text messages.

Indeed, the tone of the president’s tweets shifted over the course of the weekend, from responding to the Flynn developments to raging about Clinton, ABC and the FBI. Ross was suspended after incorrectly reporting that Flynn would testify that then-candidate Trump "directed him to make contact with the Russians."

“People who lost money when the Stock Market went down 350 points based on the False and Dishonest reporting of Brian Ross of @abc News (he has been suspended), should consider hiring a lawyer and suing ABC for the damages this bad reporting has caused - many millions of dollars!” Trump tweeted on Sunday.

The same day, he shared angry commentary about the FBI’s disciplining of the agent assigned to the Russia probe who had sent the anti-Trump texts and who previously worked on the Clinton email investigation.

“Report: “ANTI-TRUMP FBI AGENT LED CLINTON EMAIL PROBE” Now it all starts to make sense!” Trump tweeted.


But the president also retweeted a tweet from a conservative pundit that called on FBI Director Christopher Wray to “clean house” at the bureau — raising fears that Trump could go on a firing spree that could end in Mueller’s ouster. Many of Trump’s allies believe such a move would have disastrous consequences, further alienating him from Republicans in Congress and damaging his prospects for reelection.

And on Saturday, he sent a missive that he “had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.” The tweet immediately raised questions about whether Trump knew when he fired Flynn that the then-adviser was lying to the FBI, a revelation that — if true — could greatly raise the stakes in the investigation.

Trump’s aides scrambled to explain the tweet. Trump’s personal lawyer, John Dowd, told POLITICO Sunday that he drafted it, adding that he believed it was posted online by social media director Dan Scavino. Dowd’s confession was met with widespread skepticism from Democrats and some Republicans, who doubted a White House lawyer would craft such a potentially damaging tweet.

Asked if he believes the tweet could make the president vulnerable in the Mueller probe, Dowd said, “Not at all.”

Some outside lawyers disagreed.

Peter Zeidenberg, who served on the Justice Department’s special prosecution team during the George W. Bush-era Valerie Plame Wilson investigation, said Trump’s tweets and public statements “are extremely damaging to him and helpful to Mueller’s team.”

“The toughest thing in bringing an obstruction case is proving the state of mind of the defendant,” Zeidenberg said. “Trump is making their job easy.”


----------



## Reaper

:mj4










:lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

*CEOs agree: Corporate tax cuts won't trickle down*
http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/362949-ceos-agree-corporate-tax-cuts-wont-trickle-down

Despite all evidence to the contrary, Republicans continue to tout their tax bills as “middle-class tax cuts.” In reality, the bills making their way through Congress are tax cuts for the rich and big corporations, at the expense of working families.

Any crumbs thrown towards low- and middle-income families disappear at the end of 2025, and left in their place are some tax increases, not cuts. But the tax cuts for big corporations — both cutting the headline rate and giving them tax advantages to offshore profits and jobs — are permanent.

Under the Senate bill, in 2027, households making under $75,000 will see their taxes rise on average according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. And according to the Tax Policy Center, 62 percent of the benefits of the tax plan in 2027 would go to the top 1 percent — households currently making income of $730,000 or more.

The real damage to working families will come in the near future; Republicans have already signaled their plans to leverage the deficits that result from their tax plan to gut Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.

Left with no other way to claim that the middle class wins out in these bills, proponents are claiming that the benefits to corporate tax cuts will trickle down.

The logic goes like this: Corporate tax cuts will increase after-tax profits, which will boost private savings. Higher profitability will spur firms’ incentive to invest and the new savings will make funds available to finance these new investments. These investments will in turn boost productivity which will boost workers’ wages.

This is a long chain of events that has to happen, and most of its links are pretty weak when tested against real-world data. After-tax corporate profits are already near historically high, and interest rates incredibly low, and yet investment has been weak.

Why would doing more of the same (i.e., fattening companies’ profit margins) all of a sudden reverse this trend? And even if investment picks up and boosts productivity, there is no guarantee that this will boost a typical workers’ wages.

Sky-high after-tax corporate profits and low interest rates make clear that it isn’t corporations’ profitability or insufficient available savings holding back investment. Corporations are sitting on plenty of cash, but have used that money to boost shareholder returns, not investment. Quite simply, cutting corporate taxes solves no problem currently facing the American economy.

Given this, tax cuts for corporations are just tax cuts for the rich by another name. Claims that corporate tax cuts will make it all the way down to workers’ wages are not supported by real-world evidence.

There is no evidence in recent American economic history, no evidence from international comparisons and no evidence from individual U.S. states that corporate tax cuts will boost the wages of American workers. This is a case we’ve been making for a while.

As it turns out, the CEOs of major companies agree with us. Companies including Cisco, Pfizer, Coca-Cola and Amgen have said that the gains from corporate tax cuts will go to shareholders.

When CEOs were asked at a Wall Street Journal event to raise their hands, “If the tax reform bill goes through, do you plan to increase investment — your company’s investment, capital investment,” few raised their hands.

White House National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn asked “Why aren’t the other hands up?” The hands weren’t up because the gains from corporate tax cuts will go to shareholders, not workers.

This means the gains from cutting corporate taxes will disproportionately accrue to the rich, since the top 1 percent holds about 40 percent of stock wealth.

With corporate tax claims thoroughly debunked, there is no avenue left through which the Republican tax bills can be considered anything but huge tax cuts for the rich at the expense of working families.

Hunter Blair is a budget analyst for the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank that emphasizes the needs of low- and middle-income workers in economic policy discussions. Blair specializes in tax, budget and infrastructure policy analysis.


----------



## Kabraxal

I just want the income tax gone. It is pure theft created to drive a war and was promised to end when that ended a century ago. So much for trusting the government.


----------



## Laughable Chimp

Kabraxal said:


> I just want the income tax gone. It is pure theft created to drive a war and was promised to end when that ended a century ago. So much for trusting the government.


Almost all countries have some sort of income tax. Not all of them have been in wars.


----------



## Kabraxal

Laughable Chimp said:


> Almost all countries have some sort of income tax. Not all of them have been in wars.


The US income tax was started for WWI. It was supposed to end. The government lied. Even outside of that fact, income tax is theft. If you don’t believe that, the government has you brainwashed to accept their abuse and you are beyond help. I’m done trying to enlighten the ignorant fools of this shit world.


----------



## Cabanarama

Kabraxal said:


> *The US income tax was started for WWI.* It was supposed to end. The government lied. Even outside of that fact, income tax is theft. If you don’t believe that, the government has you brainwashed to accept their abuse and you are beyond help. I’m done trying to enlighten the ignorant fools of this shit world.


The 16nd Ammendment (federal income tax ammendment) was first introduced in 1909 after being largely advocated for after 20 years, and was ratified in 1913
World War I broke out in 1914, with the US not getting involved until 1918.
So our government was able to predict the future!!!!

But I wouldn't expect someone with such asinine viewpoints to actually know their history...


----------



## Reaper

Cabanarama said:


> The 16nd Ammendment (federal income tax ammendment) was first introduced in 1909 after being largely advocated for after 20 years, and was ratified in 1913
> World War I broke out in 1914, with the US not getting involved until 1918.
> So our government was able to predict the future!!!!
> 
> But I wouldn't expect someone with such asinine viewpoints to actually know their history...


Of course a statist would ignore the events prior to 1914 that led to the WWI which essentially started with the 1908 annexation of Bosnia by Austria-Hungary. Which would explain the US entry into the arms race quite perfectly. 

It didn't magically just erupt into a global war in 1914. :lol



> Political and military alliances
> During the 19th century, the major European powers went to great lengths to maintain a balance of power throughout Europe, resulting in the existence of a complex network of political and military alliances throughout the continent by 1900.[23] These began in 1815, with the Holy Alliance between Prussia, Russia, and Austria. When Germany was united in 1871, Prussia became part of the new German nation. Soon after, in October 1873, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck negotiated the League of the Three Emperors (German: Dreikaiserbund) between the monarchs of Austria-Hungary, Russia and Germany. This agreement failed because Austria-Hungary and Russia could not agree over Balkan policy, leaving Germany and Austria-Hungary in an alliance formed in 1879, called the Dual Alliance. This was seen as a method of countering Russian influence in the Balkans as the Ottoman Empire continued to weaken.[10] This alliance expanded in 1882 to include Italy, in what became the Triple Alliance.[24]
> 
> Bismarck had especially worked to hold Russia at Germany's side in an effort to avoid a two-front war with France and Russia. When Wilhelm II ascended to the throne as German Emperor (Kaiser), Bismarck was compelled to retire and his system of alliances was gradually de-emphasised. For example, the Kaiser refused, in 1890, to renew the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia. Two years later, the Franco-Russian Alliance was signed to counteract the force of the Triple Alliance. In 1904, Britain signed a series of agreements with France, the Entente Cordiale, and in 1907, Britain and Russia signed the Anglo-Russian Convention. While these agreements did not formally ally Britain with France or Russia, they made British entry into any future conflict involving France or Russia a possibility, and the system of interlocking bilateral agreements became known as the Triple Entente.[10]
> 
> 
> SMS Rheinland, a Nassau-class battleship, Germany's first response to British Dreadnought.
> Arms race
> German industrial and economic power had grown greatly after unification and the foundation of the Empire in 1871 following the Franco-Prussian War. From the mid-1890s on, the government of Wilhelm II used this base to devote significant economic resources for building up the Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial German Navy), established by Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, in rivalry with the British Royal Navy for world naval supremacy.[25] As a result, each nation strove to out-build the other in capital ships. With the launch of HMS Dreadnought in 1906, the British Empire expanded on its significant advantage over its German rival.[25] The arms race between Britain and Germany eventually extended to the rest of Europe, with all the major powers devoting their industrial base to producing the equipment and weapons necessary for a pan-European conflict.[26] Between 1908 and 1913, the military spending of the European powers increased by 50%.[27]


A very quick glance at the WWI history page on Wikipedia puts the entire US rush to introduce an income tax and entry into the arms race into perfect historical context. 

The US was a nation that was supposed to get by without any taxes. We were the original libertarian / minarchist state where the goal was to be reductionist to the point of having smaller and smaller self-governing localities - the skeletal structure of which you can still see existing in most of America. This is why we had a small standing army before the War and had to FORCE millions of young men through threat of incarceration to fight. Just as our "leaders" force us to pay taxes through the threat of incarceration. The ruling elite (whoever they are) converted a country of mostly libertarian, non-violent individuals who just wanted to mind their own business into a massive war machine. Even today the majority of Americans are strictly anti-war. Each new president gets elected on the promise of putting an end to our global conflicts. 

Obama and Trump campaigned on the same promise of anti-war, non-interventionalist policies. Americans are a peaceful people who just want to be left alone to live out their own lives. 

Every single interpretation of the Constitution supports a minarchy, not the totalitarian monster we have today.

https://fee.org/articles/libertarians-and-the-constitution/



> Mr. Wolfe is a member of the staff of the Foundation for Economic Education.
> 
> Constituion Day
> September 17
> 1787-1956
> 
> For over a century after its signing in September 1787, the United States Constitution was upheld by a citizenry which, by and large, appreciated it both in letter and spirit, and sought to live according to its ideal of limited government protecting individual rights.
> 
> But toward the end of the nineteenth century, and especially since the 1930′s, more and more Americans began to accept a theory of government—call it statism, collectivism, socialism, or what you will—in direct opposition to the individualist philosophy of our Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, many of those who held to the philosophy of freedom which underlies our national charter did not understand it well enough to competently defend the principles of Constitutional government.
> 
> Role of Libertarians
> 
> Who, then, remain—on this 169th anniversary of the Constitution—as the genuine upholders of “that magnificent document”? It would seem that the most able supporters might well be the libertarians—those rooted in a clear perception of the significance of the individual, his inclinations toward self-sufficiency and self-government, and his deep beliefs in the right to own and exchange the fruits of his labors without government intervention.
> 
> Thinkers who accept these ideas entertain views closely allied to those held by the strict constructionists among the Constitution framers. As much or more than any others, these libertarians understand the reasons for the restrictions on federal government imposed by our national charter.
> 
> Libertarian Holds Back
> 
> Yet it is a simple fact that rarely indeed does the libertarian rise up today as a stanch and vocal champion of the U.S. Constitution. Rather, this authentic liberal appears to have pushed the Constitution into the background of his mind. He is apt to mention it seldom, and even then with only mild endorsement. For almost a year now I have been asking myself: Why this neglect of Constitutional principles?
> 
> I have since concluded that the most incisive answer to the question lies in the conviction, apparently entertained by many able students, that libertarianism and Constitutionalism conflict—that there is essential opposition between the philosophy of freedom and our national charter, and that hence, one cannot consistently be both a libertarian and a Constitutionalist.
> 
> This is a view which I once held. It is a position which can be supported by an imposing array of argument, and I am quite aware that each libertarian must decide the issue for himself. But I now sincerely believe that the apparent clash between libertarianism and the Constitution is superficial rather than fundamental; that each has its necessary place, and is important—even indispensable—to the other.
> 
> Idea and Identification
> 
> Libertarianism is a philosophical idea or ideal; the original Constitution is its highest manifestation or identification as law ever experienced by a nation. This true liberalism acts as cause; our fundamental federal document appeared as effect. The philosophy of freedom might be termed an ideological discovery; our national charter is the legal means by which that discovery is founded or established in public life.
> 
> Thus the two—the libertarian philosophy and our Constitution as originally conceived and interpreted—can be viewed as an inseparable whole: cause and effect, idea and identity, a discovery and its founding.
> 
> One without the other is more or less ineffective and incomplete. The libertarian philosophy without its manifestation as law tends to appear as mere theorizing, while the Constitution, if it had not been preceded by the philosophy of freedom as conceived by the Founding Fathers and expressed in the Declaration of Independence, would have been as worthless as the charters of most other nations. By the same token, our Constitution today, since it is no longer sustained by a widespread libertarian understanding, is rapidly losing its practical value.
> 
> Objection Is Raised
> 
> “But,” a student of liberty says, “the U. S. Constitution never was a direct manifestation of the libertarian philosophy as I understand it. If my sense of libertarianism be termed cause, then the effect as law would be quite different from our federal Constitution. In particular, such a charter would place far more severe and specific limitations on the prerogatives of government—greater restrictions on its powers to tax and to spend; and outright elimination of its now-presumed mandates to transfer wealth, to subsidize, to regulate the economy, and to engage in a host of business activities.”
> 
> “Thus,” says the objector, “I cannot accept your explanation of libertarianism and the Constitution as cause and effect, or idea and its legal identification—if by that idea or cause you mean the libertarian philosophy as I see it.”
> 
> Interpretation and Amendment
> 
> On the surface this is a reasonable objection, but I believe it proceeds either from insufficient recognition of the extent to which the original Constitution did limit the federal government, or else from an inadequate appreciation of the actual (and desirable) flexibility of the Constitution, resulting from the combined influence of Constitutional interpretation and Constitutional amendments.
> 
> In 1787, when our national charter was created, it represented the highest degree of libertarian thinking that the people were willing to accept and live by. Since then, by amendment and interpretation, the Constitution could have moved either of two ways: toward even more limitations on government (and hence toward still greater individual freedom), or toward fewer restrictions on the political instrument. Of course we know that the movement has been in the latter direction.
> 
> Admittedly, the Constitution as currently amended and interpreted, expresses the libertarian ideal only to a minimum degree. It has been twisted and bent to serve the purposes of collectivism. But this is no accusation against the original document. Repeatedly it has been interpreted and amended in the wrong direction. But there is nothing whatsoever in the original charter which ever prevented it—or which now prevents it—from being interpreted and amended more and more in the libertarian direction, i.e., toward less governmental interference with individual affairs and economic actions.
> 
> Taxes and the Constitution
> 
> Let me briefly illustrate this important point in connection with just one crucial aspect of our national charter: its provisions concerning the federal government’s power to tax.
> 
> The original Constitution very severely curtailed the taxing power by laying down a concept of “uniform taxation” in which “direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective numbers” (Article I, Section 2), not according to their ability to pay!
> 
> In the years since the framing of the Constitution, if the people had been ready for still more limited government revenue, there was nothing in the Constitution preventing an amendment in that direction.
> 
> Instead, the decay of libertarian understanding in America, and the gradual acceptance of federal paternalism (resulting in increased expenses) prompted a demand for a progressive, unlimited personal income tax, which appeared in 1913 as the Sixteenth Amendment. This, as the student of liberty knows, permitted vast strides away from limited government and toward collectivism.
> 
> Forsake the Constitution?
> 
> But just because our Constitution has been mutilated—in this and other instances—is that reason for the libertarian to abandon it? As a matter of principle, do we forsake anything of real value just because there has been an attempt (perhaps temporarily successful) to taint or tarnish it?
> 
> If we abandon whatever collectivism seeks to corrupt, we may finally have to forsake even communication itself, for collectivism persistently attempts to change the meaning of words (as for instance, the word “liberal”) altering definitions to suit its own purposes.
> 
> Just because the original Constitution does not limit the federal government as severely as we might like, (judging by our own ideals) is that reason to dismiss it, especially at a time when the original document is still much nearer the libertarian standard than is popular opinion?
> 
> In Constitutional provisions we can find a legal anchor to which we can tie our idealism. Once this country begins to live up to the governmental restrictions imposed by the Constitution, we can go on from there and seek still further limitations on the political instrument.
> 
> As libertarians, we always can—and should—state our own ideal sense of things, even when it disagrees with our national charter; but at the same time, would it not be well to understand and point out those ways in which the Constitution comes closer to the ideal than does the status quo?
> 
> In so doing, we would take ourselves out of the position that permits opponents to label one a “quaint idealist” or a “dreamy theorist” or a “mere philosopher”; and we bring to our lofty perceptions of freedom the virility of law and the realism of history. Thus we document the fact that libertarianism, to a remarkable degree, already has been embodied in the fundamental law of this land, as seen in a strict interpretation of the inspired charter completed on that long-ago autumn day—September 17, 1787.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

> *Exclusive: Trump lawyer claims the "President cannot obstruct justice" *
> 
> John Dowd, President Trump's outside lawyer, outlined to me a new and highly controversial defense/theory in the Russia probe: A president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice.
> 
> *The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims.*
> 
> Dowd says he drafted this weekend's Trump tweet that many thought strengthened the case for obstruction: The tweet suggested Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired, raising new questions about the later firing of FBI Director James Comey.
> 
> Dowd: "The tweet did not admit obstruction. That is an ignorant and arrogant assertion."
> 
> Why it matters: Trump's legal team is clearly setting the stage to say the president cannot be charged with any of the core crimes discussed in the Russia probe: collusion and obstruction. Presumably, you wouldn't preemptively make these arguments unless you felt there was a chance charges are coming.
> 
> One top D.C. lawyer told me that obstruction is usually an ancillary charge rather than a principal one, such as aquid pro quo between the Trump campaign and Russians.
> 
> But Dems will fight the Dowd theory. Bob Bauer, an NYU law professor and former White House counsel to President Obama, told me: "It is certainly possible for a president to obstruct justice. The case for immunity has its adherents, but they based their position largely on the consideration that a president subject to prosecution would be unable to perform the duties of the office, a result that they see as constitutionally intolerable."
> 
> Remember: The Articles of Impeachment against Nixon began by saying he "obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice."
> 
> Bob Woodward tells me this "is a legal thicket and really has not been settled":
> 
> "I think a president can only be reached through impeachment and removal. But the House and Senate could conclude a president had obstructed, and conclude that was a 'high crime.'"
> "In Watergate there was political exhaustion — plus, as Barry Goldwater said, 'too many lies and too many crimes.' These questions are now, in the end, probably up to the Republicans. The evidence was in Nixon's secret tapes. Is there such a path to proof now is one way or the other? We don't know."
> 
> The one thing everyone agrees on is that the House of Representatives, with its impeachment power, alone decides what is cause for removal from office. For now, at least, the House is run by Republicans.


Is he making Nixon's argument?






Also, Trump explicitly endorsed Roy Moore for the first time.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/937641904338063361


----------



## Cabanarama

2 Ton 21 said:


> Also, Trump explicitly endorsed Roy Moore for the first time.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/937641904338063361


Makes sense... one serial sexual predator endorsing another serial sexual predator...


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> Is he making Nixon's argument?
> 
> Exclusive: Trump lawyer claims the "President cannot obstruct justice"
> 
> John Dowd, President Trump's outside lawyer, outlined to me a new and highly controversial defense/theory in the Russia probe: A president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice.
> 
> The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims.
> 
> Dowd says he drafted this weekend's Trump tweet that many thought strengthened the case for obstruction: The tweet suggested Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired, raising new questions about the later firing of FBI Director James Comey.
> 
> Dowd: "The tweet did not admit obstruction. That is an ignorant and arrogant assertion."
> 
> Why it matters: Trump's legal team is clearly setting the stage to say the president cannot be charged with any of the core crimes discussed in the Russia probe: collusion and obstruction. Presumably, you wouldn't preemptively make these arguments unless you felt there was a chance charges are coming.
> 
> One top D.C. lawyer told me that obstruction is usually an ancillary charge rather than a principal one, such as aquid pro quo between the Trump campaign and Russians.
> 
> But Dems will fight the Dowd theory. Bob Bauer, an NYU law professor and former White House counsel to President Obama, told me: "It is certainly possible for a president to obstruct justice. The case for immunity has its adherents, but they based their position largely on the consideration that a president subject to prosecution would be unable to perform the duties of the office, a result that they see as constitutionally intolerable."
> 
> Remember: The Articles of Impeachment against Nixon began by saying he "obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice."
> 
> Bob Woodward tells me this "is a legal thicket and really has not been settled":
> 
> "I think a president can only be reached through impeachment and removal. But the House and Senate could conclude a president had obstructed, and conclude that was a 'high crime.'"
> "In Watergate there was political exhaustion — plus, as Barry Goldwater said, 'too many lies and too many crimes.' These questions are now, in the end, probably up to the Republicans. The evidence was in Nixon's secret tapes. Is there such a path to proof now is one way or the other? We don't know."
> 
> The one thing everyone agrees on is that the House of Representatives, with its impeachment power, alone decides what is cause for removal from office. For now, at least, the House is run by Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, Trump explicitly endorsed Roy Moore for the first time.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/937641904338063361


He is claiming Trump can't be charged with obstruction because his lawyer knows Trump obstructed justice.

There are no rules with Trump, he is a dictator. If Hillary was president did half of the things Trump has done, she would have been impeached long ago.


----------



## MrMister

If the Dems controlled Congress, Trump would've been/would be impeached and removed. We still need more to develop before the GOP remove their own president. Normally the GOP would 100% protect their own, but the GOP does not like Trump at all.

I also wonder if this investigation drags out until the 2018 mid terms just in case there is a power shift in Congress. The Dems will kick his ass out of office if they can get that critical vote. There will be plenty of GOP that vote to remove too. Again, there is no love between Trump and most of the GOP. It looks better if the Dems control Congress. GOP jackasses that vote him out can still blame the Dems lol.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> If the Dems controlled Congress, Trump would've been/would be impeached and removed. We still need more to develop before the GOP remove their own president. Normally the GOP would 100% protect their own, but the GOP does not like Trump at all.
> 
> I also wonder if this investigation drags out until the 2018 mid terms just in case there is a power shift in Congress. The Dems will kick his ass out of office if they can get that critical vote. There will be plenty of GOP that vote to remove too. Again, there is no love between Trump and most of the GOP. It looks better if the Dems control Congress. GOP jackasses that vote him out can still blame the Dems lol.


They may just be waiting for the tax cuts to be official after the final vote when both house and Congress have to agree on the same bill.


----------



## Cabanarama

MrMister said:


> If the Dems controlled Congress, Trump would've been/would be impeached and removed. We still need more to develop before the GOP remove their own president. Normally the GOP would 100% protect their own, but the GOP does not like Trump at all.
> 
> I also wonder if this investigation drags out until the 2018 mid terms just in case there is a power shift in Congress. The Dems will kick his ass out of office if they can get that critical vote. There will be plenty of GOP that vote to remove too. Again, there is no love between Trump and most of the GOP.


They would still need 67 votes in the senate to remove him from office, and considering how Trump is popular with their base, and their disconnect from reality will prevent that from ever changing, I don't ever see enough of them going against Trump to remove him from the office...
I think the invoking of the 25th amendment is far more likely than Trump being impeached/ removed


----------



## MrMister

Cabanarama said:


> They would still need 67 votes in the senate to remove him from office, and considering how Trump is popular with their base, and their disconnect from reality will prevent that from ever changing, I don't ever see enough of them going against Trump to remove him from the office...
> I think the invoking of the 25th amendment is far more likely than Trump being impeached/ removed


It's definitely not happening with what is known right now. 

But things can change in a hurry if Mueller has anything remotely incriminating. He already has open opposition in the current state of Congress from the GOP.


----------



## deepelemblues

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/04/sup...rumps-travel-ban-to-go-fully-into-effect.html

We are still a country of laws and not men. Sometimes.

These fantasies of impeachment or the 25th amendment represent the greatest danger to the republic since the winter of 1860-61. They're fantasies of a banana republic coup wrapped up in propriety. They've been waxing and waning for 20 years through four presidents and they need to stop.


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump getting some wins in, travel ban seems to be going ahead. Incoming insufferable Trumpers.


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/04/sup...rumps-travel-ban-to-go-fully-into-effect.html
> 
> We are still a country of laws and not men. Sometimes.
> 
> These fantasies of impeachment or the 25th amendment represent the greatest danger to the republic since the winter of 1860-61. It has been waxing and waning for 20 years through four presidents and it needs to stop.


Thre is obviously something wrong with Trumps mental state. No one in their right mind acts like him. He acts like a 4th trader and speaks like one too. He has dementia, alzheimer's or something like that.

Trump is totally mentally unstable, and the last thing you want is someone like that who can start a war and launch nuclear missiles. Just look at a weeks worth of his tweets, its clear how unstable he is.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> Thre is obviously something wrong with Trumps mental state. No one in their right mind acts like him. He acts like a 4th trader and speaks like one too. He has dementia, alzheimer's or something like that.
> 
> Trump is totally mentally unstable, and the last thing you want is someone like that who can start a war and launch nuclear missiles. Just look at a weeks worth of his tweets, its clear how unstable he is.


This argument is outdated by about 11 months of Trump being president and no sign of anything like you describe.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> This argument is outdated by about 11 months of Trump being president and no sign of anything like you describe.


Oh really?


While symptoms of dementia can vary greatly, at least two of the following core mental functions must be significantly impaired to be considered dementia:

Memory
Communication and language
Ability to focus and pay attention
Reasoning and judgment
Visual perception


Those all describe Trump to a tee.


----------



## Kabraxal

Wonder what will be shouted next... Trump has kidney stones? It is beyond pathetic watching this.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> Wonder what will be shouted next... Trump has kidney stones? It is beyond pathetic watching this.


Nice deflection.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Kabraxal said:


> Wonder what will be shouted next... Trump has kidney stones? It is beyond pathetic watching this.


Guy is not fit to run the country. I know that bother's you because you hope he can pretty much tear the whole country like one of his buildings and start over again with very few rules in place.


----------



## Kabraxal

birthday_massacre said:


> Nice deflection.


I’m not the one clinging to every little rumour to desperately hope Trump is outed. Start dealing with this shit rationally...


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> I’m not the one clinging to every little rumour to desperately hope Trump is outed. Start dealing with this shit rationally...


The only ones not dealing with this shit rationally are the Pro-Trump crowd


----------



## Cabanarama

Kabraxal said:


> I’m not the one clinging to every little rumour to desperately hope Trump is outed. Start dealing with this shit rationally...


Any rational person can see that Trump is a unstable, delusional, deranged, and unfit for the office. Anyone that can't see that is an idiot. But of course, anyone that still supports him at this point is either braindead or a scumbag (or in most cases, both).


----------



## Kabraxal

birthday_massacre said:


> The only ones not dealing with this shit rationally are the Pro-Trump crowded


And yet I didn’t even vote for him. I can just act rationally. Wanna try again or just continue to flail about?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> And yet I didn’t even vote for him. I can just act rationally. Wanna try again or just continue to flail about?


So tell me, Trump has not shown numbers of examples of signs of dementia? Again


Memory
Communication and language
Ability to focus and pay attention
Reasoning and judgment
Visual perception

Any rational person can think of one or two examples of each right off the top of their heads.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

birthday_massacre said:


> So tell me, Trump has not shown numbers of examples of signs of dementia? Again
> 
> 
> Memory
> Communication and language
> Ability to focus and pay attention
> Reasoning and judgment
> Visual perception
> 
> Any rational person can think of one or two examples of each right off the top of their heads.


What he's trying to say is to shut up accept he's the President not even think he will be removed and hope he can lose in 2020 if he doesn't than you have to accept his way of doing things. .


----------



## birthday_massacre

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paul-m...thought-to-have-ties-to-russian-intelligence/

Paul Manafort ghost-wrote draft of op-ed with colleague thought to have ties to Russian intelligence

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team says Paul Manafort and a Russian colleague were ghost-writing an English-language editorial about Manafort's work for Ukraine, and that colleague is "assessed to have ties to a Russian intelligence service," according to documents filed by the special counsel. 

The government said in a brief that the ghost-written draft op-ed would constitute a violation of the court's order banning statements to the press. U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson has already reprimanded Manafort's attorney, Kevin Downing, for talking to the media after Manafort appeared in court for his indictment. "This is a criminal trial, not a public relations campaign," she said in November. 

It's not clear where Manafort hoped to have the op-ed placed, but just the fact that he wrote it shows he intended to "violate or circumvent" the court's orders, the special counsel argued.

"The editorial clearly was undertaken to influence the public's opinion of Manafort, or else there would be no reason to seek its publication (much less for Manafort and his long-time associate to ghostwrite it in another's name)," the special counsel wrote. "It compounds the problem that the proposed piece is not a dispassionate recitation of the facts."

As a result, the government argued that Manafort's proposed bail package can't be considered to be sufficient. Manafort, the former chairman of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, has offered $12 million in assets to avoid house arrest, but the court has determined he is too much of a flight risk, given his wealth and contacts overseas. Manafort also has three passports.

Manafort and associate Rick Gates were indicted in November. They lobbied and did other work for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine headed by ousted Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. They are accused of failing to register as foreign agents representing the Ukrainians and also allegedly laundered up to $75 million in payments. The activities date from 2006 through February 2017. 

He and Gates are accused of conspiracy to launder money, conspiracy against the U.S., unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading statements surrounding the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), false statements and seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts. 

The government isn't asking the court to send Manafort back to prison, but it did register its opposition to Manafort's motion to modify the conditions of his release. Should the court agree to Manafort's motion, though, the government asked for a fully secured bond, the posting of more of his assets and full-time GPS monitoring. 

There is also a note in the filing that says the government is asking the court if it can submit "documentary evidence" under seal, in order to avoid having the full draft of the op-ed be published. On Nov. 30, the government alerted Manafort's lawyers to the fact that he was drafting the op-ed and was subsequently "assured that steps would be taken to make sure it was no longer going to be published."

This is a developing story.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Come on man, I don't ask for much. Just leave the national parks and monuments alone...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fg-trump-national-monuments-20171204-story.html



> *Trump dramatically shrinks two national monuments in Utah, assailing rule by 'distant bureaucrats'*
> 
> President Trump formally reconfigured two big national monuments in southern Utah on Monday, shrinking them by more than 2 million acres — a public lands declaration unlike any ever made by a U.S. chief executive.
> 
> “You know how best to take care of your land,” the president said to a large audience at the state Capitol. “You know best how to conserve this land for generations.”
> 
> Calling the designation of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments an abuse of federal authority and the work of “distant bureaucrats,” the president added: “I’ve come to Utah to reverse federal overreach and restore the rights to this land to your citizens.”
> 
> The proclamations Trump signed reduce the 1.9 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante monument to 1,006,341 acres, while Bears Ears, which was 1.35 million acres, will shrink to 228,784 acres. Five new sub-units are being established within the new boundaries.
> 
> The Grand Staircase monument was established by President Clinton in 1996 and Bears Ears by President Obama in 2016.
> 
> Trump’s decision drew immediate threats of legal challenges. Protests also occurred here on Saturday and Monday. The president’s national monuments decision forms another front line in the administration’s disputed campaign to reverse Obama-era public lands and environmental policy and to energize his base of political support in the rural West.
> 
> It also subjected one of the country’s wildest regions, a three-county stretch of deep canyons, mesa and red rock — home to few roads and roughly 28,000 people — to uncommon national scrutiny.
> 
> Trump’s actions produced ample applause among supporters as Trump made his announcement. He emphasized that the boundary changes were intended to return control of public lands to those who know and use them most closely.
> 
> "Some people think that the natural resources of Utah should be controlled by a small handful of very distant bureaucrats located in Washington,” he told the audience. “And guess what, they're wrong."
> 
> With his redesignation, he said, “Public lands will once again be for public use.”
> 
> The president’s actions were a dramatic departure from conventional interpretations of the 1906 Antiquities Act, on which the monument designations are based. The act, advocated by President Theodore Roosevelt, was designed to provide safeguards to exceptional historic, cultural and natural landscapes across the country, most of them located in the West’s public domain.
> 
> The Antiquities Act provides broad authority to presidents to act alone in establishing national monuments. Presidents have declared more than 150 national monuments, many of which became national parks. Four of Utah’s five national parks started as national monuments.
> 
> Trump said the act was never designed to create monuments of the size of the two in Utah. “These abuses of the Antiquities Act give enormous power to far-away bureaucrats at the expense of the people who live here and work here and make this place their home,” he said.
> 
> Though previous presidents have adjusted national monuments more than 80 times, all but 18 of those changes were made to expand monument boundaries, according to an Interior Department accounting. Though President Wilson removed over 313,000 acres from the Mount Olympus National Monument in 1915, none has come close to reducing boundaries by as much as the roughly 2 million aces that Trump removed from federal protection at Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante.
> 
> "I'm a real estate developer,” Trump said. “When they start talking about millions of acres, I say, 'Say it again?' Because that's a lot."
> 
> The president, who was accompanied by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, was warmly received at the state Capitol.
> 
> Zinke and other speakers characterized the boundary changes as a courageous effort by Trump to “keep a promise” and respond to the deep hurt that rural Utah communities say they experienced when both monuments were established.
> 
> “This is about giving rural America a voice,” Zinke said. “There are not many presidents that do what he is about to do.” He added: “The president is doing this for the right reasons to make sure that Utah has a voice.”
> 
> “The little guys’ voices were heard,” said state Rep. Gregory H. Hughes, the speaker of the Utah House of Representatives. “Voices in the community were heard. This administration has the strength and the will to be there for us. This is a great day for Utah.”
> 
> “When Bears Ears was designated, it was disheartening for my community,” said Rebecca Benally, a Navajo and commissioner of San Juan County, where the monument is. She added: “It was insulting that bureaucrats thousands of miles away didn’t believe we were capable of protecting our land.”
> 
> Trump’s declaration sets the stage for a court battle over presidential authority to rescind the boundaries of a national monument. Legal scholars assert that neither the Antiquities Act nor the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act allow such striking changes to national monuments by a president. That authority, they assert, rests solely with Congress.
> 
> The Inter Tribal Coalition, a Native American group, said it would file a lawsuit immediately to protect Bears Ears. Patagonia, the outdoor clothing manufacturer, is joining Friends of Cedar Mesa, Utah Dine Bikeyah and Archaeology Southwest in a Bears Ears suit to be filed later this week.
> 
> Ten national and regional environmental groups said they were filing a lawsuit in federal district court in Washington to protect Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
> 
> “The president lacks the authority under the Antiquities Act to repeal national monuments like he tried today,” said Steve Bloch, the legal director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, an environmental group in Salt Lake City. “We argue that when Congress passed the Antiquities Act it delegated to the president the authority to establish national monuments, not to repeal or rescind them The president is trying to take more authority than Congress has granted him.”
> 
> One of the motivations for changing the boundaries is improving access to coal, oil, natural gas and uranium.
> 
> An analysis by Bloch’s group of the potential for resource development found that revoking the original boundaries and establishing smaller monuments opens Grand Staircase-Escalante’s coal reserves to development. Uranium and oil and gas reserves become much easier beyond the boundaries of the much smaller Bears Ears monument.
> 
> The president acted at the urging of Utah’s Republican congressional delegation, which resisted the decisions by Presidents Clinton and Obama to establish the two monuments. Utah’s lawmakers insist that the two Democrats overreached in establishing Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante by not adequately considering the views of state residents. The Obama administration disputed that characterization, arguing that it held many public meetings and invited public comment.
> 
> Public opinion surveys have consistently found that Utah residents are about evenly divided on whether to shrink or maintain the existing boundaries of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante.
> 
> “This is unprecedented — and it’s illegal,” said Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a statement. “Presidents use the Antiquities Act to create national monuments and protect our special lands and waters for future generations. This president thinks he can use it to destroy them. He does not have that authority. What’s next, President Trump — the Grand Canyon? See you in court.”
> 
> In April, Trump signed an executive order that directed the Interior Department to review 27 monuments established since 1996. The department received nearly 3 million comments. Most expressed support for keeping national monument boundaries and management practices intact.
> 
> ALSO


----------



## Vic Capri

Congress passed the Tax Reform Bill and the Supreme Court supports the travel ban. The Wall just needs to get built now.










- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> Congress passed the Tax Reform Bill and the Supreme Court supports the travel ban. The Wall just needs to get built now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


 Supreme Court does not support the Muslim ban, they are just allowing it until the lower courts make their decision.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Vic Capri said:


> Congress passed the Tax Reform Bill and the Supreme Court supports the travel ban. The Wall just needs to get built now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


It appears the travel ban is a double edged sword, as law enforcement agents confused with the wording accidentally arrest and deport innocent people named 'Chad' rather than stop people from Chad.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

There's something I've been wondering about the travel ban. It originally was supposed to last for three months while they filled holes in security and the screening process. So, it's been more than three months. Have they fixed those problems? If they have, is the ban still necessary? If it is, why?


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> There's something I've been wondering about the travel ban. It originally was supposed to last for three months while they filled holes in security and the screening process. So, it's been more than three months. Have they fixed those problems? If they have, is the ban still necessary? If it is, why?


Trump said he just needed three months to figure it out, yet its been about a year now, and he still has not figured it out. All this is to Trump is grandstanding to his base , he doest care about fixing the problem. For him it's just rhetoric. IF Trump was competent he would have had a real solution by now. But he is a clown.


----------



## Cabanarama

Vic Capri said:


> Congress passed the Tax Reform Bill and the Supreme Court supports the travel ban. The Wall just needs to get built now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


Yet, you personally benefit from neither, yet you celebrate why? Because you have no intellectual capability to think for yourself and your cult leaders tell you this is a good thing? Or are you just that much of a troll that you just enjoy it because it hurts others and pisses them off?


----------



## Art Vandaley

2 Ton 21 said:


> There's something I've been wondering about the travel ban. It originally was supposed to last for three months while they filled holes in security and the screening process. So, it's been more than three months. Have they fixed those problems? If they have, is the ban still necessary? If it is, why?


Because it had nothing to do with security, it was and is about fulfilling Trump's promise to ban Muslims from entering the US.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh really?
> 
> 
> While symptoms of dementia can vary greatly, at least two of the following core mental functions must be significantly impaired to be considered dementia:
> 
> Memory
> Communication and language
> Ability to focus and pay attention
> Reasoning and judgment
> Visual perception
> 
> 
> Those all describe Trump to a tee.


Should've specified I was referring to the whole starting wars and firing nukes doomsday scenario. I'm not interested in your amateur WebMD medical diagnosis. :lol

The federal government already owns far too much land. Good to see President Trump the so-called tyrant continuing to scale down the size and scope of the federal government.  It's a shame he can only serve for two terms and someone like him is unlikely to come along again.


----------



## deepelemblues

Joe Scarborough, MD. 

Oh Laaaaaaaawd. 

:trump pissed Joe off by insulting him (again). Joe insulted :trump back. Move on, it'll be happening about 8 more times in the next 3 months and so on. 

:trump doesn't like Joe and insults him all the time. Joe has clearly gotten more and more pissed off at this as time has gone on. 

Before long :trump will taunt Joe for the thousandth time, Joe will call :trump a bitch-ass bitch and tell :trump to meet him beneath the bleachers at the next football game (GO TEAM!) or at Matt's party next Saturday (Matt's parents are out of town all weekend YEAH BOY) in response, and maybe then everyone will realize it's just a pissing match. 100% testosterone.



2 Ton 21 said:


> There's something I've been wondering about the travel ban. It originally was supposed to last for three months while they filled holes in security and the screening process. So, it's been more than three months. Have they fixed those problems? If they have, is the ban still necessary? If it is, why?


They did do the review, and removed Sudan from the list (but added North Korea and I believe Chad and Niger). It is the government's opinion that national security dictates that travel from those countries should still be banned. 

It's the president's absolute power to control the borders if the president claims national security as far as immigration goes, if people don't like it they can elect representatives and senators and a president who will change the immigration law that gives the president that power. 

The court didn't need to tip its hand today but it did. Shame on Ginsburg and Sotomayor for forgetting that this is a country of laws. If Gorsuch is any indication of what other :trump supreme court justices would be like, hopefully :trump can get 3-4 more of them, that would be perfect. It's far past time that the Supreme Court strongly asserts over a lengthy period that the law and not politics should dictate rulings. The legitimizing of blatantly political rulings over the last 15 years is corrosive to the republic.


----------



## Reaper

Trump got impeached and in retaliation decided to launch nuclear bombs all over the place, and there was death and disease and everybody was dying. There was blood all over the streets and people dying of all kinds of illnesses. There are unadopted babies crawling around in dirty diapers and the rich are literally eating the poor. 

I woke up sweating and screaming in panic. Not because of the terror of what happened in my dreams, but because the real nightmare was that I had once again become a progressive :mj2


----------



## Dr. Middy

Merry Reaper said:


> Trump got impeached and in retaliation decided to launch nuclear bombs all over the place, and there was death and disease and everybody was dying. There was blood all over the streets and people dying of all kinds of illnesses. There are unadopted babies crawling around in dirty diapers and the rich are literally eating the poor.
> 
> I woke up sweating and screaming in panic. Not because of the terror of what happened in my dreams, but because the real nightmare was that I had once again become a progressive :mj2


A Progressive Reaper :mj2 :mj2 :mj2


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Should've specified I was referring to the whole starting wars and firing nukes doomsday scenario. *I'm not interested in your amateur WebMD medical diagnosis. :lol*
> 
> The federal government already owns far too much land. Good to see President Trump the so-called tyrant continuing to scale down the size and scope of the federal government.  It's a shame he can only serve for two terms and someone like him is unlikely to come along again.


OH look more deflections from the Trump crowd because they know he fits all of those and you can't defend it. As for the WebMD medical diagnosis its the same thing as what the DSM 5 says just in layman's terms. 

Evidence of significant cognitive decline from a previous level of performance in one or more cognitive domains*:
- Learning and memory
- Language
- Executive function
- Complex attention
- Perceptual-motor
- Social cognition

But sure keep turning a blind eye to it.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

I've seen the Alzheimer's speculation a few times since he became president. I mean it's not impossible. They ignored/covered up Reagan's faltering faculties as early as his 1984 reelection campaign.

His father Fred did die of Alzheimer's so he does have the genetic background for it and 70 is the average age when sufferers begin to show symptoms.

But, really he's no more erratic than he has been for the last 10-15 years. Though his personality has changed drastically from when he got famous in the 80s, but that's to be expected somewhat. He's an old man. Old men get more crotchety and outspoken and more forgetful. Doesn't necessarily mean dementia though.

I guess you could use declining faculties as an explanation for these signing ceremonies where he forgot to actually sign the orders. Then again maybe it's just a couple of brain farts.


----------



## Reaper

:lmao 

Whatever helps people sleep at night I suppose and brings calm into their paranoid delusional states. :Shrug 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/938143527808192512


Spoiler: Oops



:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/938149013659967488
http://babylonbee.com/news/millennial-pays-0-taxes-outraged-will-still-pay-0-taxes/



> *Millennial Who Pays $0 In Taxes Outraged She Will Still Pay $0 In Taxes*
> 
> PALO ALTO, CA—Local millennial and part-time retail clerk Cady Benson expressed her outrage Tuesday over the new Republican tax plan, which will force her to continue to pay exactly zero dollars of federal income tax in coming years, sources confirmed.
> 
> Benson, whose personal tax burden for the past five years adds up to a grand total of zero, ripped the new GOP plan on social media. “Republicans sure know how to take care of their fat cat donor friends!” said a tweet from the 25-year-old, who has never had to pay any taxes on the money she earns working part-time at Patagonia while pursuing her degree in liberal arts. “This new plan is not OK!”
> 
> “And what about my student loans? The greedy establishment types in Congress are stealing my student loan deduction, just to line the pockets of their billionaire buddies?” tweeted the woman who has never had to claim a deduction on any tax form because her income bracket has never required her to pay anything to federal or state revenue departments.
> 
> “They’re just soaking the poor to feed the rich!” tweeted Benson, who, along with millions of other working Americans, will continue to pay zero taxes under the new GOP plan.


:mj4

Finally something good I can attribute to Paul Ryan :clap


----------



## Stinger Fan

Well, I suppose the next argument in getting Trump removed from office had pass through the "mental health issues" sometime :lol


----------



## virus21

Merry Reaper said:


> http://babylonbee.com/news/millennial-pays-0-taxes-outraged-will-still-pay-0-taxes/


Do Millenials whine just to whine now?



Stinger Fan said:


> Well, I suppose the next argument in getting Trump removed from office had pass through the "mental health issues" sometime :lol


Well if they do that, then they should look at some of the members of Congress.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> Do Millenials whine just to whine now?


I'm really hoping that was Sac Bee's attempt at satire. But these days who knows :lol 



> Well if they do that, then they should look at some of the members of Congress.


The "mental health" attack on Trump is Joe Scarborough's retort at Trump implying that he had something to do with a dead intern in his office. Total irrelevant BS. 

But every day, the libs need something new to add to their growing list of adjectives which simply via consistent addition to is discrediting itself.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> I'm really hoping that was Sac Bee's attempt at satire. But these days who knows :lol
> 
> 
> 
> The "mental health" attack on Trump is Joe Scarborough's retort at Trump implying that he had something to do with a dead intern in his office. Total irrelevant BS.
> 
> But every day, the libs need something new to add to their growing list of adjectives which simply via consistent addition to is discrediting itself.


yet Trump shows the signs of dementia, but keep making excuses.


----------



## Reaper




----------



## birthday_massacre

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/world/middleeast/american-embassy-israel-trump-move.html

*U.S. to Recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital, Trump Says, Alarming Middle East Leaders*

President Trump told Israeli and Arab leaders on Tuesday that he plans to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a symbolically fraught move that would upend decades of American policy and upset efforts to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Mr. Trump is expected to announce his decision on Wednesday, two days after the expiration of a deadline for him to decide whether to keep the American Embassy in Tel Aviv.

Palestinian officials said Mr. Trump told the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, that the United States would move the embassy to Jerusalem. Jordan said the president gave a similar message to King Abdullah II.

American officials, however, said such a move could not occur immediately for logistical reasons, given the lack of facilities to house the embassy staff. As a result, Mr. Trump is expected to sign a national security waiver that would authorize the administration to keep it in Tel Aviv for an additional six months.

Still, Mr. Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital — and to set in motion an embassy move — is his riskiest foray yet into the thicket of Middle East diplomacy. Arab and European leaders warn that it could derail any peace initiative and even ignite fresh violence in the region.

Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE

For U.S.’s Mideast Negotiators, Keeping the Palestinians Involved Is a Victory AUG. 25, 2017
RECENT COMMENTS

Jim Steinberg 36 minutes ago

Trump works to achieve one major presidential accomplishment he has thus far failed to win: igniting a regional -- at least -- war in the...
Vanessa Hall 55 minutes ago
This is not the way toward peace in the Middle East.

Another day, another boneheaded and illogical move by our nightmare of a president.My sincerest hope is that if this move really happens,...

King Abdullah II strongly cautioned against the move, “stressing that Jerusalem is the key to achieving peace and stability in the region and the world,” according to a statement from the royal palace in Amman.

“King Abdullah stressed that the adoption of this resolution will have serious implications for security and stability in the Middle East, and will undermine the efforts of the American administration to resume the peace process and fuel the feelings of Muslims and Christians,” the statement said.

Few details of the conversation between Mr. Trump and Mr. Abbas were released, but a P.L.O. spokesman said that the call had given shape to the worst fears of Palestinians — that the United States would break with decades of practice and longstanding international consensus by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

The Palestinians hope to make East Jerusalem the capital of a Palestinian state, and the city is of great religious significance to Jews, Christians and Muslims.

“It’s very serious,” said the spokesman, Xavier Abu Eid. “Things look very bad.”

The Palestinian news agency, WAFA, quoted Mr. Abbas’s spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, as saying that Mr. Abbas will continue his contacts with world leaders to prevent such “unacceptable action.”

King Abdullah also spoke with Mr. Abbas, assuring him of Jordan’s support for the Palestinians “in preserving their historic rights in Jerusalem and the need to work together to confront the consequences of this decision,” it said.

Mr. Trump, officials said, assured Mr. Abbas that the administration would protect Palestinian interests in any peace negotiation with Israel. He also invited the Palestinian leader to visit him in Washington for further consultations.

In his phone calls with Arab leaders, Mr. Trump is making the case that settling the question of the American Embassy could actually hasten the peace process by removing a thorny political issue that recurs every six months.

But that is primarily a political problem for Mr. Trump, who promised during the 2016 campaign to move the embassy. His pledge was extremely popular with evangelicals and pro-Israel backers, including the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. They expressed frustration when Mr. Trump signed the waiver in June, keeping the embassy in Tel Aviv.

Middle East experts said the administration’s argument that it could not move the embassy immediately made little sense, since all that is required is to place a sign on the existing American consulate, declaring it the embassy.

For Arab leaders, word that the United States would formally recognize Jerusalem as the capital had already caused great consternation. The symbolic statement of the embassy’s change of address, many officials warned, was actually less damaging to the peace process than changing United States policy on Jerusalem’s status.

For the United States to move the embassy would break with international consensus that the status of Jerusalem remains unsettled.


Though Israel houses its parliament, president, prime minister and most ministries in Jerusalem, and Israelis overwhelmingly want the world to acknowledge the Holy City as their seat of government, the international community recognizes de facto Israeli sovereignty only in West Jerusalem.

East Jerusalem was captured by Israeli forces during the Arab-Israeli war of 1967. And the permanent status of Jerusalem as a whole, East and West, was postponed under the Oslo Accords, although Israel extended Jerusalem’s municipal borders to encompass the predominantly Arab eastern neighborhoods.


----------



## birthday_massacre

OH look Trump undoing another Obama regulation just to spite him while hurting workers once again.


http://thehill.com/regulation/labor/363091-trump-rolling-back-obama-rule-on-pooling-restaurant-tips

*Trump rolling back Obama rule on pooling restaurant tips*

The Trump administration is rolling back an Obama-era rule that bans employers from pooling workers’ tips.

The Labor Department announced plans Monday to issue a proposed rule to change the Fair Labor Standards Act regulation and allow employers to pool the tips of workers who make full minimum wage and share them with non-tipped workers. 

The National Restaurant Association has been fighting hard for the rule change to eliminate what it has said is a pay disparity between servers in the front of the house and staff in the kitchen.

“These 'back of the house’ employees contribute to the overall customer experience, but may receive less compensation than their traditionally tipped co-workers,” the Labor Department said in its news release.

The agency said the proposed rule would not affect employees who make less than the minimum wage and earn tips to supplement their pay, also known as tip credit.

When the Labor Department first signaled in the semi-annual regulatory agenda that it was changing the rule, worker advocates argued it could allow employers to do whatever they wanted with the tips — including taking a cut themselves.

The public will have 30 days to comment on the proposed rule once its published in the Federal Register.


----------



## Kabraxal

birthday_massacre said:


> OH look Trump undoing another Obama regulation just to spite him while hurting workers once again.
> 
> 
> http://thehill.com/regulation/labor/363091-trump-rolling-back-obama-rule-on-pooling-restaurant-tips
> 
> *Trump rolling back Obama rule on pooling restaurant tips*
> 
> The Trump administration is rolling back an Obama-era rule that bans employers from pooling workers’ tips.
> 
> The Labor Department announced plans Monday to issue a proposed rule to change the Fair Labor Standards Act regulation and allow employers to pool the tips of workers who make full minimum wage and share them with non-tipped workers.
> 
> The National Restaurant Association has been fighting hard for the rule change to eliminate what it has said is a pay disparity between servers in the front of the house and staff in the kitchen.
> 
> “These 'back of the house’ employees contribute to the overall customer experience, but may receive less compensation than their traditionally tipped co-workers,” the Labor Department said in its news release.
> 
> The agency said the proposed rule would not affect employees who make less than the minimum wage and earn tips to supplement their pay, also known as tip credit.
> 
> When the Labor Department first signaled in the semi-annual regulatory agenda that it was changing the rule, worker advocates argued it could allow employers to do whatever they wanted with the tips — including taking a cut themselves.
> 
> The public will have 30 days to comment on the proposed rule once its published in the Federal Register.


But those nice restaraunt managers are looking after the less firtunate workers. They are rightfully taking the tips of the best performers to help those struggling!

Wait? You are saying that’s wrong? God damn, you support the new tax cuts then?! Stop trying to fool me you closet fiscal cobservative!


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Why is Trump supporters in this thread almost enjoy how selfish they are? They are the symbol of the my way or the highway attitude.


----------



## Kabraxal

The Hardcore Show said:


> Why is Trump supporters in this thread almost enjoy how selfish they are? They are the symbol of the my way or the highway attitude.


First, supporting a decision is not supporting a president in all ways. Stop generalising to make pathetically awfularguments. We don’t need another BM vomiting irrational posts everywhere to paint homself as our intellectual saviour. 

Second, Through voluntary action I have most likely done more to help the “less fortunate” than every progressive on this board. I do not condone mandated charity while never lifting a finger save for being a hypocritical keyboard warrior. 

I believe that is two key points ripped apart within that awful argument.


----------



## Stinger Fan

The Hardcore Show said:


> Why is Trump supporters in this thread almost enjoy how selfish they are? They are the symbol of the my way or the highway attitude.


Conservatives/Republicans donate more money than Liberals/Democrats, and this isn't even exclusive to USA , the same is found in Canada too. When it comes to willfully donating their money, conservatives have no issue in doing so, this notion that they're selfish is hysterical and just liberals trying to divide people. Does that mean conservatives are better people? Not saying that but it just shows liberals would say anything about conservatives to grand stand 

I think you haven't paid attention to the liberals and how they demand you live and accept things their way lol


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Stinger Fan said:


> Conservatives/Republicans donate more money than Liberals/Democrats, and this isn't even exclusive to USA , the same is found in Canada too. When it comes to willfully donating their money, conservatives have no issue in doing so, this notion that they're selfish is hysterical and just liberals trying to divide people. Theres even a poll taken that shows conservatives would have more money taken from them annually to pay for climate change costs than Liberals would. Does that mean conservatives are better people? Not saying that but it just shows liberals would say anything about conservatives to grand stand
> 
> I think you haven't paid attention to the liberals and how they demand you live and accept things their way lol


Maybe I should say they get off more on other people's suffering like that Vic guy on here who seems to enjoy watching non Trump supporters lives fall down the Rabat hole.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> First, supporting a decision is not supporting a president in all ways. Stop generalising to make pathetically awfularguments. *We don’t need another BM vomiting irrational posts everywhere* to paint homself as our intellectual saviour.
> 
> Second, Through voluntary action I have most likely done more to help the “less fortunate” than every progressive on this board. I do not condone mandated charity while never lifting a finger save for being a hypocritical keyboard warrior.
> 
> I believe that is two key points ripped apart within that awful argument.


LOL when that is all the trump supporters do on this forum.


----------



## Beatles123

The Hardcore Show said:


> Maybe I should say they get off more on other people's suffering like that Vic guy on here who seems to enjoy watching non Trump supporters lives fall down the Rabat hole.


This may come as a shock to you, but thats how POLITICS is. People hate whoever is against them. I've lived through 4 presidents now, and you know what? All four of them have been called the anti-christ by the losing side, and every losing side has always felt like their lives were in the shitter afterward. You just don't hear about it if you actually support the guy. I should know. You should have seen my family during the Bill Clinton scandal. To the supporters, he was an innocent man. To others?...Well, let's just say Trump isn't the first to be called Hitler.

He won't be the last, either. If you think the division will ever cease, you're wrong. What you're seeing now was always there and it isn't going away no matter who wins the oval office.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> Conservatives/Republicans donate more money than Liberals/Democrats, and this isn't even exclusive to USA , the same is found in Canada too. When it comes to willfully donating their money, conservatives have no issue in doing so, this notion that they're selfish is hysterical and just liberals trying to divide people. Does that mean conservatives are better people? Not saying that but it just shows liberals would say anything about conservatives to grand stand
> 
> I think you haven't paid attention to the liberals and how they demand you live and accept things their way lol


yet its conservatives that make policies to help the rich and fuck over the poor and middle classes like this latest tax bill just did and love to discriminate against the LGBT.

And the reason why Conservatives/Republicans donate more money than Liberals/Democrats is that they donate to their churches which is a religious thing.


----------



## Reaper

Socialism makes people more selfish. 

They're not paying for anyone and they want someone else to pay but they prop up corrupt governments that don't pay anybody so nothing changes but now that people are thinking that someone else is doing something, no one does anything and it stops people from voluntarily helping people. This is really why studies consistently show a difference between big government statists and small government conservatives having a bigger divide with regards to their actual contributions.

No one contributes more to the world in every single way than capitalists (except famine, hunger, poverty and crime). They're the ones creating everything else.


----------



## deepelemblues

The amount of failure socialism in practice gets to achieve without damage to the idea of socialism seems to be limitless.

Tens of millions starved or shot to death? Meh, whatever. Capitalism is greedy and socialism is about helping the poor! 

Hundreds of millions relegated to being a slave class? Meh, whatever. Capitalism is greedy and socialism is about helping the poor!

98% of a country's population completely impoverished with the other 2% living like kings? Meh, whatever. Capitalism is greedy and socialism is about helping the poor!

Socialism is the zombie that can't be killed even when it shoots itself in the head.


----------



## Kabraxal

birthday_massacre said:


> yet its conservatives that make policies to help the rich and fuck over the poor and middle classes like this latest tax bill just did and love to discriminate against the LGBT.
> 
> And the reason why Conservatives/Republicans donate more money than Liberals/Democrats is that they donate to their churches which is a religious thing.


Or food drives usually run by churches... or the multiple shelters run by churches... or the toys for tots and secret santa programs. Of the BSA, which is heavily affiliated with churches.

Saying “but but it’s to a church for a lot of it!” Isn’t as damning as you wish. And I’m mot even affiliated with a single church and I’ve dobated my time or money to organisations that are. Our biggest contributor to donations and year round chaeity is a ministry. Nearly half of the volunteers aren’t even christian.


----------



## Reaper

Kabraxal said:


> Or food drives usually run by churches... or the multiple shelters run by churches... or the toys for tots and secret santa programs. Of the BSA, which is heavily affiliated with churches.
> 
> Saying “but but it’s to a church for a lot of it!” Isn’t as damning as you wish. And I’m mot even affiliated with a single church and I’ve dobated my time or money to organisations that are. Our biggest contributor to donations and year round chaeity is a ministry. Nearly half of the volunteers aren’t even christian.


It's the GOVERNMENT that passes laws against helping homeless people. 

It's the GOVERNMENT that passes laws against providing shelter for homeless people

It's the GOVERNMENT that makes it illegal to feed the homeless. 

It's the government that hires incompetent cops

It's the government that lets racist cops off without punishment

It's the government that has created a legal system that incarcerates more black people

It's the government that employs incompetent "public defenders" 

But let's have more GOVERNMENT to help everybody because only the government can help people :lmao 

Gotta love big government statists :lmao


----------



## yeahbaby!

Beatles123 said:


> This may come as a shock to you, but thats how POLITICS is. People hate whoever is against them. I've lived through 4 presidents now, and you know what? All four of them have been called the anti-christ by the losing side, and every losing side has always felt like their lives were in the shitter afterward. You just don't hear about it if you actually support the guy. I should know. You should have seen my family during the Bill Clinton scandal. To the supporters, he was an innocent man. To others?...Well, let's just say Trump isn't the first to be called Hitler.
> 
> He won't be the last, either. If you think the division will ever cease, you're wrong. What you're seeing now was always there and it isn't going away no matter who wins the oval office.


There's plenty of regular people who don't act like the sky has fallen in when someone they don't like wins an election becomes the national leader, usually the people who don't even vote which is the majority in America is it not?

I'm assuming from your post your family was up in arms over Pants-Down Slick Willy Clinton but not everyone could afford to be so concerned because they were probably struggling just to get by every day. The same people who tend to ultimately get screwed no matter if it's the blue side or red side in.

Antichrist? Hate? Hitler? Correct me if I'm wrong but IMO not everything is so melodramatic as you seem to paint it up to be.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

yeahbaby! said:


> There's plenty of regular people who don't act like the sky has fallen in when someone they don't like wins an election becomes the national leader, usually the people who don't even vote which is the majority in America is it not?
> 
> I'm assuming from your post your family was up in arms over Pants-Down Slick Willy Clinton but not everyone could afford to be so concerned because they were probably struggling just to get by every day. The same people who tend to ultimately get screwed no matter if it's the blue side or red side in.
> 
> Antichrist? Hate? Hitler? Correct me if I'm wrong but IMO not everything is so melodramatic as you seem to paint it up to be.


The people who like Trump don't even want a government to exist and pretty much whatever problems people have in their life are their fault for not doing enough to fix them.


----------



## deepelemblues

Ask all those people in Houston who were saved and fed and clothed and housed by the "Cajun Navy" and private charitable organizations and businesses - because the government simply did not have the resources or the flexibility to help large numbers of people who needed it - how only the government can truly help people. The government's response was generally inferior in terms of speed and efficiency in nearly all respects.


----------



## CamillePunk

The Hardcore Show said:


> The people who like Trump don't even want a government to exist


I wish


----------



## Beatles123

yeahbaby! said:


> There's plenty of regular people who don't act like the sky has fallen in when someone they don't like wins an election becomes the national leader, usually the people who don't even vote which is the majority in America is it not?
> 
> I'm assuming from your post your family was up in arms over Pants-Down Slick Willy Clinton but not everyone could afford to be so concerned because they were probably struggling just to get by every day. The same people who tend to ultimately get screwed no matter if it's the blue side or red side in.
> 
> Antichrist? Hate? Hitler? Correct me if I'm wrong but IMO not everything is so melodramatic as you seem to paint it up to be.


Quite the contrary actually. What I'm saying to him is that just like you said, that attitude has always existed. If He has a problem with people happy to see the other side suffer, he may want to get out of politics. I'm not saying it's right. Just that that's always been happening. :shrug



The Hardcore Show said:


> The people who like Trump don't even want a government to exist and pretty much whatever problems people have in their life are their fault for not doing enough to fix them.


False. No government at all isn't even a right wing thing. More like limited government.


----------



## Kabraxal

The Hardcore Show said:


> The people who like Trump don't even want a government to exist and pretty much whatever problems people have in their life are their fault for not doing enough to fix them.


The government should guard our borders, police our country, fund basic emergency response, repair our roads, and do very little else. The hov’t should never levy rent for private land, steal one’s income, manage education (well, not **** they realky manage it now...), prop up families that won’t keep their pants on, or any of the hundreds of over reaches they are currently involved in. 

If someone is unfortunate to struggle, charity would be there. If they are simply leeches.... fuck them. I don’t care how you feel, but do nothing free loaders can starve for all I care. 

And for note: my feelings on gov’t assure my high disapproval of wvery president the past 100 years and any likely future president. So don’t assume I suppirt Trump because he’s done one or two good things. He’s done dome terrible shit too and his pick of Sessions puts him squarely in the cross hairs for criticism in so many ways.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> The government should guard our borders, police our country, fund basic emergency response, repair our roads, and do very little else. The hov’t should never levy rent for private land, steal one’s income, manage education (well, not **** they realky manage it now...), prop up families that won’t keep their pants on, or any of the hundreds of over reaches they are currently involved in.
> 
> If someone is unfortunate to struggle, charity would be there. If they are simply leeches.... fuck them. I don’t care how you feel, but do nothing free loaders can starve for all I care.
> 
> And for note: my feelings on gov’t assure my high disapproval of wvery president the past 100 years and any likely future president. So don’t assume I suppirt Trump because he’s done one or two good things. He’s done dome terrible shit too and his pick of Sessions puts him squarely in the cross hairs for criticism in so many ways.


In other words you don't want any rules, you think companies should be allowed to have slave labor, be able to have no safety regulations to protect its workers, should be able to pollute the air, rivers, ocean, and land all they want in order make more money. You think companies should be able to discriminate against gays, women, monotires and that the govt shouldn't have EEO regulations. 

I could go on and on but yeah we know conservatives hate regulations even though they protect us. 

And things people like you will never get in the middle class and poor don't have any money, it kills the economy since whenever those groups have more money it stimulates the economy but sure let's not help them. Conservatives are stupid when it comes to this, because it will only hel[ businesses make more money when the middle class and poor have more money. 

I love how you talk about leeches when this latest tax bill is the rich leeching from the middle class and poor.


----------



## deepelemblues

Yeah man anarchists of all stripes really like :trump

Wait what


----------



## Kabraxal

birthday_massacre said:


> In other words you don't want any rules, you think companies should be allowed to have slave labor, be able to have no safety regulations to protect its workers, should be able to pollute the air, rivers, ocean, and land all they want in order make more money. You think companies should be able to discriminate against gays, women, monotires and that the govt shouldn't have EEO regulations.
> 
> I could go on and on but yeah we know conservatives hate regulations even though they protect us.
> 
> And things people like you will never get in the middle class and poor don't have any money, it kills the economy since whenever those groups have more money it stimulates the economy but sure let's not help them. Conservatives are stupid when it comes to this, because it will only hel[ businesses make more money when the middle class and poor have more money.
> 
> I love how you talk about leeches when this latest tax bill is the rich leeching from the middle class and poor.


A truly free marketplace with competition takes care of most of that.

And yea, I think PRIVATE businesses should be free to discriminate against whoever they wish for whatever reason. I should be equally as free to boycott them. Such a simple thing... being strong willed enough to vote ith your wallet. Not my fault if yoy cave to such meek pressure.


----------



## CamillePunk

Unfortunately the vast majority of Trump supporters think of geeks like antifa when they hear the word "anarchy". :sad: The alt left have really set my people back.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Unfortunately the vast majority of Trump supporters think of geeks like antifa when they hear the word "anarchy". :sad: The alt left have really set my people back.


Just admit that 95% of you anarchists and libertarians wouldn't care one bit about the GUBBMINT if weed was legal everywhere in the US of A :cena5


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> A truly free marketplace with competition takes care of most of that.
> 
> And yea, I think PRIVATE businesses should be free to discriminate against whoever they wish for whatever reason. I should be equally as free to boycott them. Such a simple thing... being strong willed enough to vote ith your wallet. Not my fault if yoy cave to such meek pressure.


Glad to know you are ok with discrimination, at least you admit it.


----------



## deepelemblues

Discrimination working out well somehow is one of those libertarian/anarchist ideas that is 100% utopian fantasy, completely unworkable in the real world because of its corrosive effect on the human dignity of both the person being discriminated against and the person doing the discrimination.


----------



## Kabraxal

deepelemblues said:


> Just admit that 95% of you anarchists and libertarians wouldn't care one bit about the GUBBMINT if weed was legal everywhere in the US of A :cena5


To be fair, they would be high and mellow a lot more. But at least it would be one step in the right direction. Hell, so many jobs would flood the country you might see more free market pressures ripple through all industries as they try to keep up.

Though, I will admit my one non liberal viewpoint (classical liberal... time to take that label back from the putrid progressives): I really think corporations might need to be disallowed and torn apart. I just haven’t seen the benefits out weigh all the costs over the decades as they have driven out smaller businesses. Though, I’ll take the refutation of lobbying and this the end of corporate/gov’t circle jerking.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> Just admit that 95% of you anarchists and libertarians wouldn't care one bit about the GUBBMINT if weed was legal everywhere in the US of A :cena5


I don't smoke weed. But I don't want it to be illegal.


----------



## Kabraxal

birthday_massacre said:


> Glad to know you are ok with discrimination, at least you admit it.


You can’t police feelings or thoughts. You can only allow the marketplace of free ideals to win out. And the gov’t should NEVER enforce people to enter into contracts or associations. If you believe the gov’t should have that power, you are a fool.


----------



## deepelemblues

Merry Reaper said:


> I don't smoke weed. But I don't want it to be illegal.


Let me tease people with libertarian/anarchist stereotypes please



Kabraxal said:


> To be fair, they would be high and mellow a lot more. But at least it would be one step in the right direction. Hell, so many jobs would flood the country you might see more free market pressures ripple through all industries as they try to keep up.
> 
> Though, I will admit my one non liberal viewpoint (classical liberal... time to take that label back from the putrid progressives): I really think corporations might need to be disallowed and torn apart. I just haven’t seen the benefits out weigh all the costs over the decades as they have driven out smaller businesses. Though, I’ll take the refutation of lobbying and this the end of corporate/gov’t circle jerking.


All corporations are, basically, are free associations of individuals that have a particular recognized legal status

The creation of corporations was a great step in the advancement of liberty and their existence today remains a powerful bulwark of liberty


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> You can’t police feelings or thoughts. You can only allow the marketplace of free ideals to win out. And the gov’t should NEVER enforce people to enter into contracts or associations. If you believe the gov’t should have that power, you are a fool.


Not letting a company discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation, race or gender, is not the same thing as policing their thoughts.

And yes the Govt should not let companies not hire someone just because they are gay or they are black or they are a woman or even if they are a man.

You want the US to go back to the 20s or 30s

If you had it your way, someone could go out to eat and the restaurant say yeah you cant eat here since we don't serve blacks again or say yeah we don't want to hire you because you are black or you are a woman.


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> Discrimination working out well somehow is one of those libertarian/anarchist ideas that is 100% utopian fantasy, completely unworkable in the real world *because of its corrosive effect on the human dignity of both the person being discriminated against and the person doing the discrimination.*


Sounds like a made up reason to me. 

A more practical result would be that any time someone was discriminated against they'd go on social media and everyone and their mother would descend upon the offending party like vultures with protest and social ostracism and it would imminently become impossible for them to function in society let alone run a business. It's unlikely too many people would follow their example after that.

We already know this would happen because of what has happened to businesses that have merely suggested they might discriminate in fantasy scenarios that have never even occurred.


----------



## Kabraxal

birthday_massacre said:


> Not letting a company discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation, race or gender, is not the same thing as policing their thoughts.
> 
> And yes the Govt should not let companies not hire someone just because they are gay or they are black or they are a woman or even if they are a man.
> 
> You want the US to go back to the 20s or 30s
> 
> If you had it your way, someone could go out to eat and the restaurant say yeah you cant eat here since we don't serve blacks again or say yeah we don't want to hire you because you are black or you are a woman.


You do not give tge gov’t power to force people into contracts or association. End of.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Isn't this dream of a truly free market with no regs, in which competition that give consumers more choice and lowers costs etc just that, simply a dream?

Bigger companies would simply gobble the smaller ones up, create monopolies and end up screwing consumers (in order to please stockholders with increasing profits) because they're the only choice in town, no?

Or is that being too cynical?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> You do not give tge gov’t power to force people into contracts or association. End of.


At least you admit you are pro-discrimination. Its more than most people that are for it but pretend they are not. I give you credit for being open about it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

yeahbaby! said:


> Isn't this dream of a truly free market with no regs, in which competition that give consumers more choice and lowers costs etc just that, simply a dream?
> 
> Bigger companies would simply gobble the smaller ones up, create monopolies and end up screwing consumers (in order to please stockholders with increasing profits) because they're the only choice in town, no?
> 
> Or is that being too cynical?


That is exactly what happens. And in the end we end up paying more and have no choice or very few choices. Prices don't go down they go up, when a company sees another competing company raise their prices, they don't lower theirs they also go up.

The true free market lowering the cost of everything is just a fantasy.

You really think when net neutrality is killed internet prices will go down and we will get more choices? The internet will end up costing more and it will get worst.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Sounds like a made up reason to me.
> 
> A more practical result would be that any time someone was discriminated against they'd go on social media and everyone and their mother would descend upon the offending party like vultures with protest and social ostracism and it would imminently become impossible for them to function in society let alone run a business. It's unlikely too many people would follow their example after that.
> 
> We already know this would happen because of what has happened to businesses that have merely suggested they might discriminate in fantasy scenarios that have never even occurred.


Sounds like another libertarian who helps you understand why the party meetings are held in the back corner booth at Denny's  

Practical

Social media campaigns are not practical

It is not practical to picket a business all day every day for lengthy periods of time 

This practical scenario you describe has never actually happened outside of isolated instances involving small businesses or businesses on the smaller side of medium that are vulnerable to abrupt downturns in consumer sales

We have also seen counter campaigns to boycotts find success

Sounds to me like more utopianism, the people will rise up and put them out of business! In the Jim Crow South most businesses that were reliant to a large degree on black consumers did not stop discriminating thanks to lack of revenue from black boycotts, it was the heavy hand of the State being laid upon them


----------



## deepelemblues

birthday_massacre said:


> That is exactly what happens. And in the end we end up paying more and have no choice or very few choices. Prices don't go down they go up, when a company sees another competing company raise their prices, they don't lower theirs they also go up.
> 
> The true free market lowering the cost of everything is just a fantasy.
> 
> You really think when net neutrality is killed internet prices will go down and we will get more choices? The internet will end up costing more and it will get worst.


And yet, during the period of the most intense monopolization in American economic history, consumer prices fell rapidly, the public and private infrastructure of the country expanded at a pace unseen in any nation in history, and material living conditions for all socioeconomic classes greatly improved :hmmm

Things are a bit more complex than your fantasies as well


----------



## Kabraxal

birthday_massacre said:


> At least you admit you are pro-discrimination. Its more than most people that are for it but pretend they are not. I give you credit for being open about it.


Supporting freedom is not being “pro discrimation”. But I shouldn’t expect better from such an intellectually dishonest poster.


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> And yet, during the period of the most intense monopolization in American economic history, consumer prices fell rapidly, the public and private infrastructure of the country expanded at a pace unseen in any nation in history, and material living conditions for all socioeconomic classes greatly improved :hmmm
> 
> Things are a bit more complex than your fantasies as well


What period are you talking about and why was there such intense monopolization, falling prices etc?

Honestly asking as my history is rubbish for the most part.


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> And yet, during the period of the most intense monopolization in American economic history, consumer prices fell rapidly, the public and private infrastructure of the country expanded at a pace unseen in any nation in history, and material living conditions for all socioeconomic classes greatly improved :hmmm
> 
> Things are a bit more complex than your fantasies as well


Citation please





Kabraxal said:


> Supporting freedom is not being “pro discrimination”. But I shouldn’t expect better from such an intellectually dishonest poster.


You support the freedom to discriminate. How is that not pro discrimination?


----------



## Kabraxal

birthday_massacre said:


> Citation please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You support the freedom to discriminate. How is that not pro discrimination?


Supporting the right of someone to be an ass does not mean you back that asshole. I support your freedom to say rubbish. I di not support what you say.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> Supporting the right of someone to be an ass does not mean you back that asshole. I support your freedom to say rubbish. I di not support what you say.


Oh, so you are back to dog whistling your discrimination again. Got it.

If you support someones right to discriminate you support you. And no it's not like supporting free speech but supporting everything someone says. 

It's laughable you would even claim that.

if you think a company should be able to discriminate that means you support discrimination. It's just like if you are pro-choice then you support a person wants to have an abortion and supports another who wants to keep the pregnancy.


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> What period are you talking about and why was there such intense monopolization, falling prices etc?
> 
> Honestly asking as my history is rubbish for the most part.


Talking about the last third of the 19th century and first ten years of the 20th. 

Monopolization was intense because it lowered costs. If you are making steel, you own the steel mills. If you own the railroads that ship the raw materials to your mills and the finished products out of them, if you own shipping companies to transport on the water, if you own the mines, etc., you can streamline costs across the board. Same with oil and other commodities. There were not really any true monopolies, but the biggest companies usually pooled prices so they wouldn't get into a price war that would wreck their business model, which was to pour the vast majority of profits back into the business to continually make improvements that would lower costs. That's how Carnegie built his steel empire, and Rockefeller built Standard Oil. 

The natural outlet for many of these commodities was transportation and production infrastructure. Roads, railroads, bridges, harbors, trains, cars, ships, factories, electrical power generation and transmission, water systems, etc. For all of history, transport costs have been perhaps the main factor in the price of consumer goods and in many other things as well. All this infrastructure greatly lowered transport costs in general. The advancement of production machinery - which needed energy (electricity or coal- and oil-based fuels) and quality materials (aka steel) - also lowered the prices of consumer goods and things like building materials over time. 

It's all connected.


----------



## Kabraxal

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh, so you are back to dog whistling your discrimination again. Got it.
> 
> If you support someones right to discriminate you support you. And no it's not like supporting free speech but supporting everything someone says.
> 
> It's laughable you would even claim that.


The only laughable thing here is you. Done trying to explain simple concepts with a partisan zealot that screams the same tired rhetoric repeatedly. Good riddance.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> The only laughable thing here is you. Done trying to explain simple concepts with a partisan zealot that screams the same tired rhetoric repeatedly. Good riddance.


You admitted that you are ok with companies discriminating against people and now you are trying to make excuses for it

Just own it, like it seemed like you were.


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> Talking about the last third of the 19th century and first ten years of the 20th.
> 
> Monopolization was intense because it lowered costs. If you are making steel, you own the steel mills. If you own the railroads that ship the raw materials to your mills and the finished products out of them, if you own shipping companies to transport on the water, if you own the mines, etc., you can streamline costs across the board. Same with oil and other commodities. There were not really any true monopolies, but the biggest companies usually pooled prices so they wouldn't get into a price war that would wreck their business model, which was to pour the vast majority of profits back into the business to continually make improvements that would lower costs. That's how Carnegie built his steel empire, and Rockefeller built Standard Oil.
> 
> The natural outlet for many of these commodities was transportation and production infrastructure. Roads, railroads, bridges, harbors, trains, cars, ships, factories, electrical power generation and transmission, water systems, etc. For all of history, transport costs have been perhaps the main factor in the price of consumer goods and in many other things as well. All this infrastructure greatly lowered transport costs in general. The advancement of production machinery - which needed energy (electricity or coal- and oil-based fuels) and quality materials (aka steel) - also lowered the prices of consumer goods and things like building materials over time.
> 
> It's all connected.


You are talking about the late 1800s and early 1900s lol

yet all the evidence since then shows the opposite. That is drives prices up and how monopolies are bad.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> yet its conservatives that make policies to help the rich and fuck over the poor and middle classes like this latest tax bill just did and love to discriminate against the LGBT.
> 
> And the reason why Conservatives/Republicans donate more money than Liberals/Democrats is that they donate to their churches which is a religious thing.


I find it amusing you felt the need to veer off topic and bring up things that have absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. All you ended up doing was proving my point about what leftists(not regular liberals) always do, divide , grandstand and look down at people who don't agree with them.


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> Talking about the last third of the 19th century and first ten years of the 20th.
> 
> Monopolization was intense because it lowered costs. If you are making steel, you own the steel mills. If you own the railroads that ship the raw materials to your mills and the finished products out of them, if you own shipping companies to transport on the water, if you own the mines, etc., you can streamline costs across the board. Same with oil and other commodities. There were not really any true monopolies, but the biggest companies usually pooled prices so they wouldn't get into a price war that would wreck their business model, which was to pour the vast majority of profits back into the business to continually make improvements that would lower costs. That's how Carnegie built his steel empire, and Rockefeller built Standard Oil.
> 
> The natural outlet for many of these commodities was transportation and production infrastructure. Roads, railroads, bridges, harbors, trains, cars, ships, factories, electrical power generation and transmission, water systems, etc. For all of history, transport costs have been perhaps the main factor in the price of consumer goods and in many other things as well. All this infrastructure greatly lowered transport costs in general. The advancement of production machinery - which needed energy (electricity or coal- and oil-based fuels) and quality materials (aka steel) - also lowered the prices of consumer goods and things like building materials over time.
> 
> It's all connected.


Dude that's a bit of a stretch to compare the age of the ever expanding industrial revolution (yes I know it's slightly after in exact terms) in relation to today's picture. How can you honestly say the same principles apply to now?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> I find it amusing you felt the need to veer off topic and bring up things that have absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. All you ended up doing was proving my point about what leftists(not regular liberals) always do, divide , grandstand and look down at people who don't agree with them.


How much more delusional can you get when my post did not veer off into anything. It gave it context. You love to bring up how much money conservatives give to charity and I pointed out yeah that charity is mostly giving to the church because of religious reasons.

yeah, that is soo veering off topic by pointing out what kind of charity they give to the most.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Stinger Fan said:


> I find it amusing you felt the need to veer off topic and bring up things that have absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. All you ended up doing was proving my point about what leftists(not regular liberals) always do, divide , grandstand and look down at people who don't agree with them.


BM divide, grandstand, and look down at people who don't agree with him?

I'm shocked. Shocked!


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> BM divide, grandstand, and look down at people who don't agree with him?
> 
> I'm shocked. Shocked!


Oh look more deflections because you can refute what I said so instead you shit post like you do everything else.

There is a reason why most of you got banned from the Trump Russia thread since you can't argue points, you just like to post shit. Its why this thread is a joke. Because you shit post to distract from the real issue at hand


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> Dude that's a bit of a stretch to compare the age of the ever expanding industrial revolution (yes I know it's slightly after in exact terms) in relation to today's picture. How can you honestly say the same principles apply to now?


We do not live in an age of monopolization except when it comes to the internet. Google and Amazon. Facebook a distant third.

Frankly, all three companies should have antitrust actions levied against them and all three should be broken up.


----------



## stevefox1200

I have never seen anyone argue to pros of monopolization

Jesus fucking Christ, that's as dumb as the free market handling foreign relations or privatizing the military 

I am a capitalist but when people don't have laws and regulations restricting them they kind of have a habit of being extremely self destructive 

We have rules about things that you should clearly not do and people try do them anyways, can you imagine if those rules were gone and everyone could do?


----------



## DesolationRow

On the subject of discrimination, naturally not only is it a positive but it is one of the bases of civilization itself. Chesterton foresaw how what James Burnham came to refer to as "the managerial state" decades before the gutting of restrictive covenants and free association in the marketplace in his excellent work _The Servile State_. As Aristotelian law is eschewed for administrative decrees, federalism supplanted by what Jefferson hypothesized as the "elective despotism" (which, let us be frank, would make King George III ceaselessly blush) and strictly limited government gives way to an all-powerful centralized authority, interestingly discrimination becomes a technique clandestinely employed by the rich through the shifting of labels.* My father sat in at lunch counters in Alabama as a young man but as his later self acknowledged, a city or polity cannot function without the defense mechanism of utilizing force. If one seeks to make one's "protest" worthwhile, one must ready oneself for arrest and prosecution by the authority against which one is protesting, otherwise the gesture is fairly empty. The Augustinian query into the root of authority, then, becomes its own matter into which to plunge, rather than, for instance, the clash between Edmund Burke and James Mackintosh over the concept of "natural rights." 

In what may be crudely termed the Anglo-American sphere, cities, as had city-states since time immemorial, saw their particular litanies of liberties enumerated by the charters which they received. Emanating either from the Royal Governor and legislature or in some cases the Crown itself, lovely citadels such as Williamsburg was for instance chartered in 1695, and Wilmington in 1763. A large number of cities dotting the eastern seaboard were chartered municipal corporations. Holding authority over a plethora of covenants, these cities behaved primarily as city-states had for the Greeks and Italians. Aristotle bemoaned a state granting privileges to non-citizens as one of the most egregious forms of tyranny. The mind reels at what he would think of today's "sanctuary cities" in the U.S. In the post-revolutionary American model, cities, like those of the German Empire, enjoyed autonomy, though not strict sovereignty. Cities were duty bound to come to the call of the emperor against enemies of the regime but the emperor could not abuse that relationship lest his own barons infringe his authority.

In matters of voluntary association and transactions, specific polities should hold to the matter. As Filmer's _Patriarcha_ illustrates, the more local the political framework the greater the responsibility by those both writing and enforcing statutes. Twentieth century Jim Crow laws were forms of statewide, countywide and citywide governmental discrimination; countless individuals living in such states, counties and cities defied said laws by freely associating in contrary to them. One elderly fellow who this poster fears has probably died since seeing him, who was a white bus driver in South Carolina in the 1950s, for instance, would frequently simply remove the partition separating the two races in his bus, insisting to his boss that it was too much of a hassle with which to deal. 

*The gestation of Donald Trump's surname becoming a brand name in housing over several generations delineates how the matter of race as constant stumbling block in American political life has swelled and swelled, while also providing billionaires with myriad options unavailable for those of more humble means. There was a good article from the _Washington Post_ about a year ago which was headlined, "How Donald Trump abandoned his father's middle-class housing empire for luxury building." The _Washington Post_ provides a tenderly positively-written portrait of Fred C. Trump (1905-1999) as one of the most notable and ambitious builders of affordable apartments in the outer boroughs. The elder Trump's efforts, however, would be considered racist by many today for he led the charge to constructing many apartment buildings with the assistance of the Veterans Administration and other federal government agencies in almost entirely exclusive redlined areas like the 3,800-unit Trump Village in the heavily Jewish Coney Island. It is no coincidence that Fred Trump would, upon discovering certain ethnic distrusts from his tenants, insist that his parents were from Sweden rather than admitting that he was a German-American. 

As with so many other titans of affordable housing, Fred Trump's providing of excellent conditions in which middle-class Americans could live was rewarded by being sued by the Richard Nixon administration's Justice Department in 1973 for possibly violating the 1968 Fair Housing Act. As the charges levied against Fred Trump revealed, only four percent of its tenants were black (this in in Brooklyn's Brighton Beach and the outskirts of Forest Hills in Queens). Fred's son Donald took up the charge of defending his father, hiring the ruthless lawyer Roy Cohn and making the case that allowing welfare recipients to rent in his father's complexes would risk "massive fleeing from the city of not only our tenants, but communities as a whole." In the end Donald Trump signed a consent decree with the federal government, a "clean" way to extricate his and his father's business from the affair, never admitting any wrongdoing but simultaneously promising to never do it again. 

Donald learned a great deal from the experience, and perhaps what he learned best was that it was prudent to simply drop the continuation of ventures on behalf of the middle-class and lower-class in the way of affordable housing in New York City's outer boroughs. The ever-stricter anti-discrimination laws ensured that the efforts would lead to almost unending law suits and the consequently inevitable "white flight" to the suburbs among the generally middle-class and lower-class Jewish customers... So Donald Trump metaphorically packed his bags and followed the nascent generation of _nouveaux riches_ New Yorkers to the Manhattan of the 1980s. In 1983 Donald Trump played a major role in ensuring that the New York City 1970s economic downturn and malaise as captured in films such as Sidney Lumet's _Serpico_ and _Dog Day Afternoon_ and Martin Scorsese's _Taxi Driver_ was over as he led the opening of the Fifth Avenue Trump Tower, a palatial skyscraper that has seen the likes of Mike Tyson, Don King, Jay-Z, Beyoncé, Ray Lewis and others. And so Trump's venture reestablished the humorous saying which goes along the lines of, "Our prices discriminate, so we don't have to."


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oh look more jobs being outsourced under Trump than under Obama.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-carrier-offshoring-jobs_us_5a1f6f97e4b0a8581e67e62e

A Year After Trump’s Carrier Deal, U.S. Companies Still Offshoring Plenty Of Jobs
The president said this kind of thing wouldn’t happen anymore.

WASHINGTON ― After helping strike a deal to keep the Carrier Corporation from shutting down its furnace plant in Indianapolis one year ago on Wednesday, Donald Trump said the days of companies shipping jobs overseas had ended.

“Companies are not going to leave the United States anymore without consequences,” Trump, who was then president-elect, said last year at the Carrier plant, echoing a key campaign promise. “Not going to happen.”

It has continued to happen.

Though it seemed that Trump’s populist, anti-trade campaign and his surprising election victory heralded the beginning of a new protectionist era, companies have continued to lay off workers for trade-related reasons at roughly the same pace as in the previous five years.

More than 93,000 jobs have been eliminated due to foreign competition since Trump’s election, according to Labor Department data analyzed by Good Jobs Nation, a union-backed labor advocacy group. The previous five years saw an average of 87,500 jobs lost due to trade.

One reason Carrier kept its plant open instead of shifting all the production to Mexico was that its parent company, United Technologies, is a major government contractor and didn’t want to jeopardize that revenue stream. At the very least, it seemed, the Carrier deal showed Trump could use the presidency to bully companies into hiring American workers. But big federal contractors contributed 11 percent of the layoffs due to trade over the past year, compared to only 4 percent over the preceding five years.

“It’s extraordinarily frustrating,” Sen. Joe Donnelly, a Democrat from Indiana who has sought common ground with Trump on manufacturing, told HuffPost.

Donnelly and other Rust Belt Democrats have proposed legislation that would put companies that offshore jobs at a disadvantage in the federal procurement process. Donnelly spoke with the president about the proposal during several visits to the White House, including in September.

“I actually tried to get it included in the tax plan, and the president said, ‘I’m very supportive of that,’” Donnelly said. “But, nothing.”

Republicans have claimed their tax reform legislation would spur hiring in the U.S. by cutting corporate taxes and creating incentives for new capital investment. Companies themselves, however, have generally not indicated they’d use tax savings to hire more workers. Steven Rosenthal, an expert with the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, has warned that international tax changes in the Republican plan could actually encourage firms to shift production overseas.

Though Trump didn’t rip up the North American Free Trade Agreement on the first day of his presidency, as he’d promised to do, a renegotiation of the deal is underway.

The Carrier deal itself prevented the plant from closing, but it didn’t stop the company from laying off about 500 of the 1,400 workers at the factory. The job losses were certified by the Labor Department as caused by foreign trade, making the workers eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance, which is a special type of unemployment benefit.

Good Jobs Nation used the public Labor Department data on certified TAA cases to come up with its tally of trade-related layoffs over the years. Not every such job loss represents a job being shipped directly to another country; some result from cheaper imports, for example.

Quinton Franklin told HuffPost he’d worked for Carrier for 10 years before losing his job in July. After several months of unemployment, during which he got a more affordable home and car, Franklin said he got a new job in October overseeing cleaning services at a hospital.

Franklin said he was glad Trump intervened to stop Carrier from relocating the furnace plant to Mexico and that it was “surreal” when the president-elect actually visited the facility. Franklin didn’t support Trump’s campaign at the time, though, and is now basically just disappointed.

“I feel like the whole campaign was just a lie,” he said. “He based his whole campaign off of saving jobs and stuff being made in America.”


----------



## Miss Sally

deepelemblues said:


> We do not live in an age of monopolization except when it comes to the internet. Google and Amazon. Facebook a distant third.
> 
> Frankly, all three companies should have antitrust actions levied against them and all three should be broken up.


Add in Twitter too. :x


----------



## Reaper

Ironically, people who hate Facebook and Google for being monopolies ignore the fact that these two companies provide FREE / 0 COST services and products to people :lmao

I can't remember the last time I paid a penny to either and I get to make FREE calls to my parents anytime I want and talk for hours ... and it's still something bad ... Look at the amount of free services both these companies promote. No one has promoted more SMALL BUSINESSES better than Facebook. You can literally get on facebook, make a free page for your product and sell it without ever paying a penny to Facebook if you don't want. I've seen 100's of my entrpreneur friends make money without ever spending a single penny on advertizing on the internet, on Facebook, through Google, through Twitter. ALL of which is FREE FREE FREE. Just one of my pakistani friends started selling jewellry through facebook. She never spent a penny on advertising. She has over 1,000,000 likes now on her page and says that Facebook has a conversion rate of more thanb 10%. She's made enough money to open up a store front and now does international exhibitions ---- all because she created a FB page for her product. 

Like are you seriously kidding me right now? 

I guess giving people things for free is a bad thing. 

YOU ARE SO EVIL WHY AREN'T YOU MAKING ME PAY. WHY ARE YOU FREE OMG!!! :mj2 :mj2 :mj2

But I thought wanting free shit was the ultimate SOCIALIST dream .. and yet here we have CAPITALISM achieving it and we still want to regulate and make it a BAD thing :lmao

We're seriously living in a world where capitalism has made _thousands _ of things in life absolutely FREE that we USED to pay for and we're still questioning what capitalism can achieve. Seriously, where are some of you guys getting your ideas?


----------



## Laughable Chimp

There's actually some pros to monopolization. Economies of scale being the biggest one.

If I had to summarize it, a monopoly without any government intervention is able to produce at lower costs due to economies of scale. This lower costs and their massive revenue allows them to spend more resources on innovation and finding new ways to be more productive. 

The problem is, they don't really need to. While a monopoly has the means to be really good, by virtue of being a monopoly, it doesn't need to be. Why should they. They are the only game in town. Entry costs are too high for other firms to enter. Diseconomies of scale and x inefficiency also tend to happen. Sometimes being too big also has its drawbacks. Exploitation also occurs. Higher prices are charged and a lower quantity is produced. 

I mean, we should know how bad a monopoly is. Look at the WWE now. Then look at WWE during the Attitude Era when competition is highest.

A monopoly with completely no government intervention is almost always bad if the objective is only to maximize profit.


----------



## Reaper

Laughable Chimp said:


> The problem is, they don't really need to. While a monopoly has the means to be really good, by virtue of being a monopoly, it doesn't need to be. Why should they. They are the only game in town. Entry costs are too high for other firms to enter. Diseconomies of scale and x inefficiency also tend to happen. Sometimes being too big also has its drawbacks. Exploitation also occurs. Higher prices are charged and a lower quantity is produced.


There can't be a natural monopoly that can last _forever_ if they're inefficient because there's no such thing as a product or service that can be exclusively sold by just one person and it doesn't take long for someone with a new, innovative idea to compete for market-share. Apple vs Google is the greatest example of this that while Apple enjoyed a mini-monopoly on smart phones for a short time, Google immediately entered into the market because it was also innovative and came out with a good product. Now both companies are in severe competition for the smart phone market. 

In order to have a monopoly, you'll have control everything that no one else can possibly do and such a scenario cannot exist without government support and favorable legislation. In a natural/organic capitalist environment, the monopoly does not have absolute control over their own product or service. 

In the long run, _all_ inefficient monopolies die. In order to survive they have to be consistently efficient therefore they're self-regulatory.

The WWE is a bad example of a monopoly because it's not a monopoly. It's one company selling one product because no one else considers it profitable enough to enter the market _yet_ and incur those costs in what is considered to be a high startup, low profit industry.


----------



## Smarky Mark

deepelemblues said:


> We do not live in an age of monopolization except when it comes to the internet. Google and Amazon. Facebook a distant third.
> 
> Frankly, all three companies should have antitrust actions levied against them and all three should be broken up.


None of those companies are monopolies. They have no stronghold.

You CHOOSE to use Google even though there are countless other search engines that do exactly the same thing. You CHOOSE to use Facebook in favor of other social networks. You CHOOSE to shop at Amazon.

None of these corporations have as much power and influence as you suggest they do. We have the power to stop them at any time.


----------



## Reaper

Smarky Mark said:


> None of those companies are monopolies. They have no stronghold.
> 
> You CHOOSE to use Google even though there are countless other search engines that do exactly the same thing. You CHOOSE to use Facebook in favor of other social networks. You CHOOSE to shop at Amazon.
> 
> None of these corporations have as much power and influence as you suggest they do. We have the power to stop them at any time.


Exactly. If they were providing a shit service, or a shit product, they would have died a long time ago.


----------



## Laughable Chimp

Merry Reaper said:


> There can't be a natural monopoly that can last _forever_ if they're inefficient because there's no such thing as a product or service that can be exclusively sold by just one person and it doesn't take long for someone with a new, innovative idea to compete for market-share. Apple vs Google is the greatest example of this that while Apple enjoyed a mini-monopoly on smart phones for a short time, Google immediately entered into the market because it was also innovative and came out with a good product. Now both companies are in severe competition for the smart phone market.
> 
> In order to have a monopoly, you'll have control everything that no one else can possibly do and such a scenario cannot exist without government support and favorable legislation. In a natural/organic capitalist environment, the monopoly does not have absolute control over their own product or service.
> 
> In the long run, _all_ inefficient monopolies die. In order to survive they have to be consistently efficient therefore they're self-regulatory.
> 
> The WWE is a bad example of a monopoly because it's not a monopoly. It's one company selling one product because no one else considers it profitable enough to enter the market _yet_ and incur those costs in what is considered to be a high startup, low profit industry.


The thing is, while I do agree in the long run that inefficient monopolies tend to die, it might take a very very long time and doesn't always occur.

Take for example a privaye utility company that provides electricity and water to a country. If the country has no government, then the utility company has free reign in charging whatever high price to people and provide whatever shit service to them. The only way they can get displaced is through someone actually investing enough money to build all the infrastructure needed to compete. 

No business man in their right mind is gong to do that. Imagine the huge costs that he'd have to pay to set up infrastructure. Imagine the amount of time he'd have to wait before everything is up and running. Imagine the huge resistance that the monooly is going to put towards them setting up. Imagine the huge waste of resources since you're going to end up with basically double the same infrastructure.

And it goes on. How is the new firm going to attract new customers? Brand loyalty is a huge thing after all. And above all and is probably the most dangerous method, the monopoly can simply charge an impossibly low price to drive the new firm out of business and them go back to their old ways. The monopoly doesn't have to be efficient to do any of this. All it needs is to be ruthless and recognize any potential threats before they become threats and stomp them out.

Even if no local business man is willingn to go up against them, then how about some foreign multinational? Well, multinationals while they probably do have the funds to compete with them, would still go through the same problems any other company would have competing with them. Would they really spend all that money to try and compete in such a market? Chances are, they've better things to spend their money on.

My conclusion is, I believe there are some natural monopolies that simply cannot be stomped out naturally. The entry costs and the economies of scale are far too large for any new firm to compete with and it would take extreme negligence for them to eventually be taken down. Which could in all honesty happen, but it would probably take a very very long time. And after they do get taken down, who's to say another natural monopoly might not rise in their place?


----------



## Reaper

Laughable Chimp said:


> The thing is, while I do agree in the long run that inefficient monopolies tend to die, it might take a very very long time and doesn't always occur.
> 
> Take for example a privaye utility company that provides electricity and water to a country. If the country has no government, then the utility company has free reign in charging whatever high price to people and provide whatever shit service to them. The only way they can get displaced is through someone actually investing enough money to build all the infrastructure needed to compete.


This still goes back to the idea that _absolute control over resources_ cannot happen in a free market economy. 

Someone _will_ enter the market as long as there are no barriers to do so. Plus affordability and customer's ability to pay is a huge factor when it comes to raising costs and prices. For example: 

Currently we're in a situation where the FPL needs to expand their infrastructure, so they basically increased our utility bill for a few years. But the change is small enough that we're not concerned. My electric went from 85-90 a month to 100-105 a month which is acceptable to me and to people in my county. There have been no objections and no riots, no power breakdowns and no one was forcibly cut off. 

If they _immediately_ increased the prices to an _unaffordable_ level, they would _naturally_ lose consumers as people simply won't be able to afford to pay and go into default or simply would have their power cut off - which is FAR worse for the power company since they would have to spend an inordinate amount of money in collections on top of naturally losing customers hence they simply _cannot _increase the price beyond the _affordability_ level. The affordability of consumers controls the price when there's a monopoly. Businesses hire financial gurus that understand this. This is despite the fact that they do have a monopoly on power in my county. 

Governments are run by people who have absolutely no training in any of the professions they claim to be able to run - hence why government monopolies are always inefficient. There are lawyers, political science majors etc making financial decisions about the "businesses" they claim to run, but they don't understand. 

The thing is that the _fear_ of a monopoly over-charging is worse than a monopoly actually over-charging. I cannot think of a single monopoly that over-charges and survives that didn't have crony capitalism and lobbyists working to ensure that prices stay artificially high (like the pharmaceutical industry).


----------



## Laughable Chimp

Merry Reaper said:


> This still goes back to the idea that _absolute control over resources_ cannot happen in a free market economy.
> 
> Someone _will_ enter the market as long as there are no barriers to do so. Plus affordability and customer's ability to pay is a huge factor when it comes to raising costs and prices. For example:
> 
> Currently we're in a situation where the FPL needs to expand their infrastructure, so they basically increased our utility bill for a few years. But the change is small enough that we're not concerned. My electric went from 85-90 a month to 100-105 a month which is acceptable to me and to people in my county. There have been no objections and no riots, no power breakdowns and no one was forcibly cut off.
> 
> If they _immediately_ increased the prices to an _unaffordable_ level, they would _naturally_ lose consumers as people simply won't be able to afford to pay and go into default or simply would have their power cut off - which is FAR worse for the power company since they would have to spend an inordinate amount of money in collections on top of naturally losing customers hence they simply _cannot _increase the price beyond the _affordability_ level. The affordability of consumers controls the price when there's a monopoly.
> 
> This is despite the fact that they do have a monopoly on power in my county.
> 
> The thing is that the _fear_ of a monopoly over-charging is worse than a monopoly actually over-charging.


I'm not saying they'd charge unaffordably high. I'm saying they'd charge at the maximum possible price that's still affordable but still heavily financially burdens the consumer. They want to maxmize profit after all, not make everyones lives miserable. People in developed countries aren't just going to easily let go of water and electricity, they'd pay as long as they have the money to. But regardless, if utility isn't a great example, take any good or service which is taken as a necessity by people.

Define by what you mean by barrier. Because to me, a barrier isn't necessarily something by the government. Anything that might stop a firm from entering a market is a barrier to me. And with natural monopolies, the barriers are the huge start up costs required to enter. And after that, there's a lot of other factors which would scare snyone from entering such a market as I mentioned. People enter a market to make profit after all. And this is literally the hardest market to try and make a profit out of. Even if the monopoly is extremely inefficient, would anyone try and enter it over any other market out there and would they be able to survive?

I cannot speak for the FPL. Have no knowledge on that.

Edit: I agree, government monopolies tend to be more inefficient. No arguments there.


----------



## Reaper

Laughable Chimp said:


> I'm not saying they'd charge unaffordably high. I'm saying they'd charge at the maximum possible price that's still affordable but still heavily financially burdens the consumer. They want to maxmize profit after all, not make everyones lives miserable. People in developed countries aren't just going to easily let go of water and electricity, they'd pay as long as they have the money to. But regardless, if utility isn't a great example, take any good or service which is taken as a necessity by people.


Being able to charge the maximum possible price as long as it's not unaffordable is not a bad thing nor is it innately anti-consumer or predatory. If it's affordable, then it's not anti-consumer. 



> Define by what you mean by barrier. Because to me, a barrier isn't necessarily something by the government. Anything that might stop a firm from entering a market is a barrier to me. And with natural monopolies, the barriers are the huge start up costs required to enter. And after that, there's a lot of other factors which would scare snyone from entering such a market as I mentioned. People enter a market to make profit after all. And this is literally the hardest market to try and make a profit out of. Even if the monopoly is extremely inefficient, would anyone try and enter it over any other market out there and would they be able to survive?


You're right about other barriers to entry. Just because there are natural barriers to entry and competition still does not mean that someone is engaged in predatory / anti-consumer behavior just because it's the only one providing that service. 

In terms of utilities, in a free market economy without regulation, what is likely to happen is the entry of small-scale electricity providors that localize to the region. This is something I'm seeing in pakistan where smaller and smaller power plants are being proposed (and while some are being opposed by the governments) others are propping up to ADD to the overall network. 

It's a never ending non-distruptive cycle. As long as there's money to be made like you said, people will find unique/innovate sufficient scale sized projects that will continue to add to the existing infrastructure even if it can't full replace it. Oligopolies will form and they will be sustainable. This theory applies to all products ---- as there is no such thing as a unique product that no one else is capable of selling. 

The only actual and real monopolies where things are GROSSLY over-priced exist in the art world or luxury commodities - where products are unique (especially in art) and therefore they can be priced ridiculously high. Things cannot be priced beyond affordability in necessity products because there the market is everybody so there will always be someone coming up to compete with whomever is providing the necessity product/service. 

As far as necessities are concerned, I can't think of a single monopoly (outside of the government propped up pharmaceuticals and schooling which are BOTH astronomically high). 

All other necessities are deregulated and have fewer barriers to entry so you know that everyone is now part of your target market so you want to maximize profit based on _volume_, not on price. 

My power company tries to sell me generators and insurance on top of the power they're selling me to try to make extra money since they know they can't force me to pay too much. This is the same with all other companies.


----------



## I drink and I know things

I lean libertarian, and as a result have traditionally felt more aligned with the right than the left, but Trump has completely blown that out of the water. This was my first time voting for a Democrat for President (first voted in 2000). Furthermore, I find Trump so ill equipped for the job and of such awful character that I will vote Democrat in EVERY election for EVERY office until he's gone (unless the Republican shows guts and denounces Trump and Trumpism).


----------



## Reaper

I drink and I know things said:


> I lean libertarian, and as a result have traditionally felt more aligned with the right than the left, but Trump has completely blown that out of the water. This was my first time voting for a Democrat for President (first voted in 2000). Furthermore, I find Trump so ill equipped for the job and of such awful character that I will vote Democrat in EVERY election for EVERY office until he's gone (unless the Republican shows guts and denounces Trump and Trumpism).


#fakelibertarian  

At least you could have written in your vote for Ted Cruz (I know he sucks too) but a libertarian voting for a democrat is like a fish voting to ban water.


----------



## Laughable Chimp

Merry Reaper said:


> Being able to charge the maximum possible price as long as it's not unaffordable is not a bad thing nor is it innately anti-consumer or predatory. If it's affordable, then it's not anti-consumer.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right about other barriers to entry. Just because there are natural barriers to entry and competition still does not mean that someone is engaged in predatory / anti-consumer behavior just because it's the only one providing that service.
> 
> In terms of utilities, in a free market economy without regulation, what is likely to happen is the entry of small-scale electricity providors that localize to the region. This is something I'm seeing in pakistan where smaller and smaller power plants are being proposed (and while some are being opposed by the governments) others are propping up to ADD to the overall network.
> 
> It's a never ending non-distruptive cycle. As long as there's money to be made like you said, people will find unique/innovate sufficient scale sized projects that will continue to add to the existing infrastructure even if it can't full replace it. Oligopolies will form and they will be sustainable. This theory applies to all products ---- as there is no such thing as a unique product that no one else is capable of selling.
> 
> The only actual and real monopolies where things are GROSSLY over-priced exist in the art world or luxury commodities - where products are unique (especially in art) and therefore they can be priced ridiculously high. Things cannot be priced beyond affordability in necessity products because there the market is everybody so there will always be someone coming up to compete with whomever is providing the necessity product/service.
> 
> As far as necessities are concerned, I can't think of a single monopoly (outside of the government propped up pharmaceuticals and schooling which are BOTH astronomically high).
> 
> All other necessities are deregulated and have fewer barriers to entry so you know that everyone is now part of your target market so you want to maximize profit based on _volume_, not on price.
> 
> My power company tries to sell me generators and insurance on top of the power they're selling me to try to make extra money since they know they can't force me to pay too much. This is the same with all other companies.


I wouldn't necessarily say affordable means not anti-consumer. Something can be affordable but still be overpriced. When given a choice between a necessity and a normal good, the necessity good is always chosen. It technically means that the good is affordable, but it takes so much out of a consumer's income that they can't really afford much of anything else.

Furthermore, it might still not be affordable to the lowest income earners, the ones who these monopolies don't feel the need to produce for since it isn't very profitable for them.I know I'm messing with the definition if affordable so let me rephrase that again. I think monopolies will charge overpriced goods to consumers which while still may be affordable to most, might not be affordable to everyone. Its all fine and dandy if its a normal good but when its something that is considered a necessity, the failure of the market to produce a necessity at a price which is affordable to everyone is something I consider anti-consumer.

As to why necessities are not usually monopolies, I attribute that to how easy it is to be supplied. You can always produce food for example and there's so many different types of food. How many firms supply water nowadays? But none of them are monopolies. Instead, they are monopolistic which is as close as you can get to a perfect competition.

However, not all necessities are that easy to supply. Utilities being the big example. I think its simply too high of a barrier to entry for multiple firms to compete which leads to a monopoly. Combine this with my original point as to how monopolies don't necessarily make it affordable to everyone and you get the reason for government monopolies. They want to ensure that everyone gets the service and don't think that privatizing the industry will allow everyone to experience the benefits of the necessity. So a government monopoly must be in place or at least subsidies.

I just think in some industries, its far too big of a barrier to entry for other firms to even try to compete with a monopoly. At the very most, I can see oligopolies forming but in some conditions, I see those things as basically multi firmed monopolies anyway not allowing any other smaller firm to join their elite group as they work together to crush any threat. 

Just to be clear, I'm not against the idea being implemented and the economist in me would love to see the effects of a country going fully free market and privatizing its industriea(My pipe dream is still a fully global market with absolutely no barries betweeen countries). I just don't think its the best option.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*
Trump transition official in email: Russia 'has just thrown the U.S.A election'
*

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...icial-in-email-russia-has-just-thrown-the-usa



President Trump's former deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland told a friend in an email when she was on Trump's transition team that Russia "threw" the U.S. election to Trump, The New York Times reported Saturday.

McFarland reportedly wrote in the email that sanctions then-President Obama levied on Russia in response to Moscow's election meddling would make it more difficult for Trump to improve relations with Russia, "which has just thrown the U.S.A. election to him."

The Times reported that it was unclear whether the transition official was saying she believed that the election had been thrown. A White House lawyer told the newspaper that McFarland was referring to the Democrats' portrayal of the election. 

Emails obtained by the Times show that Trump's team moved quickly to develop a strategy on how to reassure Russia after learning that Obama would expel 35 Russian diplomats in the weeks before he left office.

The report comes one day after Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with then-Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak in the month before Trump took office.

Flynn had previously denied that he discussed sanctions with the Russian official, but later acknowledged that the issue came up. Trump fired him over the issue in February, 24 days after he took the White House post.

McFarland was reportedly aware of Flynn's contact with Moscow. An Associated Press report on Friday identified McFarland as a senior transition official mentioned in court documents who discussed with Flynn in 2016 the U.S. sanctions against Russia and potential retaliation from Moscow.

Outlets also identified Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner as the "very senior transition official" referenced in the documents who reportedly pushed Flynn to persuade the Russian government to vote against a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements. The U.N. vote ended up advancing.

McFarland served as Trump's deputy national security adviser until May and is currently awaiting confirmation to be his ambassador to Singapore.


*Emails Dispute White House Claims That Flynn Acted Independently on Russia*

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/us/russia-mcfarland-flynn-trump-emails.html

WASHINGTON — When President Trump fired his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in February, White House officials portrayed him as a renegade who had acted independently in his discussions with a Russian official during the presidential transition and then lied to his colleagues about the interactions.

But emails among top transition officials, provided or described to The New York Times, suggest that Mr. Flynn was far from a rogue actor. In fact, the emails, coupled with interviews and court documents filed on Friday, showed that Mr. Flynn was in close touch with other senior members of the Trump transition team both before and after he spoke with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, about American sanctions against Russia.

While Mr. Trump has disparaged as a Democratic “hoax” any claims that he or his aides had unusual interactions with Russian officials, the records suggest that the Trump transition team was intensely focused on improving relations with Moscow and was willing to intervene to pursue that goal despite a request from the Obama administration that it not sow confusion about official American policy before Mr. Trump took office.

On Dec. 29, a transition adviser to Mr. Trump, K. T. McFarland, wrote in an email to a colleague that sanctions announced hours before by the Obama administration in retaliation for Russian election meddling were aimed at discrediting Mr. Trump’s victory. The sanctions could also make it much harder for Mr. Trump to ease tensions with Russia, “which has just thrown the U.S.A. election to him,” she wrote in the emails obtained by The Times.

It is not clear whether Ms. McFarland was saying she believed that the election had in fact been thrown. A White House lawyer said on Friday that she meant only that the Democrats were portraying it that way.

Continue reading the main story

Russian Hacking and Influence in the U.S. Election
Complete coverage of Russia’s campaign to disrupt the 2016 presidential election.
Flynn Said Russian Sanctions Would Be ‘Ripped Up,’ Whistle-Blower Says
DEC 6
Prosecuting a President: Can It Be Done? Will It?
DEC 5
Special Counsel Investigation Has Cost at Least $6.7 million
DEC 5
Is Trump Crazy Like a Fox or Plain Old Crazy?
DEC 5
Mueller’s Facts and Trump’s Make-Believe
DEC 5
See More »

RECENT COMMENTS

K D 2 days ago
PBS Frontline did a very good set of exploratory reports on Russia, and their part in our elections. Its pretty chilling. And its not clear...
Lawrence DeMattei 2 days ago
Flynn is a retired Lt. General and therefore knew the chain of command when he became part of Trump's inter circle. He did not act...
elizabeth kelly 2 days ago
The noose tightens. Trump will be brought to justice for obstruction of justice. If Mr. Mueller is able to pinpoint the reason for...
SEE ALL COMMENTS
RELATED COVERAGE


Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty to Lying to the F.B.I. and Will Cooperate With Russia Inquiry DEC. 1, 2017

Documents Reveal New Details on What Trump Team Knew About Flynn’s Calls With Russia’s Ambassador DEC. 1, 2017

WHITE HOUSE MEMO
Flynn’s Guilty Plea Looms Over a White House on the Verge of a Tax Cut Success DEC. 1, 2017

A Split From Trump Indicates That Flynn Is Moving to Cooperate With Mueller NOV. 23, 2017
But it is evident from the emails — which were obtained from someone who had access to transition team communications — that after learning that President Barack Obama would expel 35 Russian diplomats, the Trump team quickly strategized about how to reassure Russia. The Trump advisers feared that a cycle of retaliation between the United States and Russia would keep the spotlight on Moscow’s election meddling, tarnishing Mr. Trump’s victory and potentially hobbling his presidency from the start.

As part of the outreach, Ms. McFarland wrote, Mr. Flynn would be speaking with the Russian ambassador, Mr. Kislyak, hours after Mr. Obama’s sanctions were announced.

“Key will be Russia’s response over the next few days,” Ms. McFarland wrote in an email to another transition official, Thomas P. Bossert, now the president’s homeland security adviser.

In an interview, Ty Cobb, the White House lawyer handling the Russia inquiry, said there was nothing illegal or unethical about the transition team’s actions. “It would have been political malpractice not to discuss sanctions,” he said, adding that “the presidential transition guide specifically encourages contact with and outreach to foreign dignitaries.”

The only problem, Mr. Cobb said, was that Mr. Flynn had lied to White House officials and to F.B.I. agents about what he had told the Russian ambassador. Mr. Flynn’s misstatements led to his firing in February and his guilty plea on Friday to charges of lying to federal agents.

With Mr. Flynn’s plea and agreement to cooperate with Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating the Russian election interference, the inquiry edges closer to Mr. Trump. The president tried to persuade the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to drop the bureau’s criminal investigation of Mr. Flynn, and fired Mr. Comey after he failed to comply.

Mr. Trump and his aides have suggested that his concern about Mr. Flynn’s potential legal jeopardy was motivated mainly by the president’s admiration for his former national security adviser’s military service and character.

But the new details about Mr. Flynn’s Russia contacts underscore the possibility that the president may have been worried not just about Mr. Flynn but also about whether any investigation might reach into the White House and perhaps to the Oval Office. That question will be at the center of any consideration by Mr. Mueller of whether Mr. Trump’s actions constituted obstruction of justice.

The Trump transition team ignored a pointed request from the Obama administration to avoid sending conflicting signals to foreign officials before the inauguration and to include State Department personnel when contacting them. Besides the Russian ambassador, Mr. Flynn, at the request of the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, contacted several other foreign officials to urge them to delay or block a United Nations resolution condemning Israel over its building of settlements.

Mr. Cobb said the Trump team had never agreed to avoid such interactions. But one former White House official has disputed that, telling Mr. Mueller’s investigators that Trump transition officials had agreed to honor the Obama administration’s request.

Mr. Bossert forwarded Ms. McFarland’s Dec. 29 email exchange about the sanctions to six other Trump advisers, including Mr. Flynn; Reince Priebus, who had been named as chief of staff; Stephen K. Bannon, the senior strategist; and Sean Spicer, who would become the press secretary.

Mr. Obama, she wrote, was trying to “box Trump in diplomatically with Russia,” which could limit his options with other countries, including Iran and Syria. “Russia is key that unlocks door,” she wrote.

She also wrote that the sanctions over Russian election meddling were intended to “lure Trump in trap of saying something” in defense of Russia, and were aimed at “discrediting Trump’s victory by saying it was due to Russian interference.”

“If there is a tit-for-tat escalation Trump will have difficulty improving relations with Russia, which has just thrown U.S.A. election to him,” she wrote.

Mr. Bossert replied by urging all the top advisers to “defend election legitimacy now.”

Mr. Flynn, who had been fired by Mr. Obama as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, was the point person for the transition team on policy toward Russia and other countries. After Mr. Trump named him as his national security adviser in November, Mr. Flynn began briefing him — some say daily — on foreign policy.

Ms. McFarland, who served until May as deputy national security adviser and is awaiting confirmation as ambassador to Singapore, was sometimes referred to by other transition officials as “Flynn’s brain.” She could not be reached for comment.

Mr. Flynn’s Dec. 29 call with Mr. Kislyak was one of the first formal interactions between the incoming administration and a foreign government. On that winter day, Mr. Trump’s closest associates were scattered around several warm-weather locations.

Mr. Flynn was in the Dominican Republic. Other senior members of Mr. Trump’s transition team, including Ms. McFarland, were at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla. Mr. Kushner was vacationing in Hawaii with his family.

Obama administration officials were expecting a “bellicose” response to the expulsions and sanctions, according to the email exchange between Ms. McFarland and Mr. Bossert. Lisa Monaco, Mr. Obama’s homeland security adviser, had told Mr. Bossert that “the Russians have already responded with strong threats, promising to retaliate,” according to the emails.

In his phone call with Mr. Kislyak, Mr. Flynn asked that Russia “not escalate the situation,” according to court documents released on Friday. He later related the substance of the call — including the discussion of sanctions — to a senior transition official, believed to be Ms. McFarland. A few days later, he briefed others on the transition team.

Mr. Flynn’s intervention appeared to have a dramatic effect. To the surprise of foreign policy experts, the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, did not immediately respond with retaliatory expulsions of Americans from Moscow.

Mr. Trump praised that decision in a tweet, writing: “Great move on delay (by V. Putin) — I always knew he was very smart.”

It is uncertain how involved Mr. Trump was in the discussions among his staff members of Mr. Flynn’s conversation with the Russian ambassador. Mr. Spicer told reporters on the morning of Dec. 29 that the president-elect would be meeting with his national security team, including Ms. McFarland, that day. A phone call that included Mr. Trump, Mr. Flynn, Ms. McFarland, Mr. Priebus and Mr. Bannon was scheduled for 5 p.m., shortly after Ms. McFarland’s email exchange. It is unclear whether the call took place.

Mr. Cobb said that Mr. Trump did not know that Mr. Flynn had discussed sanctions with Mr. Kislyak in the call. After the inauguration, “Flynn specifically denied it to him, in the presence of witnesses,” he said.

Some legal experts have speculated that the contacts during the transition between Trump aides and foreign officials might violate the Logan Act, a law that prohibits private American citizens from working with a foreign government against the United States. But the act has not been used to prosecute anyone since the 19th century. Mr. Cobb said the law “certainly does not apply” to a presidential transition team.

The day after the president fired Mr. Flynn, he talked about the F.B.I. inquiry with Mr. Comey, the agency’s director. Mr. Comey has said the president urged him to drop the inquiry. “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Mr. Trump said, according to a memo that Mr. Comey wrote immediately afterward. The White House has denied that account. The president fired Mr. Comey in May.

Testifying before Congress in June, Mr. Comey declined to say whether the president had fired him to impede the investigation. “I don’t think it’s for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct,” he said. “I took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning, but that’s a conclusion I’m sure the special counsel will work towards to try and understand what the intention was there, and whether that’s an offense


----------



## FriedTofu

So...this Jerusalem thing. On the one hand it stops the pussyfooting of the US government the past 2 decades and take a stand on the issue. On the other hand, it seem like a needless move to provoke Muslim majority countries and giving religious fundamentalists in those countries a bullet point to gain support. fpalm


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh look more deflections because you can refute what I said so instead you shit post like you do everything else.
> 
> *There is a reason why most of you got banned from the Trump Russia thread since you can't argue points*, you just like to post shit. Its why this thread is a joke. Because you shit post to distract from the real issue at hand












Someone tell me this is a parody account. Nobody can be this ignorant.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Someone tell me this is a parody account. Nobody can be this ignorant.


And ironically your post proves my point, thanks.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> And ironically your post proves my point, thanks.


You don't ever have any points. You're a parody account that talks in circles.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> You don't ever have any points. You're a parody account that talks in circles.


And you keep proving my point yet again. Keep going.


----------



## Reaper

Well guess we're in agreement that Islam makes Muslims shitty people if they can be "provoked" into violence and making the world afraid by one country moving their embassy to another city in another country.

If that's all it takes for them to turn into a violent fucking mob, then please ban as many Muslims from every setting foot in America as is humanly possible. They're percieved to be an irrational violent group of thugs and we all agree.


----------



## Art Vandaley

The Jerusalem thing is dumb, unnecessary, needlessly provocative and likely to inflame tensions in a region that really doesn't need more tensions. 

I mean who other than Trump could look at the Middle East and think "hey people seem to be getting on a bit too well right now".


----------



## Reaper

If someones gf hangs out with a boy they don't like it and they beat up their girlfriend and blow up the boy's family .... I guess that bitch shouldn't have hung out with that boy!

Fuck that bitch. She should have stayed home!

I swear sometimes some of you sound exactly like the extremists themselves.


----------



## Art Vandaley

@Merry Reaper

So what is the non identity politics reason for supporting this?

What does it achieve that you support other than annoying people you don't like?


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> @Merry Reaper
> 
> So what is the non identity politics reason for supporting this?
> 
> What does it achieve that you support other than annoying people you don't like?


Spare me the cute BS. 

Basically, you guys openly admitted to having such low expectations of Muslims that you think that they would go and become violent and react violently. 

Either Muslims are peaceful people and Islam is a religion of peace and nothing is going to happen because they can't be provoked into violence and Islam has nothing to do with violent Muslims, or Islam is a religion of violence and Muslims are violent thugs. 

Or some violent people that aren't "real" muslims are "muslims" but still perceive this as a slight because even though they're not "real muslims" they see this as a slight to the religion that they don't belong to so they'll be provoked to violence because this is a slight to their not-muslim beliefs because they're not Muslims. But if they're not real muslims and are just terrorists, then why would they be provoked by a country moving their embassy. 

So I guess, they are Muslims and they do see this as a slight to their religion, therefore they act violently in the name of their religion that allows them to be violent - so that means muslims can be easily provoked into acts of violence. 

Didn't really think this through, did you? 










The best part is, you don't even understand the inherent inconsistent opinion that you hold.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Merry Reaper said:


> Alkomesh2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> @Merry Reaper
> 
> So what is the non identity politics reason for supporting this?
> 
> What does it achieve that you support other than annoying people you don't like?
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me the cute BS.
> 
> Basically, you guys openly admitted to having such low expectations of Muslims that you think that they would go and become violent and react violently.
> 
> Either Muslims are peaceful people and Islam is a religion of peace and nothing is going to happen because they can't be provoked into violence and Islam has nothing to do with violent Muslims, or Islam is a religion of violence and Muslims are violent thugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best part is, you don't even understand the inherent inconsistent opinion that you hold.
Click to expand...

Ok...

So I'm gonna ignore your random strawman attacks, I never said or implied those any of those things, and repeat my question. 

What is your reason for supporting this other than it annoys people you don't like?


----------



## Reaper

:lmao Talk about back-peddling. 



Alkomesh2 said:


> The Jerusalem thing is dumb, unnecessary, *needlessly provocative* and likely to *inflame tensions *in a region that really doesn't need *more tensions*.
> 
> I mean who other than Trump could look at the Middle East and think "hey people seem to be getting on a bit too well right now".


But if Muslims were a peaceful people and they reacted peacefully to things that don't concern them, why would this "needlessly inflame tensions"? It's literally just one Country moving their Embassy to a Nation's Capital. 

But you and everyone else has been PROGRAMMED to EXPECT a violent Muslim response (violent with regards to verbal rhetoric as well) to everything, which is why you immediately BELIEVE that this will "inflame tensions"

They've trained their western cohorts so well that now even people who have NOTHING at all to do with the situation know exactly what to expect so they don't do what the Muslims don't want them to do because we all know just how calmly and peacefully Muslims handle everything :lmao

The religion of peace makes everyone afraid. And makes the world live in fear. 

Greatest way to achieve peace I suppose is to subjugate and force people into impotence so they can be easily governed. So I suppose if there's no opposition to how the Muslims want things to be through killing and murdering everyone and each other, it does kind of achieve peace.

It's like I'm in Pakistan again and I'm listening to Mullahs give their Friday Sermons. "Don't provoke the beast because Allah will strike you down if you do anything against his will!"


----------



## Art Vandaley

Merry Reaper said:


> Talk about back-peddling.
> 
> 
> 
> Alkomesh2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jerusalem thing is dumb, unnecessary, *needlessly provocative* and likely to *inflame tensions *in a region that really doesn't need *more tensions*.
> 
> I mean who other than Trump could look at the Middle East and think "hey people seem to be getting on a bit too well right now".
> 
> 
> 
> But if Muslims were a peaceful people and they reacted peacefully to things that don't concern them, why would this "needlessly inflame tensions"? It's literally just one Country moving their Embassy to a Nation's Capital.
> 
> But you and everyone else has been PROGRAMMED to EXPECT a violent Muslim response (violent with regards to verbal rhetoric as well) to everything, which is why you immediately BELIEVE that this will "inflame tensions"
> 
> They've trained their western cohorts so well that now even people who have NOTHING at all to do with the situation know exactly what to expect so they don't do what the Muslims don't want them to do because we all know just how calmly and peacefully Muslims handle everything
Click to expand...

It needlessly inflames tensions because Jerusalem is in disputed territory and Tel Aviv isn't. 

Back peddle? I did nothing but repeat my question???

A question you still haven't answered.

Why do you support this other than it annoys people you don't like?


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> It needlessly inflames tensions because *Jerusalem is in disputed territory* and Tel Aviv isn't.


No it isn't. It's not even officially recognized by anyone except the Muslim block in the UN as disputed territory. 

Once the Muslims attacked and lost the wars it rendered the 1947 British agreement absolutely obsolete and irrelevant. Israel had to extend its borders or it would continue to face retaliation and strikes against it. And despite it, it is still consistently attacked by Muslim terorrists. 

Any and every action by the Muslims near that region has rendered their claims to any territory completely bogus. Especially considering their only solution is the expulsion of Jews from that region. They had a chance to implement the two nation split a long time ago, but they have repeatedly given that up because they want ALL Jews to be expelled from that region --- just as they have expelled Jews, Christians and other minorities from EVERY single nation that they have a majority in. Pakistan has 1 jew left. One. If Israel is to ever fall to the arabs, it will bring about another holocaust and therefore their militant attitude. 

Then they've spent decades trying to kill Jews in Israel as well as training terrorists all over the world (Al Qaeda, Taliba, ISIS) ALL Sunni terrorists received their training from Palestinian and Jordanian backed terror groups - and still believe that they have some sort of dominion over that land. They not only LOST the land, but before even the 40's Jeruselam was an abandoned city in ruins which was only visited by Christian and Jew pilgrims because the Muslims since DURING Mohammad's time were ORDERED to pray facing the Kaaba in Mecca. Jerusalem has NO value to Muslims. Whatever value they attribute to it today is based on wahabist revisionism. It's fascinating how deep the wahabist propaganda runs. 




> Back peddle? I did nothing but repeat my question???


This is a leading question. 



> A question you still haven't answered.
> 
> Why do you support this other than it annoys people you don't like?


Because Jerusalem was won by the Israelis fair and square in a legitimate war and they get to keep it because they want to keep it and they get to claim it to be their capital if they want. Claiming that it's "disputed" just because that's what the Muslims believe :lmao 

Maybe the Muslims should return Constantinople to the Christians. They should return Lahore to the Hindus. They should return all the captured territory over the last 1500 years to their rightful owners. You should abandon Australia and leave it to the aborigines :lmao In your world, no one has the right to stake a claim to anything they ever won from someone else. Marked territories are arbitrary and based on beliefs not facts :lmao 

Arab nations tried to destroy the Israelis twice and they failed. Now they're engaged in a massive propaganda war and they've got people like you fish-hooked for the ride.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Largely fair enough.

I don't accept right by conquest in the 20th century, but I can see why if you did you would support this. 

I have Israeli relatives and I've been there 4 times, most recently about a month ago, not sure why you'd assume I'm rabidly anti israel.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Largely fair enough.
> 
> I don't accept right by conquest *in the 20th century*, but I can see why if you did you would support this.


I think that's an arbitrary drawn line. Conquest is conquest and the world will always be reshaped by it. 



> I have Israeli relatives and I've been there 4 times, most recently about a month ago, not sure why you'd assume I'm rabidly anti israel.


Now that you've claimed it, I don't think you are - but you were spouting stuff that is eerily close to the Muslim point of view and that's a dangerous argument to uphold mainly because it comes from a position of extreme prejudice against Jews and Israel in particular. If muslims are being provoked by this, let them. They get provoked by everything. They even get provoked by a woman wearing jeans and they have to murder her in response. I was reading this story the other day of an honor killing in Australia of all places. You should be worried about that stuff imo more. 

Somewhere between 60% to 100% of ALL muslims in the Arab / Middle eastern and South Asian world (even as far as Indonesia) hold extremely negative views of Jews therefore their POV is biased and should be summarily rejected based on their innate antisemitism. 

Israel has to be fortified. The Jews deserve whatever territory they occupy and if they extend outwards to try to gain more territory in response to arab aggression, then so be it. 

I won't support a war they instigate, but if they gain even more territory in any war against any arab aggressor, then it's theirs to keep.


----------



## birthday_massacre

And its already starting

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/07/middleeast/trump-jerusalem-response-intl/index.html

Protests break out following Trump's Jerusalem decision

Jerusalem (CNN)Dozens of people were injured in the West Bank on Thursday as Palestinian protesters clashed with Israeli security forces over US President Donald Trump's controversial decision on Jerusalem.

Trump on Wednesday announced that the US recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and would move its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, drawing condemnation from world leaders and sending shock waves through the Muslim world.
Both Israelis and Palestinians claim the holy city as their capital.

The Red Crescent said 49 people were injured in the protests, in which Israeli security officers fired what appeared to be rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannon at demonstrators in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Ramallah, as well as other towns. Protesters in Ramallah were seen setting tires alight and throwing rocks at armed Israeli officers.

A 27-year-old, Abdalla, showed CNN reporters a rubber bullet injury on his right forearm.
Speaking in Jerusalem, Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld told CNN that protests there were relatively small and had been largely contained.
"We've dealt with much larger, both in terms of number, scale, size, seriousness of incidents."

Hamas calls for Palestinian uprising
As the protests took place, the leader of the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas called for a new "intifada," or uprising, Thursday.
Ismail Haniyeh said in Gaza that Israel's policies supported by the United States "could only be confronted by a renewed intifada against the occupation" and he described the US-Israeli alliance "satanic."
"Palestine will not be divided and the whole of Palestine and the whole of Jerusalem are the property of the Palestinian people," he said.
"It is a declaration of war against our Palestinian people in their holiest of holy places of the Christians and Muslims."
He added that the announcement had left the decades-long peace process "buried foreve

Leaders of the Iran-backed Palestinian Islamic Jihad group, Nafeth Azzam and Ahmed al-Batsh, said they were also ready for a new armed struggle. They called on the governing Palestinian Authority to stop all security coordination with Israel, to withdraw its recognition of Israel and to declare an end to the Oslo agreements, which are the basis of peace negotiations.
Trump's announcement bucked decades of US foreign policy and raised fears that the peace process, already stalled, could now be finished.
Trump had promised to make the policy change during the election campaign period, saying on Wednesday the US was acknowledging "the obvious."
"This is nothing more or less than a recognition of reality. It is also the right thing to do," he said.


Muslim world reacts
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a conference of foreign diplomats in Jerusalem on Thursday, saying that other countries had begun pledging to also recognize the city as Israel's capital.
"Welcome to Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, if you weren't aware of it. We have been aware of this for 3,000 years," he said at the event.
But key US allies, including the UK and Australia, made clear they did not plan to follow Trump's lead on the issue.

sraeli forces keep watch as Palestinians protest near a checkpoint in Bethlehem on Thursday.
Outside the US embassy in the Jordanian capital, Amman, around 200 people gathered to protest the US policy on Jerusalem. One woman held a poster of Trump with a snake for a tongue and a message reading: "America is the plague and the plague is America."
Leaders of Muslim-majority nations were quick to lambast Trump's remarks.
The announcement was like "pulling the pin of a grenade," Turkey's Prime Minister Binali Yildrim said, according to the country's state broadcaster TRT Haber.
"It is a powerful blow to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. This decision opened Pandora's box in the region," Yildirim added in a written statement.

The Pakistani foreign ministry expressed its "strong opposition and condemnation" of the announcement, in a statement on Wednesday.
"Pakistan shares the international outrage and is deeply concerned over the implications of this decision for international peace and security, especially in the Middle East. Pakistan calls upon the UN Security Council to take cognizance of this situation and take steps in accordance with the UN Charter," the statement said.
The Iraqi foreign ministry summoned the US ambassador in order to present him with a memorandum "protesting the US president's decision regarding Jerusalem."
Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said the announcement marked a "dangerous decision" that would benefit radicals in the region.
In Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, President Joko Widodo said he had asked his foreign minister to summon the US ambassador over the issue.
"Indonesia strongly condemns the United States' unilateral recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and asks the United States to reconsider its decision," Widodo said. "This could destabilize global security."
And Malaysia's foreign ministry called it a "miscarriage of justice."
"Recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, ignores the reality on the ground, endorses Israel repressive policies, violates Palestinian human rights and contravenes international law," it said in a statement.
CNN's Jamie Tarabay, Gul Tuysuz, Schams Elwazer, Katie Polglase and Lindsay Isaac contributed to this report


----------



## Stinger Fan

If you honestly think Trump is to blame for "Palestinians" for attacking Jews, you have to be a fool.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> If you honestly think Trump is to blame for "Palestinians" for attacking Jews, you have to be a fool.


So this protest wouldn't have happened if Trump didn't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital? 

Trump making Jerusalem the capital was only going to make things worse, and this is already showing that.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> So this protest wouldn't have happened if Trump didn't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital?
> 
> Trump making Jerusalem the capital was only going to make things worse, and this is already showing that.


There's literally anti-Israel protests all the time in Israel. There are pro Hamas and ISIS protests in Israel. They'd find another reason to protest and attack Israeli Jews because its what "Palestinians" have been doing for literal decades. Just because you hate Trump doesn't mean the very real historical attacks by "Palestinians" didn't happen or that future attacks would have been avoided. It's extremely naive to believe there wouldn't be any future attacks, they just used this as an excuse to justify it


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> There's literally anti-Israel protests all the time in Israel. There are pro Hamas and ISIS protests in Israel. They'd find another reason to protest and attack Israeli Jews because its what "Palestinians" have been doing for literal decades. Just because you hate Trump doesn't mean the very real historical attacks by "Palestinians" didn't happen or that future attacks would have been avoided. It's extremely naive to believe there wouldn't be any future attacks, they just used this as an excuse to justify it


If you don't think Trump making Jerusalem the capital was only going to escalate things like everyone predicted, would happen before he did it, then you are even more clueless than I thought. There is a reason why everyone told Trump it was a bad idea. But of course, Trump doesn't listen because he is an utter disaster.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> If you don't think Trump making Jerusalem the capital was only going to escalate things like everyone predicted, would happen before he did it, then you are even more clueless than I thought. There is a reason why everyone told Trump it was a bad idea. But of course, Trump doesn't listen because he is an utter disaster.


Trump didn't make Jerusalem the capital , he enforced a bill that was written in the 90s that was largely ignored until now. Your views are extremely short sighted and completely ignores not only the bill but the very real history of violence and protests from "Palestinians" that had nothing to do with Trump in the past or in the future. 

This strengthens USA and Israeli relations, it was the right thing to do for a country that largely felt abandoned by the Obama administration . Whining about protests as I said, is short sighted


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> Trump didn't make Jerusalem the capital , he enforced a bill that was written in the 90s that was largely ignored until now. Your views are extremely short sighted and completely ignores not only the bill but the very real history of violence and protests from "Palestinians" that had nothing to do with Trump in the past or in the future.
> 
> This strengthens USA and Israeli relations, it was the right thing to do for a country that largely felt abandoned by the Obama administration . Whining about protests as I said, is short sighted


yeah view is short-sighted when the rest of the world leaders agree with it except Trump, who just did it because it was opposite what Obama did


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> yeah view is short-sighted when the rest of the world leaders agree with it except Trump, who just did it because it was opposite what Obama did


You mean like the leaders with large Muslim populations that have dealt with increasing terrorist attacks like England, France and Germany? I can't imagine why they'd oppose this :hmm: 

Trump's son in law is Jewish and comes from a family of Holocaust survivors but sure it was only because of Obama despite Bush and Clinton delaying the bill :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> You mean like the leaders with large Muslim populations that have dealt with increasing terrorist attacks like England, France and Germany? I can't imagine why they'd oppose this :hmm:
> 
> Trump's son in law is Jewish and comes from a family of Holocaust survivors but sure it was only because of Obama despite Bush and Clinton delaying the bill :lol


So did Trump make things better or worse by announcing the US would recognize Jerusalem as the capital?


----------



## CamillePunk

The End of Drumpf

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/363387-no-one-is-above-the-law



> No one is above the law
> BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 12/05/17 04:00 PM EST
> 
> Our Constitutional system of separation of power and checks and balances provides that the members of each branch of government be protected from legal consequences for performing their constitutionally mandated functions. Thus, Article I of the Constitution explicitly immunizes from arrest all members of Congress “during their attendance at the Sessions of their respected Houses, and in going to and returning from the same.” This immunity, though limited, protects legislators from arrest for actions for which ordinary citizens could be prosecuted. This limited immunity does not put them “above” the law, since it is the law itself that provides the immunity.
> 
> Judges, too, are immunized from not only from criminal prosecution, but also from civil liability for actions taken within their judicial authority. This is how the Supreme Court put it in Stump v. Sparkman (in which a young woman sued the circuit judge who had tricked her into being involuntarily sterilized by misinforming her that it was an appendectomy!): “The governing principle of law is well established, and is not questioned by the parties. As early as 1872, the court recognized that it was ‘a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, [should] be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself.’”
> 
> 
> Prosecutors, too, have limited immunity for actions undertaken within their prosecutorial authority. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the president — as head of the executive branch — cannot be prosecuted for acts that he or she is authorized to take pursuant to Article II of the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution explicitly allocated to the resident the authority to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
> This grant of power authorizes the president to decide who should be investigated and prosecuted and who not. presidents including John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Barack Obama have exercised this authority by instructing the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute individuals or groups — and not to investigate or prosecute others. Some have exercised that authority wisely, others not. But none have committed the crime of obstruction of justice by trying to influence prosecutorial decisions.
> 
> President George H.W. Bush stopped an investigation in its tracks — an investigation that could have pointed directly to criminal action by him during the Iran Contra scandal — when he pardoned Casper Weinberger and five others crucial witnesses that could have pointed the finger at him. The special prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, was furious at this decision, claiming that it was intended to, and did, stop the investigation. Yet no one suggested that President Bush be charged with obstruction of justice, because in pardoning those witnesses he was exercising his constitutional authority under Article II.
> 
> President Andrew Johnson was impeached for firing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton in violation of a statute passed by Congress. He was acquitted by the Senate, and the Supreme Court subsequently declared the statute unconstitutional as impinging on the president’s power to fire members of the executive branch.
> 
> Even former director of the FBI James Comey said that the president had the authority to fire him, for any reason or no reason. Now President Trump’s political opponents are seeking to have the special counsel psychoanalyze the president to determine whether his motives were pure, mixed or corrupt. Nearly all presidential actions are motivated by mixed intentions, ranging from self-aggrandizement to political benefit to partisan advantage and to patriotism. If a president or a senator or a judge acts within his or her constitutional authority their motives should not be probed by prosecutors even if they suspect unsavory ones.
> 
> If a president’s actions, on the other hand, are unlawful — as President Nixon’s clearly were when he told subordinates to lie to the FBI and pay hush money — good intentions (they are hard to imagine in Nixon’s case) would not be a defense. For purposes of the criminal law, presidents must be judged by the lawfulness or unlawfulness of their acts, not by the motivations that underlay them.
> 
> My argument, unlike that of President Trump’s lawyer, is not that a president can never be charged with obstruction of justice. It is that he cannot be charged with that crime if his only actions were constitutionally authorized. This distinction is central to our system of separation of powers and checks and balances.


----------



## Laughable Chimp

Trump would and has done shit just to reverse what Obama did without much regard to the actual consequences to his actions. I'm not saying whether what Trump did was right or not, but I can sure as hell guess why he did it if Obama did the opposite during his time.


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump knowingly provoked violence and unrest for what? Yes the blame for committing violence is on the perpetrators but Trump just pulled a daft move that could have massive repercussions.


----------



## virus21




----------



## birthday_massacre

*Arizona GOP Rep. Trent Franks to resign following sexual harassment claim*

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/07/politics/trent-franks-resigns/index.html

(CNN)Arizona Republican Rep. Trent Franks announced in a statement Thursday night he will resign from Congress at the end of January, after the House Ethics Committee said it would investigate allegations against him of sexual harassment.

The House Ethics Committee announced earlier Thursday that it will investigate Franks to determine if he engaged in "conduct that constitutes sexual harassment and/or retaliation for opposing sexual harassment."
In his statement, Franks acknowledged he made staffers "uncomfortable" and that he discussed fertility issues and surrogacy with two female staffers, but denied having ever "physically intimidated, coerced, or had, or attempted to have, any sexual contact with any member of my congressional staff."
"But in the midst of this current cultural and media climate, I am deeply convinced I would be unable to complete a fair House Ethics investigation before distorted and sensationalized versions of this story would put me, my family, my staff, and my noble colleagues in the House of Representatives through hyperbolized public excoriation," Franks said in his statement. "Rather than allow a sensationalized trial by media damage those things I love most, this morning I notified House leadership that I will be leaving Congress as of January 31st, 2018."
On Thursday evening, a group of conservative House Republicans gathered around Franks on the floor and prayed with him.
close dialog


Franks, a self-styled "conservative, Reagan Republican," joined Congress in the early 2000s and has hewed conservative on a range of issues in his time there, with a particular focus on anti-abortion issues.
He supported President Donald Trump last year, even in the wake of the "Access Hollywood" tape, by saying Trump's words, while bad, did not compare to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's support of abortion rights.
Franks was involved in Trump's efforts to oust Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake before Flake announced his retirement. Franks, state Treasurer Jeff DeWit and former state GOP Chairman Robert Graham huddled privately backstage with Trump before the President's raucous Phoenix rally earlier this year.
Franks sits on the House Judiciary Committee and the House Armed Services Committee.
Franks drew national ire in 2013 when he said, "Incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low" -- a remark he later said was taken out of context.
Frank's northwest Phoenix suburb is reliably Republican, having gone to Trump and 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, both of whom won the district by more than 20 percentage points, and Franks easily won re-election last year.
This story has updated and will continue to update with additional developments.
CNN's Eric Bradner and Phil Mattingly contributed to this report.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Most of the leftists who post here would be the first to kowtow to Muslim aggression. Bunch of pantywaists. "Trump just caused unrest in the region for acknowledging something that has been a fact for literally decades you guyz!!! The Muslims are gonna blow stuff up, you guyz!!! We gotta give the Muslims what they want, you guyz!!! They're dangerous, you guyz!!!! I'm so scared of the Muslims."

And they call us islamophobic. LOLOLOL


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Most of the leftists who post here would be the first to kowtow to Muslim aggression. Bunch of pantywaists. "Trump just caused unrest in the region for acknowledging something that has been a fact for literally decades you guyz!!! The Muslims are gonna blow stuff up, you guyz!!! We gotta give the Muslims what they want, you guyz!!! They're dangerous, you guyz!!!! I'm so scared of the Muslims."
> 
> And they call us islamophobic. LOLOLOL


Trump is the one who made it worse, we are already seeing the effect of his actions. His own people like Tillerson and Mattis told him it was not a good idea and would be a huge mistake. Trump is not even listening to his intel.

But its good to know Trump supporters are ok with him strengthening the radicals as long as it pisses off liberals and the rest of the world.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is the one who made it worse, we are already seeing the effect of his actions. His own people like Tillerson and Mattis told him it was not a good idea and would be a huge mistake. Trump is not even listening to his intel.
> 
> But its good to know Trump supporters are ok with him strengthening the radicals as long as it pisses off liberals and the rest of the world.


Made what worse? Upsetting people that were already upset? Who gives a shit about how the Palestinians feel about this? They don't have any rights to the land. And why would it piss off liberals? They don't own the land either. It really looks like a bunch of crybabies crying over something that doesn't concern them.


----------



## virus21

> In Washington, the ostensible story is rarely the real story. We know, for example, that former President Clinton engineered a meeting with President Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, on the tarmac of the Phoenix Airport on June 27, 2016.
> That’s the official story, replete with the charming and intentionally disarming detail that all they talked about was their grandchildren. It was just coincidental, don’t you know, that at the time the FBI was looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a “personal” email server to send, receive and store classified information.
> And it was also simply coincidental that just a few days later, the director of the FBI – who served under Attorney General Lynch – announced that he wouldn’t recommend a prosecution of Hillary Clinton.
> Richard Nixon must be rolling over in his grave.
> What we haven’t known, until now, is that a frantic scramble erupted in the halls of the FBI to cover up this meeting.
> What we haven’t known, until now, is that a frantic scramble erupted in the halls of the FBI to cover up this meeting. In fact, the FBI turned its sharp light not on the scandalous meeting between the attorney general and Bill Clinton – but rather on one of the whistleblowers who got the word out.
> The organization I head, Judicial Watch, asked the FBI on July 7, 2016, for any records that might pertain to the infamous tarmac meeting. We had to sue after we were ignored by the agency.
> Then the FBI told us flat-out that it couldn’t find any records. And we now know that was flat-out untrue. Because, in responding to another one of our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits, the Justice Department gave us heavily redacted documents that showed there were additional documents tucked away at the FBI headquarters.
> If not for Judicial Watch's lawsuits these documents would still be hidden today.
> Because of the revelation in our other lawsuit, the FBI – without our knowledge—"reopened" our FOIA request. The agency supposedly found about 30 pages of information, which it needed six weeks to review. The FBI finally gave them to us late Thursday.
> Now we know why the FBI played shell games. The documents show that FBI officials were concerned solely about the leaking of details of the tarmac meeting. None of the documents show top agency officials cared one whit about the propriety of the meeting itself, but only about who blew the whistle on the covert tête-à-tête.
> In one email, an FBI official writes “we need to find that guy.” And in another we learn that the Phoenix FBI office was contacted “in an attempt to stem any further damage.” An FBI official working on Lynch’s security detail even goes so far as to suggest non-disclosure agreements to keep the full facts from coming forth.
> No wonder the FBI didn’t turn these documents over until we caught it red-handed, hiding and lying about them.
> Simply put, the FBI appears to be fully complicit in a cover-up that attempted to influence a presidential election for a favored candidate – Hillary Clinton. And the truth was trampled on a Phoenix tarmac.


http://archive.is/6L17q#selection-1369.0-1459.206


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Trump is going to have a medical evaluation. No doubt the results will show that not only does he have a clean bill of health, but also that he's part Celestial.

I expect the Dems to fully melt down as their "25th Amendment" impeachment plans will fizzle out like so many of their other dreams over the last year.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Trump is going to have a medical evaluation. No doubt the results will show that not only does he have a clean bill of health, but also that he's part Celestial.
> 
> I expect the Dems to fully melt down as their "25th Amendment" impeachment plans will fizzle out like so many of their other dreams over the last year.


You mean this clown he calls his doctor?










The same Dr who wrote his last health letter in just 5 minutes?


----------



## Laughable Chimp

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Made what worse? Upsetting people that were already upset? Who gives a shit about how the Palestinians feel about this? They don't have any rights to the land. And why would it piss off liberals? They don't own the land either. It really looks like a bunch of crybabies crying over something that doesn't concern them.


This honestly make you sound like a blind supporter.

Its called having tact and using diplomacy. When you're the President of the United States, your words can hold a lot of power. Yes, further upsetting people who are already upset is a huge problem because now, they might cause even more damage and death. 

Its not about knowing whether you're saying is right or wrong, but when your words hold that much power, you have to be responsible enough to know what and how to say something. Its literally one of the first things you expect from the job. From what you're saying, it sounds like you think Trump and America is so above the conflict that you think Trump can say anything no matter how severe the consequences to these people.


----------



## Reaper

Laughable Chimp said:


> This honestly make you sound like a blind supporter.
> 
> Its called having tact and using diplomacy. When you're the President of the United States, your words can hold a lot of power. Yes, further upsetting people who are already upset is a huge problem because now, they might cause even more damage and death.
> 
> Its not about knowing whether you're saying is right or wrong, but when your words hold that much power, you have to be responsible enough to know what and how to say something. Its literally one of the first things you expect from the job. From what you're saying, it sounds like you think Trump and America is so above the conflict that you think Trump can say anything no matter how severe the consequences to these people.


Actually it's not diplomacy to not do something under the threat of violence. It's called giving in to the terrorists.

I know people who live near Muslims live in fear of Muslim violence and have been programmed to believe that by keeping them appeased they're saving their own lives but that's no way to live. Its called Stockholm syndrome. 

The world needs to fight against Muslim terrorism and free minds like yours instead of enable the reality it occupies as a consequence of repeated abuse of abusers. It's a wonderful feeling to feel free 

Also.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Laughable Chimp said:


> This honestly make you sound like a blind supporter.
> 
> Its called having tact and using diplomacy. When you're the President of the United States, your words can hold a lot of power. Yes, further upsetting people who are already upset is a huge problem because now, they might cause even more damage and death.
> 
> Its not about knowing whether you're saying is right or wrong, but when your words hold that much power, you have to be responsible enough to know what and how to say something. Its literally one of the first things you expect from the job. From what you're saying, it sounds like you think Trump and America is so above the conflict that you think Trump can say anything no matter how severe the consequences to these people.


You're right, his words do have power, and he's using his words to tell the terrorists who are trying to push the Israelis off of their land that they're wrong and we aren't afraid of you. That's what you do to a bully. You don't cower in fear, afraid of what they might do to you. You stand up and you tell them to fuck off. That's what Trump did that all Presidents before him were too afraid to do.

The Palestinians aren't interested in peace, as their solution is to drive the Jews out of Israel, and Hamas is already actively propagating terrorism against Israel, that is not a new reality. Trump standing at the side of Israel and showing them respect doesn't change anything, except it improves the US's relationship that Obama destroyed.

And you're damn right I'm a loyal supporter of Israel's right to claim their own land as their own land because it's their own land, but blind I am not. Your response, if anything, proves how blind you are to what is actually going on in the region.


----------



## Reaper

Obama's policy of appeasement didn't stop the ISIS from creating mass graves across the middle East.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Merry Reaper said:


> Obama's policy of appeasement didn't stop the ISIS from creating mass graves across the middle East.


Nor did it stop the Iranians from working on creating nuclear weapons. The same country who's Ayatollah, just a mere 5 years ago stated emphatically, "Kill all Jews and annihilate Israel!"


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Nor did it stop the Iranians from working on creating nuclear weapons. The same country that doesn't acknowledge Israel's existence and who's Ayatollah, just a mere 5 years ago stated emphatically, "Kill all Jews and annihilate Israel!"


I also don't understand the but muh Obama bullshit for this considering that it passed on a 90-0 unanimous vote.

Apparently all Democrats are also doing this to spite Obama too according to this logic :mj4

I don't know how something that passes through the Senate on a unanimous vote has anything to do with Trump doing something to spite Obama. It's such a terrible conclusion.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Merry Reaper said:


> I also don't understand the but muh Obama bullshit for this considering that it passed on a 90-0 unanimous vote.
> 
> Apparently all Democrats are also doing this to spite Obama too according to this logic :mj4
> 
> I don't know how something that passes through the Senate on a unanimous vote has anything to do with Trump doing something to spite Obama. It's such a terrible conclusion.


Well, when it comes to Trump, the Dems and terrible conclusions go hand in hand. 

The left is incapable of thinking rationally, in regards to anything related to Trump. What America did to the left, by voting in Trump as President, is the biggest troll job of all time. Nothing will ever beat it.

Oh, and what about Mueller's team getting exposed? One guy is completely anti-Trump and he led the Clinton investigation, and then another guy didn't disclose his connection to Fusion GPS and Steele. You really can't make this stuff up. We currently live in the best time line.


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Well, when it comes to Trump, the Dems and terrible conclusions go hand in hand.
> 
> The left is incapable of thinking rationally, in regards to anything related to Trump. What America did to the left, by voting in Trump as President, is the biggest troll job of all time. Nothing will ever beat it.
> 
> Oh, and what about Mueller's team getting exposed? One guy is completely anti-Trump and he led the Clinton investigation, and then another guy didn't disclose his connection to Fusion GPS and Steele. You really can't make this stuff up. We currently live in the best time line.


Honestly, I've completely disconnected from the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory. It's now entered Alex Jones territory of mega conspiracies and that's where I disconnect from things lol. 

We should just hand over the FBI to Alex Jones so we can find out about the real stuff. Are we really being ruled by Reptilian oberlords? Is the earth flat? Did we actually land on the moon? Is the government creating mass incarceration camps? Is our water being poisoned with chemi-kills? Are planes lacing the sky with chem trails? That's what the public really wants to know 

At least to me, Trump's election has proven that the federal government is an unnecessary and bloated institution. It should be reduced to a ceremonial role with the head of state simply being a figurehead.


----------



## deepelemblues

Interesting that we must obliterate Nazis in America with gleeful abandon... but when it comes to the Muslims in the Middle East, who are indistinguishable from Nazis when it comes to Jew-hating, fascist romanticism (we are a great, superior people being held down by backstabbing greedy filthy Jews and their Western puppets), we must lick their balls lest they get angry at us :hmmm


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Merry Reaper said:


> Honestly, I've completely disconnected from the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory. It's now entered Alex Jones territory of mega conspiracies and that's where I disconnect from things lol.
> 
> We should just hand over the FBI to Alex Jones so we can find out about the real stuff. Are we really being ruled by Reptilian oberlords? Is the earth flat? Did we actually land on the moon? Is the government creating mass incarceration camps? Is our water being poisoned with chemi-kills? Are planes lacing the sky with chem trails? That's what the public really wants to know
> 
> At least to me, Trump's election has proven that the federal government is an unnecessary and bloated institution. It should be reduced to a ceremonial role with the head of state simply being a figurehead.


King Trump! I can live with that.

Speaking of Alex Jones, you catch the news cycle about him explaining this wonderful story arc for the first three Star Wars films?

Alex Jones at his best.


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> King Trump! I can live with that.
> 
> Speaking of Alex Jones, you catch the news cycle about him explaining this wonderful story arc for the first three Star Wars films?
> 
> Alex Jones at his best.


I feel like I have seen it. I don't remember it though. 

Meanwhile, watch Stefan Molyneux's interpretation (he calls it review) of Stranger Things. I lolled several times.


----------



## deepelemblues

Mueller's team and the top level of the FBI and DOJ hierarchies in general reads more and more like a who's-who of Clinton stooges with each new revelation.


----------



## Reaper

Yes BBC please continue to brainwash your audience about things like sexual harrassment etcetc when you promote content like this.










Morons.


----------



## DOPA

Interesting time to be alive when a simple announcement such as Jerusalem is the capital of Israel would cause such mad hysteria and outrage. Of course the historical significance of it is why there has been a lot of controversy.

I'm almost embarrassed to admit in terms of recent history, I don't as much about the Israel/Palestine conflict over Jerusalem and the land encompassing it as much as I should do. I'm rather neutral on the issue with the exception of being of course very opposed to Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamic terrorist groups in the region. Honestly, I'm really sick of the US and the UK giving foreign aid to countries that don't need it. Stay out of the politics of the damn region. Stop giving aid to Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc. Add India and China to that list too. They don't need it.

This announcement by Trump though historic for a president to do so isn't really new in terms of America's stance on Israel. As far back as 1995 during Bill Clinton's administration, congress passed a notion which recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. So Trump is really just using that as the basis of his announcement. Was it the right thing to do?

I get the arguments that certain groups in the region if weren't Trump's announcement, it would be something else which would provoke them to attack in the region. I don't really see that as an argument though, if there is a fire burning you don't pour more gasoline on it to inflame it. I think it was a particularly dumb decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Talk about putting a target on your back and putting the lives of those who work at the Embassy at risk.

This does absolutely nothing to promote stability and work towards peace in the region. And I say this as someone not who believes it's all Trump's fault for these newest attacks occurring but someone who knew that Islamic terrorists would use this very talking point to commit more violence. You've just given them all the more reason to hurt, maim and kill innocent civilians. Politically and diplomatically it was a really bad move. 

By the way, I don't buy the Obama appeasement angle on ISIS because it was clear in terms of Syria for example that he was more concerned with toppling Assad and arming other Islamic terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and Al Nusra than he was defeating ISIS. It was clear the Obama administration was more interested in opposing Russia and it's allies than dealing with ISIS who were brutalizing civilians in the region, using the migrant crisis to sneak fighters back into Europe and helping to co-ordinate terrorist attacks in Europe. No, it wasn't appeasement,* it was worse than that.* He was unknowingly helping them in the region with his stupid goal of continuing Bush's legacy of toppling secular dictators.


----------



## Reaper

@Christmas DOPAmine - I agree with your last line. Fair point. 

It would make sense considering that the new American administration was able to destroy them in 11 months of taking office meanwhile under Obama is obviously went from strength to strength to strength. 

BTW, Pakistan in 2013 decided that it was a good time to negotiate with the Taliban. Everyone was ready to even offer them their own land and everything. Taliban responded by killing 500 people after the ceasefire was announced and playing football with children's heads. 

You don't negotiate with terrorists. They don't need any excuse to kill you because their end goal is to kill you. It's us normal, non-violent people that assume that things we do or don't do will result in a change in the terrorists' behavior because we're rational. They're not. We need to stop projecting our sense of rationality and morality to them. They just want to kill. Period. They have no rational desires with regards to Israel. They want the state to die and all the Jews to disappear from the region. They also see concessions as a show of weakness and you give them a penny they demand a pound. 

Read up on Black September and Jordan's expulsion of Palestinian terrorists from their cities.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September

You exterminate terrorists with EXTREME prejudice. And that's the only thing that Israel and America need to do at this point. There is no other solution.

---

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/trump-impeachment-vote-fail-282888



> *Trump impeachment vote fails overwhelmingly
> The measure drew the support of 58 House Democrats.
> *
> By KYLE CHENEY 12/06/2017 02:15 PM EST
> 
> House Democrats overwhelmingly joined Republicans on Wednesday to defeat an attempt to impeach President Donald Trump. But 58 Democrats supported the bid to consider impeachment over the objections of House Democratic leaders, who viewed the measure as a distraction in a Republican-controlled Congress.
> 
> The motion to sideline the measure — killing the effort — was approved 364-58, with four Democrats voting present.
> 
> The vote was forced by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), who introduced articles of impeachment describing Trump as a bigot who incites hate and has demeaned the presidency.
> 
> "Donald John Trump, by causing such harm to the society of the United States is unfit to be president and warrants impeachment, trial and removal from office," Green said on the House floor as he introduced the articles.
> 
> But Green, a seven-term, Houston-area lawmaker, said his conscience compelled him to push forward with the measure, even though he acknowledged he was unlikely to succeed.
> 
> “Now is not the time to consider articles of impeachment,” Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer said in a joint statement, shortly after Green introduced his articles of impeachment.
> 
> The White House quickly dismissed the effort, labeling Green and his allies "extremists."
> 
> “It’s disappointing that extremists in Congress still refuse to accept the President’s decisive victory in last year’s election," spokesman Raj Shah said in a statement. "Their time would be better spent focusing on tax relief for American families and businesses, and working to fund our troops and veterans through the holiday season rather than threaten a government shutdown.”
> 
> Pelosi and her top allies urged Democrats to help bottle up the measure during a closed-door caucus meeting on Wednesday morning.
> 
> But Green offered the proposal as a so-called privileged motion, a procedural tactic that allows a single member to force a vote. He had flirted with forcing a vote on articles of impeachment in October but backed away amid pressure from Democratic leaders at the time. Republican leaders then moved to "table" the motion, a procedural step to bottle it up indefinitely.
> 
> Green’s articles of impeachment cite Trump’s remarks in the aftermath of a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, as well as his attacks on Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.) and his repeated criticism of NFL players who have protested abuses by police officers by kneeling during the national anthem.
> 
> “Friends, whether we like it or not, we now have a bigot in the White House who incites hatred and hostility,” he wrote in a letter to colleagues on Tuesday.


:move 

The Trump Train isn't going anywhere. Where are all the people who said that Trump "won't last a year!"


----------



## Draykorinee

The fact people think announcing Jerusalem as the capital is a simple announcement is embarrassing. Really embarrassing.

If it was that simple everyone would have done it. I expect better from dopa.

They haven't just said it, it's in writing and they are moving their consulate to Jerusalem, legitimizing the most controversial of all ownership over land in the modern world.

Simple...


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> The fact people think announcing Jerusalem as the capital is a simple announcement is embarrassing. Really embarrassing.
> 
> If it was that simple everyone would have done it. I expect better from dopa.
> 
> They haven't just said it, it's in writing and they are moving their consulate to Jerusalem, legitimizing the most controversial of all ownership over land in the modern world.
> 
> Simple...


Should we give return Syrian and Iraqi territory to ISIS which they gained and are claiming is rightfully theirs? It is currently "disputed territory" after all. ISIS wants everyone else to just die or leave the land for them to rule. This is not so different from what Palestinians are demanding. Should the world recognize ISIS as legitimate? 

There's a reason why I posted what I did about Black September. You need to read that and form your opinion on just how illegitimate anything related to Palestinians and their so-called "independence movement" really is. Jordan as a country accepted and harbored them and they turned against Jordan before they had to be exterminated. They wanted more and more and more. 

*Note: The huge difference in Jew expansion vs any one else's expansion is that the gains were made in a war of self-defence. In the first war of self-defense they did return the territory they gained. It resulted in another war for self-defence in which they gained more territory and now they're rightfully not giving it back because their peace offerings were rejected. 

The world leaders are fucking retarded for not accepting Israel's claim over Jerusalem. Just like the people who post about this in here with little to no knowledge about the entire situation, the same is true of so-called world leaders.


----------



## Draykorinee

Merry Reaper said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact people think announcing Jerusalem as the capital is a simple announcement is embarrassing. Really embarrassing.
> 
> If it was that simple everyone would have done it. I expect better from dopa.
> 
> They haven't just said it, it's in writing and they are moving their consulate to Jerusalem, legitimizing the most controversial of all ownership over land in the modern world.
> 
> Simple...
> 
> 
> 
> Should we give return Syrian and Iraqi territory to ISIS which they gained and are claiming is rightfully theirs? It is currently "disputed territory" after all.
Click to expand...

No. Terrorist organisations aren't legitimate states.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> No. Terrorist organisations aren't legitimate states.


Neither is Palestine and their leaders are terrorists. 

Palestine never existed. The Islamic State is exactly the same and I can imagine 70 years from today our stupid descendants will claim that ISIS is a poor oppressed minority and once an independent Islamic State existed which was butchered by the evil Americans.


----------



## Draykorinee

Merry Reaper said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Terrorist organisations aren't legitimate states.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is Palestine and their leaders are terrorists.
> 
> Palestine never existed. The Islamic State is exactly the same and I can imagine 70 years from today our stupid descendants will claim that ISIS is a poor oppressed minority and once an independent Islamic State existed which was butchered by the evil Americans.
Click to expand...

Palestine is a recognised state now.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Palestine is a recognised state now.


Doesn't matter. The UN is the Islamic Bloc's personal little bitch. It can fuck off. 

I am willing to bet that after 60 years of incessant propaganda, they'll accept IS too and your gandson will justify its existence and "legitimacy" to my grandson on some other forum and claim how Iraqis and Syrians are oppressors.


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> Palestine is a recognised state now.


No it isn't. Not by anyone that matters anyway.

Palestinians are Nazis, Nazis shouldn't have a state.


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is a recognised state now.
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't. Not by anyone that matters anyway.
> 
> Palestinians are Nazis, Nazis shouldn't have a state.
Click to expand...

Don't talk shit mate. Good godwin as well. That's about your level.

End of the day this isn't a simple matter, or a small matter, it's probably one of the most convoluted and dangerous matters in the middle east. That's the point I made. Regardless of whether you acknowledge the legitimacy of Palestine is irrelevant, it's a hotbed of violence and anger.


----------



## Draykorinee

Merry Reaper said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is a recognised state now.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter. The UN is the Islamic Bloc's personal little bitch. It can fuck off.
> 
> I am willing to bet that after 60 years of incessant propaganda, they'll accept IS too and your gandson will justify its existence and "legitimacy" to my grandson on some other forum and claim how Iraqis and Syrians are oppressors.
Click to expand...

Yes, the UN can fuck of indeed. It's a waste of space. Unfortunately it's the only thing we have.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/939173811630481408
The woman Allred paraded turned out to be a false accuser.


----------



## DOPA

draykorinee said:


> The fact people think announcing Jerusalem as the capital is a simple announcement is embarrassing. Really embarrassing.
> 
> If it was that simple everyone would have done it. I expect better from dopa.
> 
> They haven't just said it, it's in writing and they are moving their consulate to Jerusalem, legitimizing the most controversial of all ownership over land in the modern world.
> 
> Simple...


Of course it's not simple in practice and execution......The Israel/Palestinian conflict over the region is probably the most complex in the world and has been for decades. The diplomatic implications are huge.

Bad choice of words on my part.


----------



## Arya Dark

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/939268105418825728


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Someone make a gif putting CNN on Charlie Browns head and Russian collusion narrative tattoo'd on the football. LOL


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Merry Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/939173811630481408
> The woman Allred paraded turned out to be a false accuser.


Guy is still not fit to be running for the job he's running for even if all the stories turn out to be bullshit which is unlikely.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Yes, the UN can fuck of indeed. It's a waste of space. Unfortunately it's the only thing we have.


Having something and needing something are two different things.

We have other 100s of cancers too. Do we need any of them?


----------



## Stinger Fan

Merry Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/939173811630481408
> The woman Allred paraded turned out to be a false accuser.


You know whats really sad? The fact people are going to be more cautious about allegations , especially if they make them at a specific time like around an election. This type of crap only makes victims less likely to come forward


----------



## Reaper

This is a Doug Jones ad.

I get the intention but holy shit that is shoddy execution. It makes it look nothing like what they were going for. In fact the opposite.

https://www.theroot.com/a-racist-flyer-might-cost-doug-jones-the-election-becau-1821065764


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> Don't talk shit mate. Good godwin as well. That's about your level.
> 
> End of the day this isn't a simple matter, or a small matter, it's probably one of the most convoluted and dangerous matters in the middle east. That's the point I made. Regardless of whether you acknowledge the legitimacy of Palestine is irrelevant, it's a hotbed of violence and anger.


Mein Kampf is among the best-selling secular books in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Middle East in general.

Ten years ago it was THE best-selling secular book. Might still be actually. 

Maps of "Palestine" in schools and public buildings in the West Bank and Gaza include everything from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River. No Israel at all.

Palestinians are indoctrinated from birth to hate Jews by public and privately-owned media and the school system with tales of blood libel and every other anti-Semitic canard ever devised.

Last time Muslims controlled East Jerusalem (including the Jewish Quarter of the old city), 34 of 35 synagogues there were destroyed. Jewish graves, some of them thousands of years old, were dug up. The drive to cleanse Jerusalem of any historical connection to Judaism continues, to the point where today it is claimed that the Western Wall was built as part of the al-Aqsa mosque complex and was never a part of any Jewish Temple because it is claimed there never was any Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. 

Push the Jews into the sea and kill the ones that won't move when pushed is the Palestinian national aspiration.

As a tolerant member of the left, exposure to what Palestinian culture is truly like would disgust you to your core if you stayed true to your principles of tolerance.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Great quote I just read that thoroughly epitomizes the issues between Israel and Palestine.

"If the Palestinians wanted peace, there'd be peace. If Israel wanted war, Palestine would not exist."

Let that sink in.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

Just wanted to throw it out there that this is my leader. We are lucky he is fine as fuck, but, he needs to just shut his mouth and stand there because dumb things come out of his mouth when he speaks.


----------



## Art Vandaley

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Great quote I just read that thoroughly epitomizes the issues between Israel and Palestine.
> 
> "If the Palestinians wanted peace, there'd be peace. If Israel wanted war, Palestine would not exist."
> 
> Let that sink in.


That hasn't been true for at least a decade. 

The Netanyahu gov has said pretty words about peace but all its actions have been to push the situation towards war.

The last time Israel made a pro peace move was in 2005.

The real problem isn't islam or judaism its extremists on both sides.

On the islamic side you have those who want to push the jews into the sea.

And on the jewish side you have those with a fundamentalist belief in Israel holding its biblical borders which due to demographic reality will entail either the establishment of an apartheid state or a genocide/exile of the people currently living on those lands.

But try to remember, Israel doesn't want or need the west bank for security, Jordan is actually their closest ally in the region funnily enough, they want the west bank because it was promised to the jews by god.


----------



## Empress

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/939287243755311104


> Former Fox News anchor Juliet Huddy said President Donald Trump tried to kiss her in an elevator around the time he married First Lady Melania.
> 
> Huddy, who allegedly received a settlement after she made a complaint against disgraced anchor Bill O’Reilly, described how the mogul leaned in to kiss her after he took her to lunch at Trump Tower in 2005.
> 
> The TV newswoman, who now hosts a radio show on WABC Radio, revealed on “Mornin!!! with Bill Schulz” on compoundmedia.com, that she had rebuffed the now-president in the Trump Tower elevator. And Trump later appeared on her Fox News chat show, and joked to the audience, “I hit on her but she blew me off.”
> 
> –– ADVERTISEMENT ––
> 
> 
> 
> Huddy said of Trump, “He took me for lunch at Trump Tower, just us two. He said goodbye to me in an elevator while his security guy was there, rather than kiss me on the cheek he leaned in to kiss me on the lips. I wasn’t offended, I was kind of like, ‘Oh my god’.” She said she went to meet a friend and Trump then invited them both back to see “The Apprentice” set, “And everything was copacetic after that.”
> 
> But she added, “I was surprised that he went for the lips. But I didn’t feel threatened … he took me out to lunch to talk about maybe me doing something with ‘The Apprentice.’ He used to watch ‘Fox & Friends,’ the show I was hosting on the weekend. Whatever, everything was fine. It was a weird moment. He never tried anything after that, and I was never alone with him.”
> 
> But she said Trump later joked about his clumsy pass at her when appearing on her Fox News morning talk show a few years later. Huddy explained, “Trump was a guest and he came on stage, He said, to the audience and producers, not on camera, ‘I tried hitting on her but she blew me off.’ He was laughing. At the time I was not offended by it, I thought he was a single man and leaned in for a kiss… maybe he thought, ‘She’s been out to lunch with me and maybe she is interested.’
> 
> “Now I have matured I think I would say, ‘Woah, no’, but at the time I was younger and I was a little shocked. I thought maybe he didn’t mean to do it, but I was kind of making excuses. The elevator incident and the lunch was 2005 or 2006,” she added. Trump married Melania in January 2005.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Alkomesh2 said:


> That hasn't been true for at least a decade.
> 
> The Netanyahu gov has said pretty words about peace but all its actions have been to push the situation towards war.
> 
> The last time Israel made a pro peace move was in 2005.
> 
> The real problem isn't islam or judaism its extremists on both sides.
> 
> On the islamic side you have those who want to push the jews into the sea.
> 
> *And on the jewish side you have those with a fundamentalist belief in Israel holding its biblical borders which due to demographic reality will entail either the establishment of an apartheid state or a genocide/exile of the people currently living on those lands.*
> 
> But try to remember, Israel doesn't want or need the west bank for security, Jordan is actually their closest ally in the region funnily enough, they want the west bank because it was promised to the jews by god.


And yet, the Palestinians are still there. Why is that? There are Muslims in Israel, that make up 17.4% of the population. There are Muslim members of gov't, Muslims in the judiciary, Muslim teachers, and Muslims are able to freely go wherever they want. Why is that?

Yes, both side have their extremists. It's just that on one side the extremists make up a minority, and on the other side it makes up a majority. I'll let you take a guess at which one is which.



ReignDeer said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/939287243755311104


If leaning in for a kiss is sexual assault then 100% of men are sexual assaulters.


----------



## Empress

TheNightmanCometh said:


> If leaning in for a kiss is sexual assault then 100% of men are sexual assaulters.


If a man leans in to kiss me without my expressed permission or invitation, yes. he is. My personal space should be respected. A guy can't just come up to me and try to kiss me. That's disgusting and criminal.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

ReignDeer said:


> If a man leans in to kiss me without my expressed permission or invitation, yes. he is. My personal space should be respected. A guy can't just come up to me and try to kiss me. That's disgusting and criminal.


In the scenario you laid out, I totally agree with you. The problem is Trump didn't just come up to her and try to kiss her.

“He took me for lunch at Trump Tower, just us two. He said goodbye to me in an elevator while his security guy was there, rather than kiss me on the cheek he leaned in to kiss me on the lips."

There could have certainly been mixed signals there, where he thought it was a date and she didn't, but that doesn't make him a sexual assaulter by any stretch. That's just a guy making a move after what he thought was a date. That happens, literally, every day. You see that type of thing on TV, in the movies, you read it in books, your friends tell you about when it happened to them. It's very common.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

TheNightmanCometh said:


> In the scenario you laid out, I totally agree with you. The problem is Trump didn't just come up to her and try to kiss her.
> 
> “He took me for lunch at Trump Tower, just us two. He said goodbye to me in an elevator while his security guy was there, rather than kiss me on the cheek he leaned in to kiss me on the lips."
> 
> There could have certainly been mixed signals there, where he thought it was a date and she didn't, but that doesn't make him a sexual assaulter by any stretch. That's just a guy making a move after what he thought was a date. That happens, literally, every day. You see that type of thing on TV, in the movies, you read it in books, your friends tell you about when it happened to them. It's very common.


Exactly, and she said she wasn't offended and didn't feel threatened, so, really, what was the point of her even bringing it up? 

Obviously, the real problem here was that he was with someone and was trying to make a move on someone else, but, in terms of any kind of sexual assault, people need to stop throwing that shit out at every corner. She felt nothing wrong at the time, bringing it up to try to squeeze in to the sexual assault fad is lame.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Catalanotto said:


> Exactly, and she said she wasn't offended and didn't feel threatened, so, really, what was the point of her even bringing it up?
> 
> Obviously, the real problem here was that he was with someone and was trying to make a move on someone else, but, in terms of any kind of sexual assault, people need to stop throwing that shit out at every corner. She felt nothing wrong at the time, bringing it up to try to squeeze in to the sexual assault fad is lame.


This is why she brought it up,

“Now I have matured I think I would say, ‘Woah, no’"

She's been led to believe that what he did was some sort of sexual assault, sexual deviancy, or sexual harassment, but it clearly wasn't. The way she perceived the situation when she was younger was the correct way to perceive it. 10 years later her view of Trump has changed and as such she's changed the conclusion of the story to fit what she thinks about him now.


----------



## Art Vandaley

TheNightmanCometh said:


> And yet, the Palestinians are still there. Why is that? There are Muslims in Israel, that make up 17.4% of the population. There are Muslim members of gov't, Muslims in the judiciary, Muslim teachers, and Muslims are able to freely go wherever they want. Why is that?
> 
> Yes, both side have their extremists. It's just that on one side the extremists make up a minority, and on the other side it makes up a majority. I'll let you take a guess at which one is which.


Extremists make up less and less of a minority in Israel every year and they're getting more and more power every year. They believe in arranged marriages at a young age and don't believe in contraceptive. It's just math.

They've been slowly exiling people for decades. Everytime you hear about a settlement being built someone got exiled out so it could be built.

Hence 10 years ago what you were saying was true, but today it isn't.


----------



## CamillePunk

ReignDeer said:


> If a man leans in to kiss me without my expressed permission or invitation, yes. he is. My personal space should be respected. A guy can't just come up to me and try to kiss me. That's disgusting and criminal.


no


----------



## Empress

CamillePunk said:


> no


Yes. I know where I draw the line at inappropriate conduct. Neither you, Trump or anyone else will change that. I'm not going to put up with being kissed, groped or anything else without my consent.


----------



## CamillePunk

ReignDeer said:


> Yes. I know where I draw the line at inappropriate conduct. Neither you, Trump or anyone else will change that. I'm not going to put up with being kissed, groped or anything else without my consent.


I don't care what you consider inappropriate. It's not criminal to try and kiss a girl without "express consent". :lol Jesus Christ. You try and if she pulls away then fine.


----------



## Empress

CamillePunk said:


> I don't care what you consider inappropriate. It's not criminal to try and kiss a girl without "express consent". :lol Jesus Christ. You try and if she pulls away then fine.


You quoted me. You cared enough to do that. 

If someone tries to engage in any sexual conduct with me without my consent, and that includes kissing or touching of any kind, it is an issue. Your Dear Leader may go around grabbing women because he feels it's his divine right but it's not and it doesn't apply to me.


----------



## CamillePunk

ReignDeer said:


> You quoted me. You cared enough to do that.
> 
> If someone tries to engage in any sexual conduct with me without my consent, and that includes kissing or touching of any kind, it is an issue. Your Dear Leader may go around grabbing women because he feels it's his divine right but it's not and it doesn't apply to me.


It may be an issue for you but it's not a crime or a socially bizarre thing to do. People take risks. Obviously you shouldn't force yourself upon someone but this idea you have to ask permission to TRY to kiss someone is the geekiest ass shit I've ever heard.


----------



## Empress

CamillePunk said:


> It may be an issue for you but it's not a crime or a socially bizarre thing to do. People take risks. Obviously you shouldn't force yourself upon someone but this idea you have to ask permission to TRY to kiss someone is the geekiest ass shit I've ever heard.


That is my personal boundary and you decided to police that. Each person can decide where they draw the line. I made my stance clear and invading my personal space without invitation is my red line.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> It may be an issue for you but it's not a crime or a socially bizarre thing to do. People take risks. Obviously you shouldn't force yourself upon someone but this idea you have to ask permission to TRY to kiss someone is the geekiest ass shit I've ever heard.


How was this not socially bizarre? Trump was newly married, and asked a woman on a business lunch, then at the end kisses her on the lips. 

FFS Trump supporters will defend anything.

You don't have to ask permission on a date but this was not a date, it was a business lunch to discuss the apprentice and again Trump was newly married

It was totally inappropriate for Trump to kiss her on the lips in that situation.


----------



## Draykorinee

There are situations where leaning in to try to kiss someone without direct consent is not sexual assault, there are times when it clearly is.
I don't think either are wrong in their opinion here, the situation isn't going to be the same all the time.

This one seems... awkward, he's married for a start.


----------



## Reaper

So he tried to kiss a girl he took out on a date. 

All that tells me is that he's not a pajama boy that needs his woman's permission to pee standing up.

So when's the next impeachment vote?


----------



## CamillePunk

ReignDeer said:


> That is my personal boundary and you decided to police that. Each person can decide where they draw the line. I made my stance clear and invading my personal space without invitation is my red line.


no, when you allege something is criminal you are not discussing personal boundaries.

just no


----------



## Miss Sally

deepelemblues said:


> Mein Kampf is among the best-selling secular books in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Middle East in general.
> 
> Ten years ago it was THE best-selling secular book. Might still be actually.
> 
> Maps of "Palestine" in schools and public buildings in the West Bank and Gaza include everything from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River. No Israel at all.
> 
> Palestinians are indoctrinated from birth to hate Jews by public and privately-owned media and the school system with tales of blood libel and every other anti-Semitic canard ever devised.
> 
> Last time Muslims controlled East Jerusalem (including the Jewish Quarter of the old city), 34 of 35 synagogues there were destroyed. Jewish graves, some of them thousands of years old, were dug up. The drive to cleanse Jerusalem of any historical connection to Judaism continues, to the point where today it is claimed that the Western Wall was built as part of the al-Aqsa mosque complex and was never a part of any Jewish Temple because it is claimed there never was any Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.
> 
> Push the Jews into the sea and kill the ones that won't move when pushed is the Palestinian national aspiration.
> 
> As a tolerant member of the left, exposure to what Palestinian culture is truly like would disgust you to your core if you stayed true to your principles of tolerance.


Jews lived in that area long before MoMo was touching little girls and the Arabs decided to invade the entire Region. If people are debating this than might want to point out the Romans and several other powers occupied Jerusalem and mention the Jewish Temple and the Jewish Kingdom.

It's funny how Muslims and Middle Eastern people in general think Jerusalem belongs to them but want to ignore the fact the Jews were there long before Islam even existed.



SelinaKyle said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/939268105418825728


Funny enough some people here were trying to once again say CNN was a good source of News, along with other pundits of the media. I guess some people love to look foolish often.


----------



## Empress

CamillePunk said:


> no, when you allege something is criminal you are not discussing personal boundaries.
> 
> just no



I know how the last Trump thread went and some of you thought it was open season to force your opinions on others. You somehow believe I'm going to cower to your POV. That's not happening. 

I've made myself quite clear. If someone forces a kiss on me, it is a criminal act. I'm not going to be gaslight because Trump is POTUS and grabbing is something you and your ilk find acceptable. Keep your hands, lips and other body parts to yourself and there won't be an issue.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/938833735893561350


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

ReignDeer said:


> I know how the last Trump thread went and some of you thought it was open season to force your opinions on others. You somehow believe I'm going to cower to your POV. That's not happening.
> 
> I've made myself quite clear. If someone forces a kiss on me, it is a criminal act. I'm not going to be gaslight because Trump is POTUS and grabbing is something you and your ilk find acceptable. Keep your hands, lips and other body parts to yourself and there won't be an issue.


I honestly think two different conversations are happening here. You're saying that no man has the right to just come up to you and try to kiss you. That's a perfectly reasonable opinion, and I agree with you 100%. The problem is you shared that opinion in connection with the Trump story, where that wasn't a situation of a guy just coming up to a girl and trying to kiss her, so you have people defending Trump in this situation. Wires are crossed here and neither side is wrong.

Let's just all agree that taking a girl out on a date and trying to give her a kiss at the end is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and seeing a girl you like, or even know, and just going up and trying to kiss her is a perfectly unreasonable thing to do.


----------



## Reaper

In 1972, Bernie Sanders wrote an essay about how men's _typical_ fantasies were about abusive BDSM and how women loved to fantasize about being raped by 3 men simultaneously



> A man goes home and masturbates his *typical *fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused.
> 
> A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.


The projection in this is fascinating because I'm guessing that's his fetish. 

Oh dear. We now need to kick him out of politics because he believes something that "normal" people find disgusting.

---

BTW, saying that people who act like animals might actually be elevating their status. Some people behave a lot worse than animals :mj


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Alkomesh2 said:


> Extremists make up less and less of a minority in Israel every year and they're getting more and more power every year. They believe in arranged marriages at a young age and don't believe in contraceptive. It's just math.
> 
> They've been slowly exiling people for decades. Everytime you hear about a settlement being built someone got exiled out so it could be built.
> 
> Hence 10 years ago what you were saying was true, but today it isn't.


You're gonna have to show me where and how extremists in Israel are making up less of a minority and wielding more power. I'd be happy to go tit for tat on rhetoric from both sides over the last 5 years.

I use contraceptives, but I would hardly call the refusal to do so an extremist line of thinking. 

Arranged marriages on the other hand, I don't agree with, but again, that's a culture thing. I don't agree with anyone being forced to marry someone they don't want to marry, and this is obviously true for children, as I believe it shouldn't even be up for discussion while they are children, but if an adult woman or man consent to their parents choosing their partner, then I'm perfectly fine with that.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Merry Reaper said:


> In 1972, Bernie Sanders wrote an essay about how a women loved to fantasize about being raped by 3 men simultaneously.
> 
> 
> 
> The projection in this is disgusting.
> 
> I guess he's a horrible human being after all :mj


People say stupid shit all the time, if we're going to draw a line in the sand and say that if you say something immensely stupid then you shouldn't hold office, well, then liberals are subconsciously arguing for small government.


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> People say stupid shit all the time, if we're going to draw a line in the sand and say that if you say something immensely stupid then you shouldn't hold office, well, then liberals are subconsciously arguing for small government.


Bernie Sanders also believes in Alternative Chinese Medicine despite the fact that a lot of it is made from Ivory Tusks which is obtained through murdering elephants ... 

So technically he's an elephant poaching apologist too. 

I can go all fucking day if we're doing this :Shrug

I should really apply for a job at CNN or some other network. I can be really good at cherry-picked character assassinations too.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Merry Reaper said:


> Bernie Sanders also believes in Alernative Chines Medicine despite the fact that it is made from Ivory Tusks ... So technically he's an elephant poaching apologist too.
> 
> I can go all fucking day if we're doing this


Well, ol' Bernie is an easy target. 










:nowords


----------



## Reaper

How about we do Doug Jones? 

These are his campaign workers? 










Dat SJW SQUAD ... Reminds me of this: 










Of course, his campaign then runs messages like these: 











__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/938808098088734721

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/938592998509641729

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/938891922999070720
Democrats are the worst party in America by a mile. 

:mj4


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Merry Reaper said:


> ...Democrats are the worst party in America by a mile.
> 
> :mj4


Definitely the worst at running for office. They are just shit at it.


----------



## Reaper

2 Ton 21 said:


> Definitely the worst at running for office. They are just shit at it.


Yup. And they're getting worse. 

They're basically the former party of the KKK therefore their old attitudes still exist within the party despite the fact that they're no longer the party of racism. 

However, to not be a racist, there is still a great deal of self-reflection that is required. People tend to have stereotypical views of people of other races and Democrats actually perpetuate a LOT of these negative stereotypes without even realizing it. 


 Democrats are seen as a very heavily white dominated party as well. For all their claims about diversity, they're not. 
The correlation between poverty and race is a democrat concoction. They may mean well by it, but at the same time, the message to minorities is that you're too weak and incapable and you need the white man to rescue you. 
The correlation between lack of opportunity and race is a democrat concoction. 
The idea that minorities are too poor, or too unable to get voter ID's is a democrat issue
The fact that they don't realize that the majority of Americans are actually against Amnesty (including their own voters) is a major democrat issue
Democrats have left their centrist/classical liberal core without representation
Labelling everyone that disagrees with the be "deplorables" destroyed Hillary's campaign and they still didn't learn their lesson.

The list of democrat failures is HUGE and growing by the day. 

With Ossof, they went for a literal Pajama Boy who was raped amongst the majority of voters 

With Doug Jones, they're pushing a guy who can barely speak about race issues, but he's being forced to talk about them. I read his campaign notes on race Issues and he's got NOTHING. Not a thing. 

Then you have a party that is starting to be taken over by this kind of liberal 










And that's starting to disenfranchise even the minorities that would vote for them, because Hipster racism and white liberal racism are very real in today's climate. People are talking about it. They're noticing it. And whites with savior complexes are consistently being called out on it on social media. 

The idea that liberals think that minorities are weak, oppressed, stupid is pervasive and it's starting to take root --- while Democrats are getting worse with pushing that they are the only ones capable of saving minorities. 

It's going to get progressively worse as more and more college hipster racists join the Democrats. The Democrats need to come back to the center. They can't afford to go any further left. Their candidates are being ripped to shreds.


----------



## Empress

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I honestly think two different conversations are happening here. You're saying that no man has the right to just come up to you and try to kiss you. That's a perfectly reasonable opinion, and I agree with you 100%. The problem is you shared that opinion in connection with the Trump story, where that wasn't a situation of a guy just coming up to a girl and trying to kiss her, so you have people defending Trump in this situation. Wires are crossed here and neither side is wrong.
> 
> Let's just all agree that taking a girl out on a date and trying to give her a kiss at the end is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and seeing a girl you like, or even know, and just going up and trying to kiss her is a perfectly unreasonable thing to do.


I have no issue with any of that that. When you previously quoted me, you said something similar and I didn't find any fault with your response. I didn't go tit for tat because what you said was reasonable. 

As for the Fox host who shared her story, she is making it clear that at no point did she feel threatened by Trump. I'll let her other tweets speak for themselves since she seems to be going back and forth a bit IMO. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/939304507229564928


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose

Merry Reaper said:


> Bernie Sanders also believes in Alternative Chinese Medicine despite the fact that a lot of it is made from Ivory Tusks which is obtained through murdering elephants ...
> 
> So technically he's an elephant poaching apologist too.


That's a severe reach.

Bernie Sanders promotes elements of Chinese Medicine being integrated into mainstream medicine.

A small amount of Chinese Medicine involves ivory. "A Lot of..." is a rather ridiculous overstatement.

To claim overlap on this is tenuous at best given Sanders' history with animal welfare.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose

Merry Reaper said:


> Yup. And they're getting worse.
> 
> They're basically the former party of the KKK therefore their old attitudes still exist within the party despite the fact that they're no longer the party of racism.


A completely vague and self-contradictory statement.




Merry Reaper said:


> However, to not be a racist, there is still a great deal of self-reflection that is required. People tend to have stereotypical views of people of other races and Democrats actually perpetuate a LOT of these negative stereotypes without even realizing it.


I agree with a certain amount of this. Apart from the ongoing acceptance of a binary that someone simply can be defined in a way that declares that they *are* or *aren't* racist. As if that's a measurable, calculable concept most of the time.



Merry Reaper said:


> [*]Labelling everyone that disagrees with the be "deplorables" destroyed Hillary's campaign and they still didn't learn their lesson.


This I can agree with and as someone who describes themself as left of centre it drives me to distraction. "Destroyed" is a strong term, since poplar vote/close election etc. But I certainly concur it is a large reason why she lost. 



Merry Reaper said:


> The list of democrat failures is HUGE and growing by the day.


Look, I'm not from the US and don't really have much mileage in defending the party per se, but I can't really see much from what you're saying here other than the above point and that they choose, like every political party sadly, some shitty politicians to represent them in some cases. Everything else is subjective.




Merry Reaper said:


> And that's starting to disenfranchise even the minorities that would vote for them, because Hipster racism and white liberal racism are very real in today's climate. People are talking about it. They're noticing it. And whites with savior complexes are consistently being called out on it on social media.
> 
> The idea that liberals think that minorities are weak, oppressed, stupid is pervasive and it's starting to take root --- while Democrats are getting worse with pushing that they are the only ones capable of saving minorities.
> 
> It's going to get progressively worse as more and more college hipster racists join the Democrats. The Democrats need to come back to the center. They can't afford to go any further left. Their candidates are being ripped to shreds.


The last thing we need right now is more different variations and classifications of what racism is and isn't. Especially what is judged in an affective, subjective sense since that is a lot of what has got us into the current mess regarding race relations.

Some leftists jumped on the subjectivity of postmodernism from the 90s onwards and this has caused the movement significant damage. That doesn't have anything to do with arguments for a mixed economy, more fluid social development and arguments for a larger public structure in some spheres of life.

It's not a 'left' and 'centre' issue. There isn't really much of a definition of those things except for what the Overton window of the time is. It shifted right during the Reagan era and some leftists chose to follow it in that direction. Reaganomics collapsed at the end of the last decade but instead of cleaning up as they should have the Democrats were found with their pants round their ankles having joined in at the Corporate, big-business, anti little-man buffet.

They should have been far better at dealing with tort reform as well. That was an open goal that The Dems missed because they didn't want to be seen as 'too far left.' Such a thing is just perception, not really reality in my opinion.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> So he tried to kiss a girl he took out on a date.
> 
> All that tells me is that he's not a pajama boy that needs his woman's permission to pee standing up.
> 
> So when's the next impeachment vote?








TheNightmanCometh said:


> I honestly think two different conversations are happening here. You're saying that no man has the right to just come up to you and try to kiss you. That's a perfectly reasonable opinion, and I agree with you 100%. The problem is you shared that opinion in connection with the Trump story, where that wasn't a situation of a guy just coming up to a girl and trying to kiss her, so you have people defending Trump in this situation. Wires are crossed here and neither side is wrong.
> 
> Let's just all agree that taking a girl out on a date and trying to give her a kiss at the end is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and seeing a girl you like, or even know, and just going up and trying to kiss her is a perfectly unreasonable thing to do.


Yet it was not a date since Trump was married at the time and it was a business dinner to discuss her doing something with the apprentice.

Stop lying to defend Trump by pretending it was a date when it wasn't


----------



## Reaper

ipickthiswhiterose said:


> That's a severe reach.
> 
> Bernie Sanders promotes elements of Chinese Medicine being integrated into mainstream medicine.
> 
> A small amount of Chinese Medicine involves ivory. "A Lot of..." is a rather ridiculous overstatement.
> 
> To claim overlap on this is tenuous at best given Sanders' history with animal welfare.


You missed the context of this post.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose

Merry Reaper said:


> You missed the context of this post.


Perhaps I did not read back far enough. My apologies if that was the case.


----------



## Reaper

ipickthiswhiterose said:


> Perhaps I did not read back far enough. My apologies if that was the case.


No worries. Happens to all of us


----------



## birthday_massacre

LOL at reaper with his BS propaganda against democrats again. I have never met a more delusional person when it comes to this.


----------



## CamillePunk

ReignDeer said:


> I know how the last Trump thread went and some of you thought it was open season to force your opinions on others. You somehow believe I'm going to cower to your POV. That's not happening.


I'm not sharing an opinion. You alleged that a guy going for a kiss on a girl without express consent is criminal. That's false. You're just wrong. 

All this emotional nonsense you're spouting is immaterial to me, you're wrong on the facts. End of story.


----------



## Empress

CamillePunk said:


> I'm not sharing an opinion. You alleged that a guy going for a kiss on a girl without express consent is criminal. That's false. You're just wrong.
> 
> All this emotional nonsense you're spouting is immaterial to me, you're wrong on the facts. End of story.


It is a criminal act. You cannot force yourself on another person and I'm not going to be mansplained, especially not by a Trump supporter, on personal boundaries. Deal with that.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> I'm not sharing an opinion. You alleged that a guy going for a kiss on a girl without express consent is criminal. That's false. You're just wrong.
> 
> All this emotional nonsense you're spouting is immaterial to me, you're wrong on the facts. End of story.


It's not wrong, technically it can be considered sexual assault.


https://legaldictionary.net/sexual-assault/

What is Sexual Assault

In the U.S., the specific definition of sexual assault varies by state. Sexual assault is commonly recognized as any unwanted sexual contact, or threats of sexual contact. Sexual assault includes the touching of another person’s body in a sexual manner without that person’s express consent, even if the touching occurs through clothing. This *sexual assault definition also includes kissing*, groping, and fondling.


----------



## CamillePunk

ReignDeer said:


> It is a criminal act. You cannot force yourself on another person and I'm not going to be mansplained, especially not by a Trump supporter, on personal boundaries. Deal with that.


Sorry if a man explaining facts to you when you are wrong triggers you. Life gets harder than this. I wish you luck. 



birthday_massacre said:


> It's not wrong, technically it can be considered sexual assault.
> 
> 
> https://legaldictionary.net/sexual-assault/
> 
> What is Sexual Assault
> 
> In the U.S., the specific definition of sexual assault varies by state. Sexual assault is commonly recognized as any unwanted sexual contact, or threats of sexual contact. Sexual assault includes the touching of another person’s body in a sexual manner without that person’s express consent, even if the touching occurs through clothing. This *sexual assault definition also includes kissing*, groping, and fondling.


I'm not talking about continuing to kiss someone against their will, I'm talking about TRYING, GOING FOR a kiss without asking permission. This happens all the fucking time and I would wager is most kisses that occur.


----------



## Empress

CamillePunk said:


> Sorry if a man explaining facts to you when you are wrong triggers you. Life gets harder than this. I wish you luck.
> 
> I'm not talking about continuing to kiss someone against their will, I'm talking about TRYING, GOING FOR a kiss without asking permission. This happens all the fucking time and I would wager is most kisses that occur.


I'm not triggered. I just don't appreciate my intelligence being insulted by you assuming that I need sexual assault explained to me. Brush up on it. You just might avoid catching a case.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Sorry if a man explaining facts to you when you are wrong triggers you. Life gets harder than this. I wish you luck.
> 
> I'm not talking about continuing to kiss someone against their will, I'm talking about TRYING, GOING FOR a kiss without asking permission. This happens all the fucking time and I would wager is most kisses that occur.


If you were on a business meeting for work, and when the meeting is over you kiss the woman who you just had the meeting with, you don't think she should be able to claim sexual assault if she wanted to?

So you think someone can just go up and kiss anyone they want and that isn't sexual assault?

Let's not forget Trump is also the guy who said he moved on her like a bitch, when talking about another woman.


----------



## Dr. Middy

CamillePunk said:


> I'm not talking about continuing to kiss someone against their will, I'm talking about TRYING, GOING FOR a kiss without asking permission. This happens all the fucking time and I would wager is most kisses that occur.


I mean, usually there is context behind that anyway. If what this woman is saying about the whole backstory leading to the kiss is true, then sure while it's awkward as hell, it doesn't equal a crime or anything. Dates and what some people will think are dates will usually lead to attempts at kissing. Feels more misguided by Trump than anything. 

But yeah if I'm a guy and went to kiss some random woman I never met, that most likely won't go down well, nor should it. I mean I don't think if I would call something like an unwanted kiss sexual assault, because that can also be used to label way more severe criminal actions, but technically if the attempt at unwanted kissing falls under sexual assault, then it's considered criminal :shrug Depends on context I suppose.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Dr. Bexmas said:


> I mean, usually there is context behind that anyway. If what this woman is saying about the whole backstory leading to the kiss is true, then sure while it's awkward as hell, it doesn't equal a crime or anything. Dates and what some people will think are dates will usually lead to attempts at kissing. Feels more misguided by Trump than anything.
> 
> But yeah if I'm a guy and went to kiss some random woman I never met, that most likely won't go down well, nor should it. I mean I don't think if I would call something like an unwanted kiss sexual assault, because that can also be used to label way more severe criminal actions, but technically if the attempt at unwanted kissing falls under sexual assault, then it's considered criminal :shrug Depends on context I suppose.


Why do people keep claiming this was a date when it wasn't.


----------



## Dr. Middy

birthday_massacre said:


> Why do people keep claiming this was a date when it wasn't.


Seemed like to me that it was a lunch with just her and Trump alone, and maybe in some sort of way Trump thought it was akin to a date when it wasn't. I mean he was married then so there's that can of worms, but if we're only talking about simply the kiss, I don't think it was sexual assault.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Dr. Bexmas said:


> Seemed like to me that it was a lunch with just her and Trump alone, and maybe in some sort of way Trump thought it was akin to a date when it wasn't. I mean he was married then so there's that can of worms, but if we're only talking about simply the kiss, I don't think it was sexual assault.


Trump was married at the time. Why would Trump think it was a date? The woman even said it was weird that Trump kissed her on the lips, so again it was not a date to her.

So you think if you were on a lunch with a co-worker or let's say for a business lunch with someone and you kissed them randomly, that it would just be a simple kiss?


----------



## Dr. Middy

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump was married at the time. Why would Trump think it was a date?
> 
> So you think if you were on a lunch with a co-worker or let's say for a business lunch with someone and you kissed them randomly, that it would just be a simple kiss?


Trump being married and doing that is a scummy thing to do. I wasn't really referring much to that part of it. 

So to answer your 2nd question, I'd assume I'd put myself in her shoes and say have another female coworker who I had no attraction to do the same thing. In that scenario, with my personality I'd probably just brush it off and not thing much of it, as long as it was only a 1 time thing. I could say I'd speak up tell her that I wasn't interested and not cool with that, but I'm probably too shy to really get up in somebody's face over what would feel like an accident.


----------



## Reaper

Wait a married man can't go out on a date without it being considered scummy?

I appreciate the expression of this deeply conservative Mike Pence like attitude from progressives and centrists  

No seriously, no has ever claimed that Trump doesn't have massive personality and character flaws. The only people who like to pretend that people ITT don't think this are anti-trumpers because it's not enough for them for us to criticize Trump. We have to HATE and absolutely DESPISE him with the core of our being like they do and if we don't then we're horrible people too.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Dr. Bexmas said:


> Trump being married and doing that is a scummy thing to do. I wasn't really referring much to that part of it.
> 
> So to answer your 2nd question, I'd assume I'd put myself in her shoes and say have another female coworker who I had no attraction to do the same thing. In that scenario, with my personality I'd probably just brush it off and not thing much of it, as long as it was only a 1 time thing. I could say I'd speak up tell her that I wasn't interested and not cool with that, but I'm probably too shy to really get up in somebody's face over what would feel like an accident.


It all does come down to preference, like in this Trump case that woman just thought it was weird and that was that but if another woman thought Trump sexually assaulted her that would also be her right.

Its like when a guy touches a girls ass, technically its sexual assault if it's unwanted but if another girl liked it that a guy did that to her, then its ok since it was not unwanted.

The important thing we have to remember is the unwanted part. So for ReignDeer if that kiss is unwanted its sexual assault but if another woman thinks its ok then, in that case, it's not.

that is why I think it's asinine you have male Trump supporters telling a female if someone kisses her and it's unwanted she can't claim sexual assault. But again they are Trum[p supporters and defend his sexual assaults so it does not surprise me


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> Wait a married man can't go out on a date without it being considered scummy?
> 
> I appreciate the expression of this deeply conservative Mike Pence like attitude from progressives and centrists
> 
> No seriously, no has ever claimed that Trump doesn't have massive personality and character flaws. The only people who like to pretend that people ITT don't think this are anti-trumpers because it's not enough for them for us to criticize Trump. We have to HATE and absolutely DESPISE him with the core of our being like they do and if we don't then we're horrible people too.


If a married man goes on a date and is not an in open relationship yes they are a piece of shit since its cheating.

But its good to know you think cheating on your wife is not scummy.


----------



## Draykorinee

birthday_massacre said:


> Merry Reaper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a married man can't go out on a date without it being considered scummy?
> 
> I appreciate the expression of this deeply conservative Mike Pence like attitude from progressives and centrists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No seriously, no has ever claimed that Trump doesn't have massive personality and character flaws. The only people who like to pretend that people ITT don't think this are anti-trumpers because it's not enough for them for us to criticize Trump. We have to HATE and absolutely DESPISE him with the core of our being like they do and if we don't then we're horrible people too.
> 
> 
> 
> If a married man goes on a date and is not an in operation relationship yes they are a piece of shit since its cheating.
> 
> But its good to know you think cheating on your wife is not scummy.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that was sarcasm, hence the no, seriously bit.


----------



## birthday_massacre

draykorinee said:


> I'm guessing that was sarcasm, hence the no, seriously bit.


You can never tell with Trump supporters since they defend him for the most fucked up shit. Like the grab em by the pussy remark. 

There was zero evidence it was a date but the only way Trump supporters can defend him is by claiming it was a date.

Let's not play the little Trump supporter game and let them distract us from the real issue and go off on a tangent on something else.

Just look at this thread for example, when most things damning against Trump are posted, his supporters ignore it, yet they post stupid shit, most times not even about Trump to distract from how corrupt Trump and the GOP are.


----------



## Smarky Mark

Attempting to kiss a woman is sexual assault now?


----------



## Dr. Middy

Merry Reaper said:


> Wait a married man can't go out on a date without it being considered scummy?
> 
> I appreciate the expression of this deeply conservative Mike Pence like attitude from progressives and centrists
> 
> No seriously, no has ever claimed that Trump doesn't have massive personality and character flaws. The only people who like to pretend that people ITT don't think this are anti-trumpers because it's not enough for them for us to criticize Trump. We have to HATE and absolutely DESPISE him with the core of our being like they do and if we don't then we're horrible people too.


I mean, you can go dates with other women if you're married as long as they aren't romantically driven or something. There's a difference between a simple lunch date that is meant to be just between friends versus something with some sort of romantic connection to it. Him kissing the woman he went on that lunch date with full on the lips make it feel like he assumed it was more on the romantic side perhaps, which I what I kinda got out of it.

There are a lot of personality and character traits I don't like at all about Trump, to go along with certain views he has and such, but that's really where it ends. I just generally don't like him, but I'm not going to spend the amount of time despising him some anti-trump people do. I'm sure you're aware of my overall view of him anyway at this stage. 



birthday_massacre said:


> It all does come down to preference, like in this Trump case that woman just thought it was weird and that was that but if another woman thought Trump sexually assaulted her that would also be her right.
> 
> Its like when a guy touches a girls ass, technically its sexual assault if it's unwanted but if another girl liked it that a guy did that to her, then its ok since it was not unwanted.
> 
> The important thing we have to remember is the unwanted part. So for ReignDeer if that kiss is unwanted its sexual assault but if another woman thinks its ok then, in that case, it's not.
> 
> that is why I think it's asinine you have male Trump supporters telling a female if someone kisses her and it's unwanted she can't claim sexual assault. But again they are Trum[p supporters and defend his sexual assaults so it does not surprise me


Oh of course context is very important, and both hurts and helps these sort of scenarios. Some people won't mind the kiss and can move on quite easily, like me for example. But other people like Empress might view that more towards it being generally unwanted and think it's criminal, which I can't argue as being right or wrong, because it does depend on the person and on the context of how it occurred. 

I think the notion of what is considered "sexual assault" is becoming overly broad and there seems to be an inability for the term to work to cover things from simply an unwanted kiss but nothing following it, to aggressive groping and feeling that is on the brink of being rape. I feel that there should be different levels of the term at this point, because equating a guy being somewhat naive and kissing a girl who didn't want it and a guy clearly and purposefully groping near the level of rate when he KNOWS she doesn't want it shouldn't be considered the same thing. 

I'm also having a general issue with how the media has turned to shaming just about every accusation that comes out about anybody with some sort of relevancy or power now. People seem to quick to call out these more famous or well known people as being sick, despicable animals when all they've read so far is an article or two about somebody "claiming" that said person has groped them or raped them or what have you. It's quite disconcerting really to have the hivemind bear down on people as being automatically guilty without actually knowing the full truth. 

I mean sure, if they are guilty then they deserve the vitriol they receive. However, people shouldn't forget the whole concept of "innocent till proven guilty."


----------



## Lady Eastwood

birthday_massacre said:


> You can never tell with Trump supporters since they defend him for the most fucked up shit. Like the grab em by the pussy remark.
> 
> There was zero evidence it was a date but the only way Trump supporters can defend him is by claiming it was a date.
> 
> Let's not play the little Trump supporter game and let them distract us from the real issue and go off on a tangent on something else.
> 
> Just look at this thread for example, when most things damning against Trump are posted, his supporters ignore it, yet they post stupid shit, most times not even about Trump to distract from how corrupt Trump and the GOP are.



Lets not group everyone together now.

I am a Trump supporter, but, I call it like I see it. I've expressed many times that he says and does some stupid fucking shit. He also does some positive things that the news hardly mentions because they would rather watch him burn and die.


----------



## CamillePunk

I'm just glad that 1 year into his presidency the major complaint is that he's not a good husband, a trait that is completely irrelevant to the job we elected him to do. :lol 

Meanwhile various media sources including CNN have published articles going over Trump's accomplishments and fulfilled promises. Needless to say, Scott Adams' prediction of "Effective, but we don't like it" by December was dead on. :lol

Meanwhile you have the deranged Barack Obama, who is clearly suffering from withdrawal given his addiction to power and lack of it these days, making Nazi analogies after Trump just recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital. :lol Somehow I'm not getting tired of winning yet.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Dr. Bexmas said:


> Oh of course context is very important, and both hurts and helps these sort of scenarios. Some people won't mind the kiss and can move on quite easily, like me for example. But other people like Empress might view that more towards it being generally unwanted and think it's criminal, which I can't argue as being right or wrong, because it does depend on the person and on the context of how it occurred.
> 
> I think the notion of what is considered "sexual assault" is becoming overly broad and there seems to be an inability for the term to work to cover things from simply an unwanted kiss but nothing following it, to aggressive groping and feeling that is on the brink of being rape. I feel that there should be different levels of the term at this point, because equating a guy being somewhat naive and kissing a girl who didn't want it and a guy clearly and purposefully groping near the level of rate when he KNOWS she doesn't want it shouldn't be considered the same thing.
> 
> I'm also having a general issue with how the media has turned to shaming just about every accusation that comes out about anybody with some sort of relevancy or power now. People seem to quick to call out these more famous or well known people as being sick, despicable animals when all they've read so far is an article or two about somebody "claiming" that said person has groped them or raped them or what have you. It's quite disconcerting really to have the hivemind bear down on people as being automatically guilty without actually knowing the full truth.
> 
> I mean sure, if they are guilty then they deserve the vitriol they receive. However, people shouldn't forget the whole concept of "innocent till proven guilty."


I posted the definition of sexual assault, no one is making it overly broad. It's pretty clear. 

As for people calling out these famous people, well in pretty much all these cases its multiple women coming out at the same time with similar stories and in most cases these famous people are admitting yes they did it. So if they are admitting to doing the sexual assault then they are admitting they are guilty.

Are there any examples in Hollywood (not counting Trump) where multiple women have accused someone of sexual assault and that person is claiming innocence?

So far everyone I have seen, the men that did it, admitted to it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Catalanotto said:


> Lets not group everyone together now.
> 
> I am a Trump supporter, but, I call it like I see it. I've expressed many times that he says and does some stupid fucking shit. He also does some positive things that the news hardly mentions because they would rather watch him burn and die.


Most Trump supporters I should have said.

What positive things has Trump done so far that you think have been positive? He may have done a couple but the bad shit he has done that has damaged the US far outweigh the few good things he may have done.




CamillePunk said:


> *I'm just glad that 1 year into his presidency the major complaint is that he's not a good husband*, a trait that is completely irrelevant to the job we elected him to do. :lol
> 
> Meanwhile various media sources including CNN have published articles going over Trump's accomplishments and fulfilled promises. Needless to say, Scott Adams' prediction of "Effective, but we don't like it" by December was dead on. :lol
> 
> Meanwhile you have the deranged Barack Obama, who is clearly suffering from withdrawal given his addiction to power and lack of it these days, making Nazi analogies after Trump just recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital. :lol Somehow I'm not getting tired of winning yet.


And this is a perfect example of what I was talking about before when I said, 



birthday_massacre said:


> You can never tell with Trump supporters since they defend him for the most fucked up shit. Like the grab em by the pussy remark.
> 
> There was zero evidence it was a date but the only way Trump supporters can defend him is by claiming it was a date.
> 
> Let's not play the little Trump supporter game and let them distract us from the real issue and go off on a tangent on something else.
> 
> *Just look at this thread for example, when most things damning against Trump are posted, his supporters ignore it, yet they post stupid shit, most times not even about Trump to distract from how corrupt Trump and the GOP are*.


----------



## birthday_massacre

damn multi quote fail


----------



## Dr. Middy

birthday_massacre said:


> I posted the definition of sexual assault, no one is making it overly broad. It's pretty clear.
> 
> As for people calling out these famous people, well in pretty much all these cases its multiple women coming out at the same time with similar stories and in most cases these famous people are admitting yes they did it. So if they are admitting to doing the sexual assault then they are admitting they are guilty.
> 
> Are there any examples in Hollywood (not counting Trump) where multiple women have accused someone of sexual assault and that person is claiming innocence?
> 
> So far everyone I have seen, the men that did it, admitted to it.


I saw your post. I just feel like it's simply a definition without context, and it just feels really broad to lump so many different things like the two examples I mentioned together. 

With accusations, off the top of my head I don't know many (there was one player on the NY Giants I believe, Jay Bromley) however this kind of hivemind mindset is just bad overall. You also have random everyday people subjected to sch vitriol, like the whole Columbia University story with the girl who carried her mattress around campus (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_University_rape_controversy) The suit was dropped, but it just about ruined the life of the guy accused.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Dr. Bexmas said:


> I saw your post. I just feel like it's simply a definition without context, and it just feels really broad to lump so many different things like the two examples I mentioned together.
> 
> With accusations, off the top of my head I don't know many (there was one player on the NY Giants I believe, Jay Bromley) however this kind of hivemind mindset is just bad overall. You also have random everyday people subjected to sch vitriol, like the whole Columbia University story with the girl who carried her mattress around campus (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_University_rape_controversy) The suit was dropped, but it just about ruined the life of the guy accused.


There is context, the context is unwanted. If the kiss is wanted then it's not sexual assault, if it's unwanted then it can be considered sexual assault.

Also let's not forget that a lot of times the victim is usually the one who raked over the coals and name dragged through the mud. That is why a lot of the time when someone is raped they don't even bother to come forward because it can make things worse even when they are telling the truth.

The vast majority of people that come forward are not lying about being raped or sexually assaulted. So lets not forgot how their lives are ruined.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> There is context, the context is unwanted. If the kiss is wanted then it's not sexual assault, if it's unwanted then it can be considered sexual assault.


Do you always ask a woman if it's alright to kiss her? Have you never presumed consent?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> Do you always ask a woman if it's alright to kiss her? Have you never presumed consent?


You should never presume consent, not sure if you have ever kissed a girl before but the way it works is,if you lean in and she leans in back you end up kissing. If you lean in and she doesn't you know she does not want to kiss.

And I would never try to kiss someone on a business dinner which is the context of this story.


----------



## Dr. Middy

birthday_massacre said:


> There is context, the context is unwanted. If the kiss is wanted then it's not sexual assault, if it's unwanted then it can be considered sexual assault.
> 
> Also let's not forget that a lot of times the victim is usually the one who raked over the coals and name dragged through the mud. That is why a lot of the time when someone is raped they don't even bother to come forward because it can make things worse even when they are telling the truth.
> 
> The vast majority of people that come forward are not lying about being raped or sexually assaulted. So lets not forgot how their lives are ruined.


I was talking about on a case by case basis when I referred to context. For example, if you go on a date with somebody and then at the end of the night they try to kiss you (but for you it's unwarranted), that's not fair to call that sexual assault.

And yes, the victim usually is the one who suffers the most, but currently it feels like there is more support for those who suffered through rape or sexual assault than ever, which is a great thing. It also seems like it's made easier than ever before to make sure that such things are reported to say the police or someone else. I do know what you're talking about when victims are afraid to come out due to fear or some other factor. It's a shame and heartbreaking to hear about how some feel like there isn't a way to get help or to speak about what they went through in those situations.

All I really ask is for people to uphold the idea of innocence until proven guilty, which should remain a corner stone idea for most criminal cases where not much information is known, or if all we have to go buy is accusations.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> You should never presume consent, not sure if you have ever kissed a girl before *but the way it works is,if you lean in and she leans in back you end up kissing. If you lean in and she doesn't you know she does not want to kiss.*
> 
> And I would never try to kiss someone on a business dinner which is the context of this story.


Obviously.

So are there any cases or claims of Trump persisting and making forceful advances in spite of the woman's objections?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> Obviously.
> 
> So are there any cases or claims of Trump persisting and making forceful advances in spite of the woman's objections?


19 according to this article

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...-about-the-19-women-who-accused-trump/547724/




Dr. Bexmas said:


> I was talking about on a case by case basis when I referred to context. For example, if you go on a date with somebody and then at the end of the night they try to kiss you (but for you it's unwarranted), that's not fair to call that sexual assault.
> 
> And yes, the victim usually is the one who suffers the most, but currently it feels like there is more support for those who suffered through rape or sexual assault than ever, which is a great thing. It also seems like it's made easier than ever before to make sure that such things are reported to say the police or someone else. I do know what you're talking about when victims are afraid to come out due to fear or some other factor. It's a shame and heartbreaking to hear about how some feel like there isn't a way to get help or to speak about what they went through in those situations.
> 
> All I really ask is for people to uphold the idea of innocence until proven guilty, which should remain a corner stone idea for most criminal cases where not much information is known, or if all we have to go buy is accusations.


If you are on a date and a guy tries to kiss a girl and she pulls away, yes I wouldn't consider that sexual assault but if that same guy keeps trying to kiss her, then it is sexual assault.

But if you are on a business dinner or at work with a co-worker and you kiss them on the lips, I would consider that sexual assault, at the very least it's sexual harassment.

I mostly agree with the rest of your post.


----------



## Dr. Middy

birthday_massacre said:


> 19 according to this article
> 
> If you are on a date and a guy tries to kiss a girl and she pulls away, yes I wouldn't consider that sexual assault but if that same guy keeps trying to kiss her, then it is sexual assault.
> 
> But if you are on a business dinner or at work with a co-worker and you kiss them on the lips, I would consider that sexual assault, at the very least it's sexual harassment.
> 
> I mostly agree with the rest of your post.


That's fair. I'd be more favorable to calling actions like that harassment than assault, both are bad, but one is much worse than the other. Like we talked about, it really does mostly depend on the people involved.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/939523215168299008
Not to forget that the impeachment vote failed MISERABLY. 

It's been another great week for Trump. 

They've been reduced to telling us that Trump tried to kiss a girl and stopped when she didn't respond and watches 8 hours of TV and likes to drink Diet Coke


----------



## Dr. Middy

Merry Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/939523215168299008
> It's been another great week for Trump.
> 
> They've been reduced to telling us that Trump watches 8 hours of TV and likes to drink Diet Coke


_
DIET COKE?!_ :MAD

Not drinking much better Coke Zero :beckywhat

Welp, I hate Trump now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oh look repear once again ignoring all the evidence against Trump and his admin. No surprise here. Must be nice living in his delusional world


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> 19 according to this article
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...-about-the-19-women-who-accused-trump/547724/


So I just read the entire article:

1. Each and every claim with the exception of one was first reported on in 2016 conveniently during the months leading up to the general election. The lone exception involved his ex-wife back in 1993, however she later denied that deposition entirely.

2. Several of the women making these claims continued to have relations with Trump after the alleged 'assault', which is very odd. I don't know why women who felt sexually violated during previous encounters would continue to keep this man's private company.

3. Some of these accusations, assuming they're even true, wouldn't even constitute assault. Walking into a dressing room unannounced? Looking up a woman's dress? Crude yes... but assault? That is a huge overreaction.


Sorry pal, there are a lot of holes in this narrative.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> So I just read the entire article:
> 
> 1. *Each and every claim with the exception of one was first reported on in 2016 conveniently during the months leading up to the general election.* The lone exception involved his ex-wife back in 1993, however she later denied that deposition entirely.
> 
> 2. Several of the women making these claims continued to have relations with Trump after the alleged 'assault', which is very odd. I don't know why women who felt sexually violated during previous encounters would continue to keep this man's private company.
> 
> 3. Some of these accusations, assuming they're even true, wouldn't even constitute assault. Walking into a dressing room unannounced? Looking up a woman's dress? Crude yes... but assault? That is a huge overreaction.
> 
> 
> Sorry pal, there are a lot of holes in this narrative.


who cares when they were reported. So I guess Harvey Weinstein should get off because they are just being reported in 2017?

The people who were sexually assaulted with Harvey still had relations with him too, that shit happens all the time.

So are you saying Harvey should also not have stepped down?


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> *who cares when they were reported*. So I guess Harvey Weinstein should get off because they are just being reported in 2017?
> 
> The people who were sexually assaulted with Harvey still had relations with him too, that shit happens all the time.
> 
> So are you saying Harvey should also not have stepped down?


If you were the victim of a robbery but you waited 20 years to report it, how seriously would you expect the police to respond at first?

It is obviously more difficult to lend credibility to any claim made several years after the fact. It immediately begs the question why no attempt was made sooner. Why the urge to keep it a secret for so long? More importantly, why the urge to come out now?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> If you were the victim of a robbery but you waited 20 years to report it, how seriously would you expect the police to respond at first?
> 
> It is obviously more difficult to lend credibility to any claim made several years after the fact. It immediately begs the question why no attempt was made sooner. Why the urge to keep it a secret for so long? More importantly, why the urge to come out now?


No it's not more difficult to lend credibility to any claim made several years after the fact especially when it comes to rich and powerful people that could end your career if you reported it especially when the women are zero power.

But sure keep defending sexual predators


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> No it's not more difficult to lend credibility to any claim made several years after the fact especially when it comes to rich and powerful people that could end your career if you reported it especially when the women are zero power.
> 
> But sure keep defending sexual predators


Would you allow someone to repeatedly take sexual advantage of you it meant keeping your job?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Yet it was not a date since Trump was married at the time and it was a business dinner to discuss her doing something with the apprentice.
> 
> Stop lying to defend Trump by pretending it was a date when it wasn't


He didn't walk up to her and just try and kiss her. What narrative are you trying to concoct? I'm not even sure what you're saying? That he's a scumbag husband? Okay. That he's a sexual assaulter? No, just no.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> He didn't walk up to her and just try and kiss her. What narrative are you trying to concoct? I'm not even sure what you're saying? That he's a scumbag husband? Okay. That he's a sexual assaulter? No, just no.


Go back and read my posts its clear what I am saying



Smarky Mark said:


> Would you allow someone to repeatedly take sexual advantage of you it meant keeping your job?


That happens all the time in Hollywood or huge corp jobs. Just look at Roger Alies and Bill O'Reilly unless you want to take their sides too


----------



## birthday_massacre

double post


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Go back and read my posts its clear what I am saying


That he's a scumbag husband. Okay, I don't care as that's between him and his wife.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> That happens all the time in Hollywood or huge corp jobs. Just look at Roger Alies and Bill O'Reilly unless you want to take their sides too


I asked you a question.

Would you allow your boss to take sexual advantage of you? More than once? Would you stay quiet and keep showing up to work?


----------



## Art Vandaley

TheNightmanCometh said:


> You're gonna have to show me where and how extremists in Israel are making up less of a minority and wielding more power. I'd be happy to go tit for tat on rhetoric from both sides over the last 5 years.
> 
> I use contraceptives, but I would hardly call the refusal to do so an extremist line of thinking.
> 
> Arranged marriages on the other hand, I don't agree with, but again, that's a culture thing. I don't agree with anyone being forced to marry someone they don't want to marry, and this is obviously true for children, as I believe it shouldn't even be up for discussion while they are children, but if an adult woman or man consent to their parents choosing their partner, then I'm perfectly fine with that.


The current education minister publicly calls for the annexation of the West Bank and the establishment of an aparthied state there. Neftali Bennett is the character in question. That would have been unheard of

Here is an article if you're curious. Notice how he refers to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria, the areas biblical name. 
https://www.timesofisrael.com/bennett-urges-israeli-annexation-of-west-bank/

Also I'm not critising not using contraceptives and though I don't approve of arranged marriages I wasn't meaning to be critical of the concept in that context. More just explaining why fundamentalists are increasing as a proportion of the Israeli population.

Religious fundamentalism is also the reason for moving the embassy to Jerusalem as that was the biblical capital. 

Moving the embassy is going to cost 100s of millions of dollars (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/...y-tel-aviv-jerusalem-poses-challenges-n696396) and will achieve nothing but making some religious fundamentalists happy.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> I asked you a question.
> 
> Would you allow your boss to take sexual advantage of you? More than once? Would you stay quiet and keep showing up to work?


I love how you ignore the reason why these women kept quiet. 

to answer your question, if I was sexually assaulted at work and the person was so powerful that If I came out against them they could ruin my career, I would have second thoughts about telling anyone. 

There is a reason why people like Cosby, Trump, Alies, O'Reilly, Weinstein etc etc get away with this type of shit.

its apples and oranges trying to compare some who works in Hollywood or a huge company like Fox News, vs someone who has some small desk job at a small company.

The higher you go up the ladder in a company or the bigger the celebrity or name is, the more difficult it is to report sexual assault because they are too rich and too powerful as we have seen in the past, its why they got away with it.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> I love how you ignore the reason why these women kept quiet.
> 
> to answer your question, if I was sexually assaulted at work and the person was so powerful that If I came out against them they could ruin my career, I would have second thoughts about telling anyone.
> 
> There is a reason why people like Cosby, Trump, Alies, O'Reilly, Weinstein etc etc get away with this type of shit.
> 
> its apples and oranges trying to compare some who works in Hollywood or a huge company like Fox News, vs someone who has some small desk job at a small company.


Well this may come as a surprise to you but not everyone is willing to put a price on their dignity. There are plenty of men and women out there who would immediately shut down any unwarranted sexual advance without giving it a second thought, even if it possibly meant their career.

I respect your decision to play along and keep quiet, but then you have no right to judge anyone else because you are only further contributing to the problem. You are also making it very hard to distinguish the victims from the opportunists.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> *Well this may come as a surprise to you but not everyone is willing to put a price on their dignity. There are plenty of men and women out there who would immediately shut down any unwarranted sexual advance without giving it a second thought, even if it possibly meant their career.*
> 
> I respect your decision to play along and keep quiet, but then you have no right to judge anyone else because you are only further contributing to the problem. You are also making it very hard to distinguish the victims from the opportunists.


Yet in all these examples in Hollywood and fox news they didn't. Again you can't compare to keep quiet when its some huge named rich person vs some no names manager at some small rinky-dink job.

But sure keep victim-blaming instead of the sexual assaulter who tells the viticim if they speak up they will ruin their career and never work in that industry again.

Luckily, it looks like sexual assault victims will never longer fear what some big named celebrity or person in high powerful positions will do. 

I also think its funny you claim I am the one judging them when it's you who are judging them for keeping quiet. But that is par for the course with you. You are the one saying they are full of shit because they waited so long or are questing why they waited and didn't come out because they didn't want their careers ruined. Where I am understanding why they would do that.

Not sure if you understand what the term judging means.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> Yet in all these examples in Hollywood and fox news they didn't. Again you can't compare to keep quiet when its some huge named rich person vs some no names manager at some small rinky-dink job.


No one forces these people to work in Hollywood. They choose to. If you discover that your superior is a fucking pig who plans on abusing you repeatedly, are you not free to exit at any time? 

Pretend some big shot hollywood exec had 10 female assistants, all of which he made aggressive sexual advances towards regularly. 5 of them willingly played along and encouraged it in the hopes that it would advance their careers, the other 5 were grossed out but they kept quiet and played along anyway because they loved their job.

In that instance all 10 women would be equally responsible in perpetuating that environment. 




birthday_massacre said:


> Luckily, it looks like sexual assault victims will never longer fear what some big named celebrity or person in high powerful positions will do.


Do you seriously think this will lead to a change in Hollywood? Do you think people will stop having sex for movie parts?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> No one forces these people to work in Hollywood. They choose to. If you discover that your superior is a fucking pig who plans on abusing you repeatedly, are you not free to exit at any time?
> 
> Pretend some big shot hollywood exec had 10 female assistants, all of which he made aggressive sexual advances towards regularly. 5 of them willingly played along and encouraged it in the hopes that it would advance their careers, the other 5 were grossed out but they kept quiet and played along anyway because they loved their job.
> 
> In that instance all 10 women would be equally responsible in perpetuating that environment.


yeah keep blaming the victims.




Smarky Mark said:


> Do you seriously think this will lead to a change in Hollywood? Do you think people will stop having sex for movie parts?


NIce strawman argument when that is not what I was talking about at all.

I said more women will start speaking up now when execs or huge named actors sexual assault them instead of keeping quit like they used to because they feared for their careers.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> yeah keep blaming the victims.


You think everyone is a victim.

A woman that is raped against her will is a victim.

A woman that repeatedly allows someone to sexually violate her and show up to work the following day with a smile on her face... made her choice.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> You think everyone is a victim.
> 
> A woman that is raped against her will is a victim.
> 
> A woman that repeatedly allows someone to sexually violate her and show up to work the following day with a smile on her face... made her choice.


I would make a comment but I would get banned.


----------



## Arya Dark

Smarky Mark said:


> You think everyone is a victim.
> 
> A woman that is raped against her will is a victim.
> 
> A woman that repeatedly allows someone to sexually violate her and show up to work the following day with a smile on her face... made her choice.


*She's still a victim*


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

This is the Trump thread and this topic seems more fitting in the Hollywood sexual assault thread. Take it over there please 

:move


----------



## Reaper

This has been a FANTASTIC week for Trump. Great for foreign policy as Iraq declared another victory over ISIS. The economy responded strongly to the promise of tax cuts. The impeachment vote died. Dozens of Federal Court appointments were made. The list of successes is YUUUUGE. 

3 media outlets exposed for making fake news in a matter of days. All of them at each other's throats. 

So bitch-ass scared to make up shit that now that they're talking about Trump drinking diet coke and watching TV  You know, like a typical American. He's truly the people's President :trump 

Daddy did it again. 

I'm so not tired of winning yet.


----------



## Laughable Chimp

Smarky Mark said:


> You think everyone is a victim.
> 
> A woman that is raped against her will is a victim.
> 
> A woman that repeatedly allows someone to sexually violate her and show up to work the following day with a smile on her face... made her choice.


Lots of people keep quiet on sexual assault and endure it due to fear of telling anyone. 

As for Hollywood, I don't know how is it in there, but judging from the movie La La Land which is all the information I have on how its like to be a young unknown female actresss in Hollywood, lots of these women(hell men too) sacrificed a lot to get there and to attempt to stand out. And many seem young, naive and easily manipulatable. 

Put the sacrifice and the naivete together, they become easy targets to any big time Hollywood exec. Just imagine the fear of being blackballed by the industry or even just losing the role that they had sacrificed everything to get. Some are probably naive enough to be manipulated into thinking its somehow their fault. Its probably reached to the point where its become the norm and that they should expect it. Doesn't mean they like being sexually assualted or that they aren't victims.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/939560154269405184
God, what a racist!


----------



## yeahbaby!

TheNightmanCometh said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/939560154269405184
> God, what a racist!


Lol "That's very BIG stuff, those are very BIG phrases, they're very BIG words".

Slow down college boy I can't keep up with your first class oration skills.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> Lol "That's very BIG stuff, those are very BIG phrases, they're very BIG words".
> 
> Slow down college boy I can't keep up with your first class oration skills.


How's the view up on your high horse?


----------



## Reaper

:mj4


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

It's a state that in Senate/Gov and and Presidential races Dem's haven't been competitive in since the 90's. Even if they lose the race, Trump and the RNC will always have it on their record they endorsed a Pedophile just for the sake of holding onto a Senate seat that won't even effect the balance of power. I realize even if Trump endorsed Jared Fogle or Robert Durst some hyperpartisons would always be but Hilary or something something George Soros,but the more Moore becomes a national figure it's a toxic look for those defending him much like 9-11 or Joe Paterno truthers.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

And if you think the Dems will fair better against a "non-pedophile" ticket then you're SoFreakinCrazy.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

TheNightmanCometh said:


> And if you think the Dems will fair better against a "non-pedophile" ticket then you're SoFreakinCrazy.


Of course,if any of Moore's primary opponents had won this race would have garnered almost no national attention and been just a 5-10 minute story the day of election on cable news. It say's a lot about how hyperpartisan "swamp drainer" Trump is though that he will endorse anyone as long as they are an (R) running against a (D). Romney,the Bushes or any past Republican standard bearer's wouldn't have sunk to endorsing a confirmed Paedo like Moore. Papa Bush for example denounced White Supremacist David Duke when he won the Republican Primary in Louisiana in the 90's


----------



## Reaper

Ron Paul getting in on the memes :lmao

This has been one of the greatest years in internet history.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Of course,if any of Moore's primary opponents had won this race would have garnered almost no national attention and been just a 5-10 minute story the day of election on cable news. It say's a lot about how hyperpartisan "swamp drainer" Trump is though that he will endorse anyone as long as they are an (R) running against a (D). Romney,the Bushes or any past Republican standard bearer's wouldn't have sunk to endorsing a confirmed Paedo like Moore. Papa Bush for example denounced White Supremacist David Duke when he won the Republican Primary in Louisiana in the 90's


If I'm not mistaken, and I could be, but Moore would have to run again in 2018. There is no doubt that new R candidates will run against him. By that time Moore will be an after thought and a new R will be up against whatever D the Dems put out there, and as long as this new R isn't an alleged pedo then the Dems will lose by as much as they usually do.


----------



## stevefox1200

Ron Paul memes and spam were a plague on the world

I hope those dark times never come again for the holy warriors may not have the strength

not all of the power dear brothers


----------



## Draykorinee

yeahbaby! said:


> Lol "That's very BIG stuff, those are very BIG phrases, they're very BIG words".
> 
> Slow down college boy I can't keep up with your first class oration skills.


I could barely keep up, those are some big words.


----------



## Reaper

Still winning.












draykorinee said:


> I could barely keep up, those are some big words.


His conversational skills have made him a working class hero :trump

Look at you uppity elitists criticizing his communication skills. This is why he'll keep winning.


----------



## Goku

Been out of the loop for a bit (and out of my head) but the excessive winning brought me back.

I don't know how much more winning I can take.

:trump4


----------



## Reaper

"The toof about Drumpf" 

IMPEACH!!! 

:mj4


----------



## Empress

There's a live press conference being held with the women who have accused Trump of sexual assault/harassment. Most of the cable outlets are carrying it. The women are asking for a Senate investigation.


----------



## Stinger Fan

BoFreakinDallas said:


> It's a state that in Senate/Gov and and Presidential races Dem's haven't been competitive in since the 90's. Even if they lose the race, Trump and the RNC will always have it on their record they endorsed a Pedophile just for the sake of holding onto a Senate seat that won't even effect the balance of power. I realize even if Trump endorsed Jared Fogle or Robert Durst some hyperpartisons would always be but Hilary or something something George Soros,but the more Moore becomes a national figure it's a toxic look for those defending him much like 9-11 or Joe Paterno truthers.


Democrats aren't saints though . This is the same party that gave Bill Clinton a round of applause after he wasn't impeached over the Monica Lewinski scandal. Mel Reynolds was indicted for having sex with a 16 year old , he continued to campaign, won his election and was removed shortly after. There was Fred Richmond and his attempt to solicit sex from a 16 year old boy, he admitted to it and still won re-election 

Point is, both sides do the same thing


----------



## Draykorinee

Merry Reaper said:


> Still winning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His conversational skills have made him a working class hero :trump
> 
> Look at you uppity elitists criticizing his communication skills. This is why he'll keep winning.


I think you do the working class people like myself a disservice when you make out like our vocabulary is as bad as Trumps.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> I think you do the working class people like myself a disservice when you make out like our vocabulary is as bad as Trumps.


A nurse is working class? Working Class here is more closely associated with Blue Collar workers. 

BTW, is that what British socialism has accomplished where Pink Collar workers are now considering themselves "working class"? :CENA


----------



## Draykorinee

Merry Reaper said:


> A nurse is working class? Working Class here is more closely associated with Blue Collar workers.
> 
> BTW, is that what British socialism has accomplished where Pink Collar workers are now considering themselves "working class"? :CENA


Nurses are the lowest paid of all the public service workers, I think I probably bridge the working class middle class divide, I grew up with a single mum in a council house but she finally met a bloke who supported us better. According to this calculator http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22000973 I'm in the 'new affluent workers' group which bridges both.

The average nurse in the US earns $66k, in the UK its about $30k.

I need to move to America.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Nurses are the lowest paid of all the public service workers, I think I probably bridge the working class middle class divide, I grew up with a single mum in a council house but she finally met a bloke who supported us better. According to this calculator http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22000973 I'm in the 'new affluent workers' group which bridges both.


Nurses make 58-82k in Florida. Which is about 1.5 times more than what my wife currently makes and we're already living a pretty comfortable life on a single income. A nurse is at the higher end of the pay spectrum here so I can't relate at all to this concept that nurses would have anything but a very comfortable life ... Almost all nurses I know here are doing extremely well financially and socially.

Also gotta remember that our cost of living here is significantly lower as well.



draykorinee said:


> The average nurse in the US earns $66k, in the UK its about $30k.
> 
> I need to move to America.


Privatization isn't without its benefits :cudi


----------



## Vic Capri

>


Definitely evidence of Russian collusion!

- Vic


----------



## Kabraxal

This year has been a shitshow for the media... regardless of any biases we all have, we should all be able to admit the media is a joke. Diet pop consumption is fucking important? Fucking hell.


----------



## Draykorinee

Roy Moore will probably win, the right will be fucking insufferable.

Not that the left would be any better if he lost mind.


----------



## FatherJackHackett

Anyone with half a brain could have seen it from a mile away that the next coordinated effort from the Left to target Trump would be the 'sexual assault' thing after they saw how well it caught on and the public scrutiny on the likes of Weinstein and Lauer along with Franken and Moore in the political arena.

They've clearly all decided that they're onto a loser with this Russia collusion issue and fancied a change of tact, so thought they'd organise this little stunt with these women calling for a Senate investigation. You could see it coming and it became certain when Franken made sure to mention Trump in his pathetic non-apology. Obviously the short term gain here is to try and smear Trump as much as possible, but they're trying to gather enough 'evidence' to 'justify' impeachment should they take the House in 2020.

Don't be fooled folks, the Democrats couldn't give two shits about sexual assault or impropriety and are simply weaponising it and using it as a tool to gain political points. What is particularly handy is that they don't even have to have any real proof - the mere mention of it alone is enough to ruin someone and cast significant doubts over them. The establishment have proven over the past year that no tactic is below them, and have realised that this right now is a hot topic and a path of least resistance to achieve their ends.


----------



## Miss Sally

FatherJackHackett said:


> Anyone with half a brain could have seen it from a mile away that the next coordinated effort from the Left to target Trump would be the 'sexual assault' thing after they saw how well it caught on and the public scrutiny on the likes of Weinstein and Lauer along with Franken and Moore in the political arena.
> 
> They've clearly all decided that they're onto a loser with this Russia collusion issue and fancied a change of tact, so thought they'd organise this little stunt with these women calling for a Senate investigation. You could see it coming and it became certain when Franken made sure to mention Trump in his pathetic non-apology. Obviously the short term gain here is to try and smear Trump as much as possible, but they're trying to gather enough 'evidence' to 'justify' impeachment should they take the House in 2020.
> 
> Don't be fooled folks, the Democrats couldn't give two shits about sexual assault or impropriety and are simply weaponising it and using it as a tool to gain political points. What is particularly handy is that they don't even have to have any real proof - the mere mention of it alone is enough to ruin someone and cast significant doubts over them. The establishment have proven over the past year that no tactic is below them, and have realised that this right now is a hot topic and a path of least resistance to achieve their ends.


It was the next step given the Russia stuff isn't really going anywhere. What's odd is that during the campaign stuff was brought up against Trump, like the whole pedo thing which turned out to be false. It's a little weird now this comes up when before the election it was fashionable to shit on Trump. The timing is odd, tho won't comment on the validity of these women's statements just there's never been a time Trump's been protected like Weinstein or Franken etc. 

I don't expect it to go anywhere, it maybe just a way to try and smear Trump with more isms and ists. The odd thing is like with Moore, if stuff is there it will come out but faking stuff doesn't help anyone's cause and not sure the Democrats have learned this. I just expect all this to be lost like tears in rain.


----------



## Art Vandaley

The thing about the Mueller investigation to remember is that the whole Monica Lewinsky stuff came out in a similar investigation which was originally supposed to look at dodgy real estate deals, and Bills near impeachment didn't come from the blow job it came from lying about the blow job.

Of course that was a Republican investigating a Democrat not a Republican investigating a Republican like we have here so they're unlikely to be as gung ho about the whole thing.


----------



## Draykorinee

Sexual harassment is far easier to swallow with Trump seeing as he's been a vocal misogynist and perv in the past.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Roy Moore will probably win, the right will be fucking insufferable.
> 
> Not that the left would be any better if he lost mind.


Not really. Roy Moore has divided the right on not just issues, but his character. 

The current slogan is "Vote for Policy, not character". The thing is that if he's forced to resign after winning the seat, it will remain a republican seat. Don't forget that the political hit (because it's obvious now that that's what it was) came after the deadline had passed to change the candidate on the ballot. It was perfectly timed to try to get Jones as competitive as possible. 

Just that Democrats again overplayed their hand by propping up a candidate that is far weaker on policy than Roy Moore and is a bit of a racist himself given that he has nothing substantial on race issues and plastered his campaign with an SJW devised hipster racist ad campaign. 

Most Democrats end up "racist" gaffes for their ultra-leftist crowd (I mean, they are mostly white men and women) but too liberal for fiscal conservatives and classical liberals .. So as a party currently they're lost and have no idea who their voter base is. Their biggest failure is that they've left their center left/libertarian and Classical Liberal base behind --- which is abstaining - and they're shooting with retarded SJW messages in deeply conservative places like Alabama where the only chance for Democrats to win is to campaign on conservative policies. 

Voters are aware of this. It's not just about Roy Moore winning. Just like it wasn't about Trump winning. It was a conscious decision on policy matters.

---

THE TRUTH ABOUT DRUMPF FINALLY COMES OUT!!! Donald Trump JR with a massive confession today. 



Spoiler: Trump's confession















IMPEACH!


----------



## 2 Ton 21

...Maybe don't tell the story of when you and your friend Roy accidentally ended up in a child brothel in Nam. I get what he's trying to get across; that Roy didn't partake and left. It's just winding up at a child brothel in the first place is a bad look. I mean o.k. you guys left, but you did let the other guy stay there and fuck kids and then didn't do anything about it. Moore was an MP, he was supposed to stop the guy.

*EDIT:*

Also, what's this about? What was wrong with preserving the voting records?



> *Update: State Supreme Court stays order directing Alabama not to destroy voting records*
> 
> Update - 9:05 a.m. Dec. 12, 2017: Late Monday night, the Alabama Supreme Court stayed the Montgomery County Circuit Court's order earlier that day directing Alabama election officials to preserve digital ballot images during Tuesday's Senate election.
> 
> A judge directed Alabama election officials Monday afternoon to preserve all digital ballot images in Tuesday's hotly contested U.S. Senate special election.
> 
> An order granting a preliminary injunction was filed at 1:36 p.m. Monday - less than 24 hours before voting is to begin. The order came in response to a lawsuit filed Thursday on behalf of four Alabama voters who argued that the state is required to maintain the images under state and federal law.
> 
> "All counties employing digital ballot scanners in the Dec. 12, 2017 election are hereby ordered to set their voting machines to save all processed images in order to preserve all digital ballot images," Montgomery County Circuit Judge Roman Ashley Shaul wrote in the order.
> 
> Priscilla Duncan, attorney for the plaintiffs, applauded the order.
> 
> "[The images] need to be preserved at least six months under the statute," Duncan told AL.com Monday afternoon. "They are being told at this point to preserve all digital ballot records."
> 
> Reached by phone shortly after the injunction was issued Monday, Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill declined to comment. Merrill and Ed Packard, the state administrator of elections, are the two defendants named in the suit filed Thursday.
> 
> "We don't comment on lawsuits," Merrill said.
> 
> Digital ballot images are essentially digitized versions of the paper ballots Alabamians fill out in the voting booth. In Alabama, these digital images are destroyed once an election has passed, according to Duncan.
> 
> "People think that when they mark the ballots and they go into the machine that that's what counted," she said. "But it's not, the paper ballot is not what's counted. That ballot is scanned and they destroy [the ballots] after the election ... If there's ever an election challenge you need to have what was actually counted."
> 
> The destruction of the images allegedly opens the door to potential hacking because there are no hard copies of the ballots, according to Duncan.
> 
> "The Department of Homeland Security notified our Secretary of State here that Alabama is one of the 21 states that had been targeting for hacking of election systems," she said, referring to this year's special election for Georgia's 6th congressional district.
> 
> Shaul wrote in the order that destroying the images could have a negative impact on voters in Alabama.
> 
> "After hearing arguments and reviewing the filings, it appears that Plaintiffs and similarly situated voters would suffer irreparable and immediate harm if digital ballot images are not preserved," the order states.


----------



## Reaper

The internet did not exist in the 70s. People literally just walked into things that looked like establishments.

Like why is this even a thing? It's a humorous war story that happened to soldiers in a different era and anyone that's talked to any amount of soldiers knows they had plenty of stories. Some good and some bad.

Also, the outrage from the left iver him accidentally entering a pedo brothel is again a pile of dog crap when the previous administration and the current one has literally court marshalled soldiers for preventing Bacha Bazi in Afghanistan. 

Partisan politics as usual.


----------



## stevefox1200

Merry Reaper said:


> The internet did not exist in the 70s. People literally just walked into things that looked like establishments.
> 
> Like why is this even a thing? It's a humorous war story that happened to soldiers in a different era and anyone that's talked to any amount of soldiers knows they had plenty of stories. Some good and some bad.
> 
> Also, the outrage from the left iver him accidentally entering a pedo brothel is again a pile of dog crap when the previous administration and the current one has literally court marshalled soldiers for preventing Bacha Bazi in Afghanistan.
> 
> Partisan politics as usual.


The "left" did not dig up the Vietnam story

One of Roys friends said it a rally in support of Roy as a very strange attempt at defending him and showing his good character

Moore's defense has been extremely bizarre, its far easier to say "I didn't do it" than "I've hung around sexy kids and even though the bible said it was ok I was never tempted"


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> The "left" did not dig up the Vietnam story
> 
> One of Roys friends said it a rally in support of Roy as a very strange attempt at defending him and showing his good character
> 
> Moore's defense has been extremely bizarre, its far easier to say "I didn't do it" than "I've hung around sexy kids and even though the bible said it was ok I was never tempted"


Where did I say that the left "dug up the story". They are the ones spreading it around twisting it to mean he's a pedo. There's nothing wrong with sharing a humorous war story. There's something wrong with twisting it as "evidence" of wrong-doing. It just shows ineptness in people's ability to understand context. Or of course, intentionally pushing fake propaganda because people know that last minute impulse voting is the same as an impulse purchase and anything that can get some random idiot to put in a vote based on a lie is still a vote. 

That's "democracy" and that's why propaganda is legalized in America. 

And in the minds of conspiracy theorists, denial doesn't register. In fact, it registers as "the lady doth protest too much".


----------



## stevefox1200

Merry Reaper said:


> Where did I say that the left "dug up the story". They are the ones spreading it around twisting it to mean he's a pedo. There's nothing wrong with sharing a humorous war story. There's something wrong with twisting it as "evidence" of wrong-doing. It just shows ineptness in people's ability to understand context. Or of course, intentionally pushing fake propaganda because people know that last minute impulse voting is the same as an impulse purchase and anything that can get some random idiot to put in a vote based on a lie is still a vote.
> 
> That's "democracy" and that's why propaganda is legalized in America.
> 
> And in the minds of conspiracy theorists, denial doesn't register. In fact, it registers as "the lady doth protest too much".


If I was accused of cheating on my wife I would not bring up the time I hung out a strip club or all the women who wanted to sleep with me as a "humorous story"

"I'm not gay, men ask to suck my cock and I said no"

Also, how the fuck is "We went to club and it turned out to be full of child sex slaves so we left" a humors story to tell at a campaign rally?


----------



## Draykorinee

Merry Reaper said:


> Voters are aware of this. It's not just about Roy Moore winning. Just like it wasn't about Trump winning. It was a conscious decision on policy matters.
> 
> IMPEACH!


Policies will of course have an affect on peoples voting decisions, but we're seeing far too much red v blue, left v right, GOP v SJW shenanigans that makes this far more than just policies. This is why the right will celebrate, it will be a big Trump win when Roy wins and another middle finger to the left who push X agenda. Its going to be unbearable.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> Not really. Roy Moore has divided the right on not just issues, but his character.
> 
> The current slogan is "Vote for Policy, not character". The thing is that if he's forced to resign after winning the seat, it will remain a republican seat. Don't forget that the political hit (because it's obvious now that that's what it was) came after the deadline had passed to change the candidate on the ballot. It was perfectly timed to try to get Jones as competitive as possible.
> 
> Just that Democrats again overplayed their hand by propping up a candidate that is far weaker on policy than Roy Moore and is a bit of a racist himself given that he has nothing substantial on race issues and plastered his campaign with an SJW devised hipster racist ad campaign.
> 
> Most Democrats end up "racist" gaffes for their ultra-leftist crowd (I mean, they are mostly white men and women) but too liberal for fiscal conservatives and classical liberals .. So as a party currently they're lost and have no idea who their voter base is. Their biggest failure is that they've left their center left/libertarian and Classical Liberal base behind --- which is abstaining - and they're shooting with retarded SJW messages in deeply conservative places like Alabama where the only chance for Democrats to win is to campaign on conservative policies.
> 
> Voters are aware of this. It's not just about Roy Moore winning. Just like it wasn't about Trump winning. It was a conscious decision on policy matters.
> 
> ---
> 
> THE TRUTH ABOUT DRUMPF FINALLY COMES OUT!!! Donald Trump JR with a massive confession today.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Trump's confession
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMPEACH!


Yeah, Moore's racist and anti-gay policies. That is why people in Alabama will vote for him, they don't care how many women he sexually assaulted


----------



## Vic Capri

Disavowed.


----------



## Arya Dark




----------



## Art Vandaley

Roy Moores wife using the fact he has a Jewish lawyer to prove he doesn't hate Jews is pretty hilarious.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Vic Capri said:


> MSM is saying "Roy Moore’s Senate race is almost impossible to poll accurately"
> 
> *Translation*: He's going to win.
> 
> - Vic


Do you ever not post things not to shit on people who don't share the same political views as you. 

Jesus Christ man do you want 300 million people who think just like you?


----------



## CamillePunk

Unhinged Pocahontas implies Kirsten Gillibrand is promiscuous while feigning outrage over something Trump didn't actually say. :banderas


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/940674301874892806
Best timeline.


----------



## Beatles123

The Hardcore Show said:


> Do you ever not post things not to shit on people who don't share the same political views as you.
> 
> Jesus Christ man do you want 300 million people who think just like you?


Literally everyone does this. You can see the same idea flipped in the anti-trump thread. :shrug


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Beatles123 said:


> Literally everyone does this. You can see the same idea flipped in the anti-trump thread. :shrug


So its weird to not troll people who share different political views then you? I thought it was the other way around unless you want the United States to be an echo chamber of nothing but Trump and Moore's views on life.

God forbid I want to sit down break bread and maybe not feel like I have to conform my life because I did not vote for Trump and feel like you want a country that views him and people like him as gods like they do in North Korea.


----------



## CamillePunk

The Hardcore Show said:


> So its weird to not troll people who share different political views then you? I thought it was the other way around unless you want the United States to be an echo chamber of nothing but Trump and Moore's views on life.
> 
> God forbid I want to sit down break bread and maybe not feel like I have to conform my life because I did not vote for Trump and feel like you want a country that views him and people like him as gods like they do in North Korea.


This false high ground you're claiming is hilarious when one looks at your post history in this thread and the series of hyperbolic statements and strawmen you employ at any given chance. :banderas


----------



## The Hardcore Show

CamillePunk said:


> This false high ground you're claiming is hilarious when one looks at your post history in this thread and the series of hyperbolic statements and strawmen you employ at any given chance. :banderas


Some of that I really do feel that's why. Some of you feel that this whole country pretty much needs to be something of a GOP dictatorship to survive.


----------



## CamillePunk

The Hardcore Show said:


> Some of that I really do feel that's why. Some of you feel that this whole country pretty much needs to be something of a GOP dictatorship to survive.


How do you know "some of you" FEEL that we need a dictatorship? Who has advocated that position? What secret power to see other people's inner feelings through the internet do you have and what is the origin story behind it? 

Seems to me you're just guilty of what you accuse others of doing. You have different political views than someone and so rather than accept that or disagree on the substance of the positions, you take what someone's said and twist its meaning into something malicious and extreme or just make bizarre claims that they "FEEL" some extreme position that they've never expressed which makes them look bad. All because you don't agree on tax rates or where "public" funds (stolen goods) should be spent, or some other relatively benign policy position.


----------



## birthday_massacre

The Hardcore Show said:


> So its weird to not troll people who share different political views then you? I thought it was the other way around unless you want the United States to be an echo chamber of nothing but Trump and Moore's views on life.
> 
> God forbid I want to sit down break bread and maybe not feel like I have to conform my life because I did not vote for Trump and feel like you want a country that views him and people like him as gods like they do in North Korea.


Most of the posters on the right in this forum will back a racist, and bigoted POS like Moore if him winning would piss off the liberals. They don't care about what kind of person he is or his policies they just want to see the liberals get "trolled" even if Moore winning would not be in their best interest.

It's like with Trump, his supporters are so uninformed they can't see them voting for him fucked them over. But again oh liberals are pissed so they love it even though most of them are being negative effected.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

birthday_massacre said:


> Most of the posters on the right in this forum will back a racist, and bigoted POS like Moore if him winning would piss off the liberals. They don't care about what kind of person he is or his policies they just want to see the liberals get "trolled" even if Moore winning would not be in their best interest.
> 
> It's like with Trump, his supporters are so uninformed they can't see them voting for him fucked them over. But again oh liberals are pissed so they love it even though most of them are being negative effected.


If that's the future of this country on both sides to be fair we're screwed pretty much.


----------



## birthday_massacre

The Hardcore Show said:


> If that's the future of this country on both sides to be fair we're screwed pretty much.


Trump and the GOP logic when it comes to Moore


----------



## Cabanarama

Holy shit, looks like Doug Jones is probably going to win this....
I guess the people of Alabama aren't entirely screwed up


----------



## stevefox1200

I had a fantastic pedo play-list lined up for Moore's victory

shame


----------



## Empress

Doug Jones won! Despite all the efforts of Trump, Jones just won the Senate seat in Alabama! Preliminary data says that Black turnout as very high.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/940784509238333441


----------



## stevefox1200

don't be sad Roy, I still think your the greatest


----------



## Empress

Fox News is so shook. :lol They don't know what to say.


----------



## stevefox1200

Now after losing this election, Roy Moore should of hid his erection

But I'm not here to provide a defense, I just talking about his sex offense


----------



## T Hawk

disgusted that it was even this close considering the man is a pedo


----------



## birthday_massacre

All the excuses Fox News is making lol


----------



## virus21

Did anyone really think he would win?


----------



## Vic Capri

In case you're wondering why Roy Moore lost tonight.

- Vic


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Republicans better hope that Kennedy retires from the Supreme Court before the 2018 midterms while they still have the numerical advantage.


----------



## virus21

T Hawk said:


> disgusted that it was even this close considering the man is a pedo


Well now he can get a job as a Hollywood producer.


----------



## stevefox1200

You're name is Roy Moore
And you make kids sore
But you don't let that come between us
And you make me hold your... hand


----------



## T Hawk

I know this is supposed to be a victory for us tonight and it is Alabama, but I can't get over that it was only by 1%.
When your opponent is a pedo, it should be a decisive victory, not a razor-thin margin. What is wrong with people?!


----------



## stevefox1200

T Hawk said:


> I know this is supposed to be a victory for us tonight and it is Alabama, but I can't get over that it was only by 1%.
> When your opponent is a pedo, it should be a decisive victory, not a razor-thin margin.


Roy really tapped into the molester vote, they don't usually come out for the elections so it gave him a bit of an boost


----------



## birthday_massacre

T Hawk said:


> I know this is supposed to be a victory for us tonight and it is Alabama, but I can't get over that it was only by 1%.
> When your opponent is a pedo, it should be a decisive victory, not a razor-thin margin. What is wrong with people?!


Its the south what do you expect? He was also a racist and they love that shit.


----------



## stevefox1200

Run girl

Your much too young girl


----------



## birthday_massacre

Fox News is so tabloid, how can people watch this shit?


----------



## stevefox1200

One last tribute to the man 

RIP


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Right now the write in vote is at 1.7% which is greater than the margin of victory. It'll be interesting to see if that number holds true when all the votes are tallied.


----------



## MrMister

lmfao GOP

If I was McConnell I'd have sabotaged Roy Moore too. It's one of the few times I like something that McConnell did. McConnell is a douche but he's savvy. Roy Moore winning would've been an Alamo for the Dems. The 2018 mid-terms would've been San Jacinto.

They still might be I'm not sure, but with Roy Moore winning as a rallying cry? Forget about it heads would've rolled.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MrMister said:


> lmfao GOP
> 
> If I was McConnell I'd have sabotaged Roy Moore too. It's one of the few times I like something that McConnell did. McConnell is a douche but he's savvy. Roy Moore winning would've been an Alamo for the Dems. The 2018 mid-terms would've been San Jacinto.


The GOP voters voted in Trump, the GOP voters love rapists, racists, and bigots. Its why Trump won and why Moore barely lost.


----------



## stevefox1200

We heard you want anti-establishment candidates and whats more anti-establishment than a child rapist!!??


----------



## Empress

MrMister said:


> lmfao GOP
> 
> If I was McConnell I'd have sabotaged Roy Moore too. It's one of the few times I like something that McConnell did. McConnell is a douche but he's savvy. Roy Moore winning would've been an Alamo for the Dems. The 2018 mid-terms would've been San Jacinto.
> 
> They still might be I'm not sure, but with Roy Moore winning as a rallying cry? Forget about it heads would've rolled.


There has been some commentary that McConnell knew this vote was coming. He said that whoever won would not be seated right away. It was meant to be some kind of cue. They were reporting on it on the different cable channels.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Color me not surprised. I wouldn't have voted for Moore either.


----------



## virus21

T Hawk said:


> I know this is supposed to be a victory for us tonight and it is Alabama, but I can't get over that it was only by 1%.
> When your opponent is a pedo, it should be a decisive victory, not a razor-thin margin. What is wrong with people?!


Its the deep south.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Jones has won the AL seat. Considering how much of a goober Moore came off as when it came to defending himself, I can't say that he didn't deserve to take such a massive L.



Goku said:


> Been out of the loop for a bit (and out of my head) but the excessive winning brought me back.
> 
> I don't know how much more winning I can take.
> 
> :trump4


The Trump Train has no brakes, so you'd best be prepared to enjoy another massive serving of humble winning pie.

:trump3


----------



## birthday_massacre

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Jones has won the AL seat. Considering how much of a goober Moore came off as when it came to defending himself, I can't say that he didn't deserve to take such a massive L.
> 
> 
> 
> The Trump Train has no brakes, so you'd best be prepared to enjoy another massive serving of humble winning pie.
> 
> :trump3


Trump backs another candidate and he ends up losing. Trump is poison. Trumps train is derailing.


----------



## stevefox1200

The moment when the president backs a pedophile and the pedophile still loses 

In most places the president wouldn't support a diddler or the pedophile would win after his opponent committed suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head twice 

The US really unique in that regard


----------



## Cabanarama

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Jones has won the AL seat. Considering how much of a goober Moore came off as when it came to defending himself, I can't say that he didn't deserve to take such a massive L.
> 
> 
> 
> The Trump Train has no brakes, so you'd best be prepared to enjoy another massive serving of humble winning pie.
> 
> :trump3


Trump endorses Moore's opponent in the primary and campaigns against Moore, Moore wins....
Trump endorses and campaigns for his Moore in the general election, Moore loses....


----------



## Empress

Trump really should've stayed out of this. I know he has impulse control and considers himself to be teflon but going down swinging for an alleged pedophile? Moore should've backed out but he saw Trump win despite allegations against him. 

But this was a huge repudiation. A democrat actually won in a deep red state.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Cabanarama said:


> Trump endorses Moore's opponent in the primary and campaigns against Moore, Moore wins....
> Trump endorses and campaigns for his Moore in the general election, Moore loses....


To Trump fans that is winning. Its bizarro world they live in lol


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump backs another candidate and he ends up losing. Trump is poison. Trumps train is derailing.


Nah, being an utter goober when it comes to defending yourself against alleged sexual misconduct toward teenagers is poisonous.

The Trump Train is still speeding ahead, my dude. :trump3


----------



## Empress

Trump tweets his reaction


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/940795587733151744


----------



## 2 Ton 21

"the Republicans will have another shot at this seat in a very short period of time."

What is Trump talking about? It's three years until the seat is up for election again.


----------



## Empress

2 Ton 21 said:


> "the Republicans will have another shot at this seat in a very short period of time."
> 
> What is Trump talking about? It's three years until the seat is up for election again.


One of the talking heads on MSNBC says it's 6 years. So Trump is really off.


----------



## virus21

2 Ton 21 said:


> "the Republicans will have another shot at this seat in a very short period of time."
> 
> What is Trump talking about? It's three years until the seat is up for election again.


Trump bringing out those mob connections?


----------



## stevefox1200

Roy likes his government so small he is sexually attracted to it


----------



## 2 Ton 21

ReignDeer said:


> One of the talking heads on MSNBC says it's 6 years. So Trump is really off.


A senate term is six years, but since it's a special election I thought it was less. Saw this in the Chicago Tribune article about the Jones's win.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-alabama-senate-race-20171212-story.html



> Jones takes over the seat previously held by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The term expires in January of 2021.


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> "the Republicans will have another shot at this seat in a very short period of time."
> 
> What is Trump talking about? It's three years until the seat is up for election again.


You really think Trump has a clue about anything


----------



## stevefox1200

To be fair Roy was handicapped

His target demographic is too young to vote


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Cabanarama said:


> Trump endorses Moore's opponent in the primary and campaigns against Moore, Moore wins....
> Trump endorses and campaigns for his Moore in the general election, Moore loses....


And yet when you stack up Jones' track record in law compared to Strange and Moore, he was ultimately the better choice in regard to bringing a moderate, bipartisan option to the table from Alabama. I disagree with him on the ACA and the Paris Agreement, but outside of those issues, I think that he might wind up being pretty decent when it's all said and done.

Ultimately, Trump should've left Moore to the wolves when he failed miserably at defending himself against the allegations, but I'm not surprised that he ultimately went to bat for Moore considering he, like Moore, had sexual misconduct allegations hurled his way at a very convenient time for his own political opponent.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> And yet when you stack up Jones' track record in law compared to Strange and Moore, he was ultimately the better choice in regard to bringing a moderate, bipartisan option to the table from Alabama. I disagree with him on the ACA and the Paris Agreement, but outside of those issues, I think that he might wind up being pretty decent when it's all said and done.
> 
> Ultimately, Trump should've left Moore to the wolves when he failed miserably at defending himself against the allegations, but I'm not surprised that he ultimately went to bat for Moore considering he, like Moore, had sexual misconduct allegations hurled his way at a very convenient time for his own political opponent.


Its because sexual abusers protect their own kind.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

birthday_massacre said:


> Its because sexual abusers protect their own kind.


And yet Trump's accusers wound up being akin to tumbleweeds in that they showed up and then left as soon as an ideal breeze came about.

Try again. :trump3


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

He's serving out the remainder of the term that Jeff Sessions had won. The seat will be up again in November of 2020... and it will be easily won by the Republican.


----------



## birthday_massacre

HOW THE SHIV STOLE CHRISTMAS said:


> He's serving out the remainder of the term that Jeff Sessions had won. The seat will be up again in November of 2020... and it will be easily won by the Republican.


By 2020 it won't even matter the Dems will have taken over the Senate in 2018 and will also take back the presidency


----------



## stevefox1200

Moore is refusing to give up and is hoping that the write ins will turn the tides and is willing to pay for a recount 

i cant believe you've done this


----------



## birthday_massacre

stevefox1200 said:


> Moore is refusing to give up and is hoping that the write ins will turn the tides and is willing to pay for a recount
> 
> i cant believe you've done this


Why would someone write in Moores name when he is on the ballot?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

HOW THE SHIV STOLE CHRISTMAS said:


> He's serving out the remainder of the term that Jeff Sessions had won. The seat will be up again in November of 2020... and it will be easily won by the Republican.


Yep. Extremely obvious.


----------



## Beatles123

The Hardcore Show said:


> So its weird to not troll people who share different political views then you? I thought it was the other way around unless you want the United States to be an echo chamber of nothing but Trump and Moore's views on life.
> 
> God forbid I want to sit down break bread and maybe not feel like I have to conform my life because I did not vote for Trump and feel like you want a country that views him and people like him as gods like they do in North Korea.


Excuse you, I don't feel anymore empowered from Trump! :lol not a day goes by Trump supporters aren't called racists or some buzzword, but you know what? It's okay. BOTH SIDES DO THIS! thats what you don't understand. You feel like the miinority, but so does everyone. You think we're Nazis and we aren't. Just like people think Obama is a psy-op terrorist. BOTH SIDES ARE BULLSHIT.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Donald Trump,Mitch McMcConnell and the Majority of GOP Senators endorsed a pedophile just to win a Senate Seat(that probably will never effect the balance of power) will never live this down. They basically will never have a moral highground to stand on for the rest of their political careers. They attack anyone someone can always retort ...........at least I never endorsed a Paedo


----------



## Beatles123

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Donald Trump,Mitch McMcConnell and the Majority of GOP Senators endorsed a pedophile just to win a Senate Seat(that probably will never effect the balance of power) will never live this down. They basically will never have a moral highground to stand on for the rest of their political careers. They attack anyone someone can always retort ...........at least I never endorsed a Paedo


Both sides have traded this kind of insult for years. Nothing new.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Beatles123 said:


> Both sides have traded this kind of insult for years. Nothing new.


Did I miss something,I don't remember Moorelike allegations about a Democratic candidate coming out anytime recently,and then the majority of elected Dems rallying around them for the sake of holding onto a seat. Yes both sides kind of stay quiet about a lot of shitty corrupt unethical members,but that's a far cry from endorsing a known predator of children.

Ideally I would love the Democrats to call on someone like Charles Rangel to resign and encourage people to primary him,but he is just a garden variety corrupt politician nowhere near on a Moore level.


----------



## Beatles123

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Did I miss something,I don't remember Moorelike allegations about a Democratic candidate coming out anytime recently,and then the majority of elected Dems rallying around them for the sake of holding onto a seat. Yes both sides kind of stay quiet about a lot of shitty corrupt unethical members,but that's a far cry from endorsing a known predator of children.
> 
> Ideally I would love the Democrats to call on someone like Charles Rangel to resign and encourage people to primary him,but he is just a garden variety corrupt politician nowhere near on a Moore level.


I said this KIND of insult. Pedo, Rapist, terrorist, it's all the same. They'll still be at each other's throats rill the end of time. At the end of the day, this changes nothing. politics in itself is inconsequential. :shrug


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

I agree both sides kind of use Nazi,terrorist,etc and adjectives all the time to the point of being meaingless,but it's 100% factual that Donald Trump,Ted Cruz ,Mitch McConnell etc. openly supported a Paedo for a Senate seat. That's not an insult it's a record of fact many chose to support a likely Paedo over a Non Paedo


----------



## Draykorinee

That's a surprise, I mean, it shouldn't have been but it is.


----------



## Miss Sally

The right thing happened, Republicans really should have got someone else to run and had Moore step aside. 

The seat will go back to being Republican and hopefully the Dems don't see this as some sort of turning of the tide when a special circumstance was in play.

Regardless, Dem/Republican it will be business as usual.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Beatles123 said:


> I said this KIND of insult. Pedo, Rapist, terrorist, it's all the same. They'll still be at each other's throats rill the end of time. At the end of the day, this changes nothing. politics in itself is inconsequential. :shrug


No it's not the same. Please provide examples of D senators who have a laundry list of allegations of being rapists or terrorists or the like and still have their party, not to mention their President, endorse them.

The point is not slinging insults back and forth - the point is people having or not having the god damn guts to say fuck you to a paedophile regardless of him being in their own party.


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> No it's not the same. Please provide examples of D senators who have a laundry list of allegations of being rapists or terrorists or the like and still have their party, not to mention their President, endorse them.
> 
> The point is not slinging insults back and forth - the point is people having or not having the god damn guts to say fuck you to a paedophile regardless of him being in their own party.


Part of the problem with American Politics, either won't work with other party or with own party because A. I don't like them or B. I don't want to admit someone else is right.

And then you have the Moore issue or Franken or any of these shady fuckers where they circle the wagons around them. I get standing up for people who made mistakes but sexual assaulters/harassers, pedos etc? Come on!:frown2:


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> The right thing happened, Republicans really should have got someone else to run and had Moore step aside.
> 
> The seat will go back to being Republican and hopefully the Dems don't see this as some sort of turning of the tide when a special circumstance was in play.
> 
> Regardless, Dem/Republican it will be business as usual.


They couldn't. The political hit was timed to happen after the name on the ballot could not be replaced. 

Dirty politics is a loss for everyone. No one wins.


----------



## Beatles123

yeahbaby! said:


> No it's not the same. Please provide examples of D senators who have a laundry list of allegations of being rapists or terrorists or the like and still have their party, not to mention their President, endorse them.
> 
> The point is not slinging insults back and forth - the point is people having or not having the god damn guts to say fuck you to a paedophile regardless of him being in their own party.


I don't think the GOP knowingly excused him. I think a lot of voters just don't buy that he did it.

If he did, I know I don'r defend it.

Where were the dems that called for Clinton's head? These scandals happen all the time. No side is any cleaner is my point. 

As Sally said, the right thing happened. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

Beatles123 said:


> As Sally said, the right thing happened. :shrug


Also worth noting that Trump predicted as early as 22 September that Strange would win easily while Moore is going to have a hard time winning and he turned out to be right. 

Alabama conservatives pretty much voted themselves out by first voting Moore and then not rallying behind him. That said, I've always contended that Moore was a shit candidate. Daddy knew what he was talking about originally and he very reluctantly supported him in the end because he felt he had to for his vote in the senate. 

This has been a very interesting race to observe as an outsider. 

Ultimately, the pedo accusations are BS. They played a factor, but this is politics and American politics are dirty as fuck. What really won here was propaganda and basically everyone else lost. 

Doug Jones isn't a proper liberal candidate that liberals should be happy about winning either. 

It also serves to remind Republicans that they need to continue to fight to win and that's a sign of healthy political behavior - even if I disagree with the leftist politics and dirty politics, Jones came out on top and it's a learning experience.


----------



## Vic Capri

> I know this is supposed to be a victory for us tonight and it is Alabama, but I can't get over that it was only by 1%.
> When your opponent is a pedo, it should be a decisive victory, not a razor-thin margin.


1.) Its a red state.

2.) Accusers shouldn't be coming out of the woodwork one month before an election date.





> Moore is refusing to give up and is hoping that the write ins will turn the tides and is willing to pay for a recount
> 
> i cant believe you've done this


He's just using the Democratic playbook against them.

- Vic


----------



## DOPA

This is a very unique circumstance to say the least. The Alabama Republicans ended up nominating a very controversial candidate to say the least that had very serious accusations against him. Of course those accusations mean't that Republicans were not fully united behind Moore which ended up hurting his campaign. Whether or not you believe that the accusations were a political hit piece which you can certainly argue it was considering the timing or whether the allegations were true which is also very possible, the conclusion remains that the Republicans should have never had Moore as a candidate and the Democrats playing dirty politics used the allegations and pushed them as far as possible to make sure their candidate wins. Nothing new here, both sides of the aisle do this.

What is interesting is that liberal media and the Democrats now see this as some sort of turning of the tides so to speak against Trump and to be honest, I am not wholly convinced by that. You have to look at for starters how very little Jones won by, a margin of 1%. This being against an accused pedophile. It's very easy to blame the voters which leftists often do, but what it shows is the Dems themselves did not nominate a strong candidate in the slightest and the accusations against Moore, and only focusing on pulling him down wasn't enough to sway some voters from sticking with the Republicans. They didn't really offer an alternative vision for the country in this Alabama election cycle and had they done so as well as fielded a better candidate then they would have won by a bigger margin. This tells me they haven't learned their lesson from 2016, they were just lucky they were facing a candidate that was surrounded by controversy.

Not that I believe that the Democrats would have won had Moore not been the nominee but it is telling when you analyze it in these terms. Which brings me to my 2nd point, the turnout for this Senate election was low. Not as low as the previous senate race, but still just over 40%. This tells me that a lot of Conservatives decided to stay at home instead of put their name on the ballot behind the R. What happened with Hillary in the presidential election in the swing states with a lot of her base deciding to not vote or go third party, happened to Moore because of these allegations behind him.

I think it's pretty obvious after the three years are up that the Republicans will win the seat back. It will be interesting to see what happens in 2018, but considering the unique circumstances behind this election. I don't necessarily see this as a resurgence for the Democrats.


----------



## Reaper

There were no accusations against Moore at the time he won the primary. People didn't even know who he was. 

The political hit came after his name couldn't be replaced on the ballot.

Slander Republicans and split the vote. It's an effective strategy that always happens, but it was more effective than normal this time. It won't happen/work every time.


----------



## Draykorinee

Christmas DOPAmine said:


> What is interesting is that liberal media and the Democrats now see this as some sort of turning of the tides so to speak against Trump and to be honest


I went and checked with the Guardian if this was the case and you're right. (I think the Guardian is trash, which is why I chose that one)



> For Democrats, the winning way is pretty clear: run against the demagoguery and divisive politics of Donald Trump.


Oh do fuck off.

This is nothing to do with that.


----------



## Reaper

The Guardian is and always has been trash. The weird thing is that despite them being brits and having the opportunity to not be partisan, they pretty much exclusively side with the American Democrats - who are in actuality no where near as liberal as the 'tards who write for the Guardian themselves. 

All The Guardian does is create a completely flawed perception of American politics in the minds of their brit consumers.


----------



## Empress

Trump woke up and logged into his Twitter account. Last night's tweet was obviously written by his good pal John Dowd. He and the other Republicans who supported Roy Moore deserve this shame. Even before there were credible accusations of child molestation, Moore was a proud bigot. It's poetic that Selma pushed Doug Jones forward. The moral arc of history does indeed bend. 

I'm ready for 2018. The Dems have a good chance of taking back the Senate and House. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/940904649728708609

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/940930017365778432


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/940790419109105666









"Doug Moore" 

:mj4


----------



## Empress

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/940955766864928768


> WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House says Omarosa Manigault Newman — one of President Donald Trump’s most prominent African-American supporters — plans to leave the administration next month.
> 
> White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders says Manigault Newman’s resignation is effective Jan. 20, one year since Trump’s inauguration.
> 
> Manigault Newman’s decision comes at the start of what’s expected to be a round of departures heading into the new year.
> 
> The White House said last week that deputy national security adviser Dina Powell will leave the administration early next year.
> 
> Manigault Newman is a former contestant on Trump’s reality TV show “The Apprentice.” She joined the administration as director of communications for the White House Office of Public Liaison, working on outreach to various constituency groups.


----------



## Banez

Is there anyone original in the government besides President and Vice President left?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Banez said:


> Is there anyone original in the government besides President and Vice President left?


what do you mean by "original", like has not been fired or stepped down yet since he took office?

Trump treats his admin like the apprentice, he thinks someone has to be fired or quit every week.

Trump has been a complete and utter disaster.

There is still Sessions and Tillerson. Sessions could be gone at any minute and Tillerson its always rumored he is on his way out.


----------



## Reaper

Banez said:


> Is there anyone original in the government besides President and Vice President left?


Almost all of them. I'd say about 95%+. Trump's primary Cabinet - The ones that actually hold power - is still intact. There's only been a couple of changes. There's always a revolving door when it comes to bureaucracy however. 

The better news is that all of his Federal Judge appointments (which really matter since they're long term) are going through.


----------



## Empress

According to April D. Ryan, there was "high drama" at the White House involving Omarosa last night. She started receiving texts from Republican sources who told her "mission accomplished".


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/940956590907195393


----------



## Banez

I can see them meet in the oval office total Deal style and trump gets to go "Omarosa, you're fired" :lol

Something about that just amuses me hell of a lot, maybe it's the fact it would take place in the white house.


----------



## Draykorinee

ReignDeer said:


> Trump woke up and logged into his Twitter account. Last night's tweet was obviously written by his good pal John Dowd. He and the other Republicans who supported Roy Moore deserve this shame. Even before there were credible accusations of child molestation, Moore was a proud bigot. It's poetic that Selma pushed Doug Jones forward. The moral arc of history does indeed bend.
> 
> I'm ready for 2018. The Dems have a good chance of taking back the Senate and House.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/940904649728708609
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/940930017365778432


Meadia.


----------



## BRITLAND

Christmas DOPAmine said:


> This is a very unique circumstance to say the least. The Alabama Republicans ended up nominating a very controversial candidate to say the least that had very serious accusations against him. Of course those accusations mean't that Republicans were not fully united behind Moore which ended up hurting his campaign. Whether or not you believe that the accusations were a political hit piece which you can certainly argue it was considering the timing or whether the allegations were true which is also very possible, the conclusion remains that the Republicans should have never had Moore as a candidate and the Democrats playing dirty politics used the allegations and pushed them as far as possible to make sure their candidate wins. Nothing new here, both sides of the aisle do this.
> 
> What is interesting is that liberal media and the Democrats now see this as some sort of turning of the tides so to speak against Trump and to be honest, I am not wholly convinced by that. You have to look at for starters how very little Jones won by, a margin of 1%. This being against an accused pedophile. It's very easy to blame the voters which leftists often do, but what it shows is the Dems themselves did not nominate a strong candidate in the slightest and the accusations against Moore, and only focusing on pulling him down wasn't enough to sway some voters from sticking with the Republicans. They didn't really offer an alternative vision for the country in this Alabama election cycle and had they done so as well as fielded a better candidate then they would have won by a bigger margin. This tells me they haven't learned their lesson from 2016, they were just lucky they were facing a candidate that was surrounded by controversy.
> 
> Not that I believe that the Democrats would have won had Moore not been the nominee but it is telling when you analyze it in these terms. Which brings me to my 2nd point, the turnout for this Senate election was low. Not as low as the previous senate race, but still just over 40%. This tells me that a lot of Conservatives decided to stay at home instead of put their name on the ballot behind the R. What happened with Hillary in the presidential election in the swing states with a lot of her base deciding to not vote or go third party, happened to Moore because of these allegations behind him.
> 
> I think it's pretty obvious after the three years are up that the Republicans will win the seat back. It will be interesting to see what happens in 2018, but considering the unique circumstances behind this election. I don't necessarily see this as a resurgence for the Democrats.


The Democrats really should of walked this but 48% of Alabama voters are still willing to vote for a paedophile just because he isn't a Democrat, the Republicans will win the next Senate election in Alabama for sure.


----------



## Reaper

ReignDeer said:


> According to April D. Ryan, there was "high drama" at the White House involving Omarosa last night. She started receiving texts from Republican sources who told her "mission accomplished".
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/940956590907195393


I'll take what she says with a grain of salt. She's not one with a clear head on her shoulders and she's feuded with Omarasa herself before. 

Someone could be feeding her fake info or she could just being baited for pushing more fake news. CNN has a piss poor track record at this point and I think their last foopah with DJ Trump JR should be the nail in the coffin for them with regards to their Trump coverage. 

I think they should focus on how many cokes Trump drinks because at least it seems like they got that one right


----------



## Empress

Merry Reaper said:


> I'll take what she says with a grain of salt. She's not one with a clear head on her shoulders and she's feuded with Omarasa herself before.
> 
> Someone could be feeding her fake info or she could just being baited for pushing more fake news. CNN has a piss poor track record at this point and I think their last foopah with DJ Trump JR should be the nail in the coffin for them with regards to their Trump coverage.
> 
> I think they should focus on how many cokes Trump drinks because at least it seems like they got that one right



I trust in the veracity of April's reporting and her sources. She provided further details.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/940967236675817473

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/940967766219161602

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/940975335499292672


----------



## Reaper

Well, she seems to be trying sell her story at this point which in and of itself isn't evidence that it's true. 

No named source. No verification from other reporters. Different story from the White House. Even messing up typing. It's possible that anxiety is sinking in possibly after realizing that she might have been baited with misinformation from her source .. or her source was baited with misinformation from their source ... It has consistently happened with CNN and other far-left media outlets. Their credibility is at an all-time low so I don't buy it. 

The News media has been horribly wrong with their reporting and I wouldn't be surprised if some of it is due to being baited since their anti-trump hysteria makes them prime targets.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*I remember when I was told the previous elections were a fluke after Democrats swept and we wouldn't show up for the rest of the year. Well, guess what? Black people alone got Roy Moore the fuck up outta there with over 97% of their vote, in spite of the white majority voting for a racist pedophile endorsed by Trump. That's the first Democratic victory in Alabama in 25 years. It's only going to get worse for Republicans in 2018.*


----------



## FatherJackHackett

Not really a huge surprise in Alabama all things considered.

Even disregarding the allegations against him, I personally found Roy Moore to be pretty unsavoury, not to mention a liability who embarrassed himself every time he got in front of a camera. I like a politically-incorrect guy but damn this bloke was too much for me. 

The point is I'd be willing to bet that quite a few people going to the polls to vote for him would have been holding their nose regardless, and looks from the results like plenty stayed home and a few wrote in too. Seems perhaps the hardcore base in Alabama primaried Moore in, whereas Trump put his weight behind Strange who he knew would have swept up the more moderate conservative voters and destroyed the Dem candidate. Trump gambled and came out in support of Moore, but it turned out not to be enough and pretty big blow to him.

It is unbelievably simplistic thinking however to condemn anyone that voted for Moore as endorsing the crimes he was accused of. For starters the man has not been proven to be guilty of anything, and these 40 year old allegations seemed to surface and be pushed at a suspiciously convenient time (in that precise window when the Rs couldn't replace him on the ballot), not to mention reasons to doubt their credibility such as that woman admitting that 'some of' the yearbook note was forged. This is not me saying he is innocent necessarily but reasonable doubt does exist.

The fact is that Moore stands for certain things that voters agree with policy-wise. Abortion, for example, is a complicated moral issue with a very credible case against it. As a voter who holds these opinions you are then faced with a quandary of 'am I willing to overlook the accusations against this guy to fight against the legal killing of babies'. It's a taxing moral cost-benefit analysis that people as individuals have to work out and come to terms with. That's not as easy a decision as some people make out and you can bet that moderate Democrat voters in a blue state would have been agonising over such a choice should the roles be reversed. It seems they made their decision in this case and provided there's no fuckery going on that's fair enough.

Republicans will probably just want to put this whole thing to bed and take the L and move on. Every cloud has a silver lining and at least they won't have to be clearing up after Moore's gaffes every time he appears in public.

We can also probably rest assured that - provided he shuts up and goes away - we will hear nothing more of these accusations against Moore, as they have served their political purpose. The Dems and their cohorts in the mainstream media will now go all in on trying to smear Trump given the success of their little Alabama experiment. 

They will never stop and will continue to play dirty until they get what they want or it destroys them. It's the same thing with the quislings sabotaging Brexit here in the UK. It's a good thing that President Trump is possibly the only Republican in Washington who will not blink and will fight back in kind. This exact attribute is a major part of why I've always held that he was/is the right man for this job.


----------



## birthday_massacre

FatherJackHackett said:


> Not really a huge surprise in Alabama all things considered.
> 
> *Even disregarding the allegations against him*, I personally found Roy Moore to be* pretty unsavoury, not to mention a liability who embarrassed himself every time he got in front of a camera*. I like a politically-incorrect guy but damn this bloke was too much for me.
> 
> The point is I'd be willing to bet that quite a few people going to the polls to vote for him would have been holding their nose regardless, and looks from the results like plenty stayed home and a few wrote in too. Seems perhaps the hardcore base in Alabama primaried Moore in, whereas Trump put his weight behind Strange who he knew would have swept up the more moderate conservative voters and destroyed the Dem candidate. Trump gambled and came out in support of Moore, but it turned out not to be enough and pretty big blow to him.
> 
> It is unbelievably simplistic thinking however to condemn anyone that voted for Moore as endorsing the crimes he was accused of. For starters the man has not been proven to be guilty of anything, and these 40 year old allegations seemed to surface and be pushed at a suspiciously convenient time (in that precise window when the Rs couldn't replace him on the ballot), not to mention reasons to doubt their credibility such as that woman admitting that 'some of' the yearbook note was forged. This is not me saying he is innocent necessarily but reasonable doubt does exist.
> 
> The fact is that Moore stands for certain things that voters agree with policy-wise. Abortion, for example, is a complicated moral issue with a very credible case against it. As a voter who holds these opinions you are then faced with a quandary of 'am I willing to overlook the accusations against this guy to fight against the legal killing of babies'. It's a taxing moral cost-benefit analysis that people as individuals have to work out and come to terms with. That's not as easy a decision as some people make out and you can bet that moderate Democrat voters in a blue state would have been agonising over such a choice should the roles be reversed. It seems they made their decision in this case and provided there's no fuckery going on that's fair enough.
> 
> Republicans will probably just want to put this whole thing to bed and take the L and move on. Every cloud has a silver lining and at least they won't have to be clearing up after Moore's gaffes every time he appears in public.
> 
> We can also probably rest assured that - provided he shuts up and goes away - we will hear nothing more of these accusations against Moore, as they have served their political purpose. The Dems and their cohorts in the mainstream media will now go all in on trying to smear Trump given the success of their little Alabama experiment.
> 
> They will never stop and will continue to play dirty until they get what they want or it destroys them. It's the same thing with the quislings sabotaging Brexit here in the UK. It's a good thing that President Trump is possibly the only Republican in Washington who will not blink and will fight back in kind. This exact attribute is a major part of why I've always held that he was/is the right man for this job.


Bolded sounds a lot like Trump. Also you are right good thing for the GOP they wont have to clean up after his gaffs every time he appears in public, they aleady have their hands full cleaning up after Trump


----------



## Empress

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941010292846288897



> One White House official with knowledge of the situation described an ongoing situation where Manigault-Newman grew increasingly fed up with how the administration handled racially charged issues, adding that moving from crisis to crisis particularly drained the White House. Manigault-Newman has told friends in the past few months, the source said, that being the only black staffer in White House meetings was a source of stress.
> 
> "She struggled with being an African-American senior staffer, with all the racial incidents in the White House, and I think it was starting to weigh on her," the official said.
> 
> The source said Manigault-Newman wanted to leave the White House after Charlottesville, where Trump sympathized with the white supremacists who marched to preserve Confederate monuments, leading to the death of one counterprotester. Manigault-Newman went silent in the days and weeks after the rally, the source said. She did not respond to BuzzFeed News’ requests for comment at the time.
> 
> The source said the White House was also consumed by other racial issues such as its focus on NFL players protesting during the national anthem; the lack of transparency regarding the death of a black American soldier in Niger and the response to his widow and Rep. Frederica Wilson; and the UCLA men's basketball team arrests in China that Trump demanded praise for handling. More recently, Manigault-Newman had been disturbed by the administration's handling of Roy Moore, as Trump embraced the candidate amid accusations he sexually assaulted teenagers.
> 
> When the administration ended a program that allowed 59,000 Haitians to remain in the United States, she agonized over the decision "because she fought so hard to get the extension," said the source, who asked not to be named because they were not authorized to speak publicly.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941009285122686976


----------



## stevefox1200

Roy's friends should have just told more funny military stories about hanging out with children in Saigon brothels

get that extra percent


----------



## Beatles123

DecEmber Moon said:


> *I remember when I was told the previous elections were a fluke after Democrats swept and we wouldn't show up for the rest of the year. Well, guess what? Black people alone got Roy Moore the fuck up outta there with over 97% of their vote, in spite of the white majority voting for a racist pedophile endorsed by Trump. That's the first Democratic victory in Alabama in 25 years. It's only going to get worse for Republicans in 2018.*


don't say "we", you're your own person, If I ever wanted to, i'd just as easily vote for a dem. Party is an illusion


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> Roy's friends should have just told more funny military stories about hanging out with children in Saigon brothels
> 
> get that extra percent


You don't need to audition for CNN here. Pretty sure there are no recruiters here so you don't need to show them how to mine quotes and portray things out of context 

----

https://www.dailywire.com/news/2464...-may-have-just-fatally-ben-shapiro#exit-modal



> On Wednesday, CNN published text messages between the former second-in-command in FBI counterintelligence, Peter Strzok, and his mistress and co-worker Lisa Page. Strzok was involved in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, instrumental in helping to launch the investigation into supposed collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, and staffed on the Trump-Russia investigation itself. He was fired by special investigator Robert Mueller after these texts were uncovered.
> 
> Now, one of those texts may wound the special investigation beyond repair.
> 
> *That text is dated August 15, 2016. Strzok texted Page, “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in [deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe’s] office that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40…”
> *
> This looks an awful lot like motivation for launching an investigation into Trump in order to sink Trump as a hedge against Trump’s victory. The FBI’s investigation into Russian governmental interference in the election began in July 2016, just weeks before Strzok’s text message. And that means that there is now more of a smoking gun of FBI corruption against Trump than there is of Trump colluding with Russia.
> 
> How can Mueller come back from that? *He’s fired Strzok and Page, but if the investigation was initially a political hit job, how can it now turn into something good and decent, particularly in the absence of a smoking gun regarding collusion? It’s not just that this is fruit of the poisonous tree — there’s no fruit to show, just the poisonous tree. And as Victor Davis Hanson has written, the Mueller team is filled top-to-bottom with political activists who have a specific anti-Trump agenda.*
> 
> All of which means that President Trump isn’t wrong to suspect that Mueller wants to aim for a political skull-blow against him. Trump could theoretically use these texts as a reason for firing Mueller altogether — and that wouldn’t be completely unjustified. It would be politically unwise. At this point, Trump’s best tactic is to sit tight — now, no matter what, half the country is going to believe that Mueller’s investigation was never motivated by truth. That’s a win for Trump, and an automatic loss for Mueller.


Could the entire investigation have been a political hit job? Seems more and more likely that it was.

BTW, before people go on accusing The Daily Wire of bias, Shapiro is a never-Trumper.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ReignDeer said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941010292846288897
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941009285122686976


*
Republicans are deluding themselves if they think the mid term elections should have nothing to do with Trump. He, himself, just admitted he was willing to accept a racist pedophile for the sake of his Senate vote. That's why we need to get all of them up outta there, so none of these idiots vote to support Trump's ridiculous policies. The more toxic rhetoric he spouts, the more Republican candidates will suffer during the elections.*


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> You don't need to audition for CNN here. Pretty sure there are no recruiters here so you don't need to show them how to mine quotes and portray things out of context
> 
> ----
> 
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/2464...-may-have-just-fatally-ben-shapiro#exit-modal
> 
> 
> 
> Could the entire investigation have been a political hit job? Seems more and more likely that it was.
> 
> BTW, before people go on accusing The Daily Wire of bias, Shapiro is a never-Trumper.


You are one of the most delusional people I have ever seen. How is the investigation a hit job when numerous people have been fired, quit or have been indited because of it

You can't even be taken serious anymore


----------



## stevefox1200

If you keep up with the Trump-Russia investigation outside of the right-wing news blogs you'll know that

1. That it was clear that investigation was going to take a while. They were clear about that and I don't think we will get much till mid-way through next year. Investigations like this take years.

2. The firing of Peter Strzok was done very publicly and very openly. Muller was clear in why he did it and trying to keep the case clean. There is a reason that neutral news sources moved on after a day.

The fact that we a government that is trying to paint FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS as untrustworthy is insulting and obscene


----------



## birthday_massacre

stevefox1200 said:


> If you keep up with the Trump-Russia investigation outside of the right-wing news blogs you'll know that
> 
> 1. That it was clear that investigation was going to take a while. They were clear about that and I don't think we will get much till mid-way through next year. Investigations like this take years.
> 
> 2. The firing of Peter Strzok was done very publicly and very openly. Muller was clear in why he did it and trying to keep the case clean. There is a reason that neutral news sources moved on after a day.
> 
> The fact that we a government that is trying to paint FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS as untrustworthy is insulting and obscene


The more Trump wants this investigation shut down, the more you know he has something to hide.


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> The fact that we a government that is trying to paint FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS as untrustworthy is insulting and obscene


The agents did that to themselves. The well is poisoned. The investigation has been going on for a year and all its turned up is demons in its own closet. 

I know that some people need to believe in conspiracies. I understand it all too well. I have listened to Alex Jones for shits and giggles and there was a time when I thought that the big bad government wants to put RFID chips in all humans. 

Sometimes instead of accepting the reality that we are apt to be phobic and irrational, it's easier to accept the lie that validates that irrational phobia.


----------



## Art Vandaley

In historical terms the investigation is actually moving really quickly.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer

stevefox1200 said:


> The fact that we a government that is trying to paint FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS as untrustworthy is insulting and obscene


_*Well, it is their own fault and they their own self's to blame for that. The government just needs to do one thing and that is focus on the reality of things. *_


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> In historical terms the investigation is actually moving really quickly.


You believe that Trump is literally Hitler. 

Stevefox believes that Trump is a dictator. 

Please don't try to convince me that both of you are dealing in reality and facts with regards to this (or any other) anti-Trump investigations.

----
@Dr. Bexmas 

Thoughts on this: 

http://www.mynews13.com/content/new...cles/cfn/2017/12/13/only_4_free_us_natio.html



> *Only 4 free US national park days in 2018*
> 
> CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) --
> National parks in the U.S. will sharply drop the number of days they allow visitors to get in for free, a move that was criticized by opponents of the parks’ plan to raise entrance costs at other times of the year.
> 
> After waiving fees 16 days in 2016 and 10 days in 2017, the National Park Service announced Tuesday that it will have four no-cost days next year. They will be Martin Luther King Jr. Day (Jan. 15), the first day of National Park Week (April 21), National Public Lands Day (Sept. 22) and Veterans Day (Nov. 11).
> 
> This year’s free days included all of Veterans Day weekend and the weekends surrounding National Park Week. All of National Park Week and four days over the 100th anniversary of the Park Service were free in 2016.
> 
> The Park Service charges weekly entrance fees of $25 or $30 per vehicle at 118 of the 417 national parks. The Park Service has proposed raising the cost to $70 at 17 busy parks mainly in the West, including Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Yosemite and Zion, during peak seasons.
> 
> A release from the National Park Service back in October showed the fee increase was to help deal with maintenance issues. The public can still comment on the fee increase proposal through Dec. 22 on the National Park Service website.
> 
> The agency estimates the increase would generate an additional $70 million to help address backlogged maintenance and infrastructure projects. Opponents, including attorneys general from 10 states, say the higher costs could turn away visitors and might not raise that much money.
> 
> The Park Service didn’t explain why it was cutting back on free days. An Interior Department spokeswoman didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
> 
> “The days that we designate as fee-free for national parks mark opportunities for the public to participate in service projects, enjoy ranger-led programs, or just spend time with family and friends exploring these diverse and special places,” National Park Service Deputy Director Michael T. Reynolds said in a statement.
> 
> A group opposed to raising fees criticized the change.
> 
> “Not everyone can book a helicopter or charter a boat when they want to visit our national parks,” said Jesse Prentice-Dunn with the Denver-based Center for Western Priorities in a release. “America’s parks must remain affordable for working families.”
> 
> Copyright 2017 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Not that I'm singling you out (I'm aware you will likely have a very respectable position on this), but honestly it is when I see things like these that I re-affirm my lack of faith in having a federal government as anything more than a ceremonial position at most. 

Ok, I know that there is no such thing as a free lunch in life, but I thought the whole POINT of the government charging taxes was so that they would make "public services" *free* ... So they take tax money to supposedly preserve and run these things and then operate them like private enterprise. 

This is why the government has NO RIGHT to own and operate land because when it suits its purposes it FORCES people to pay more tax, STEALS the land and OPERATES it like a private enterprise. And they don't give it to private enterprise because then how will they profit from it? 

I dunno, but this is thuggery - plain and simple.


----------



## Empress

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/940407146583179264

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/940410385038917632

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/940970575589076992


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941057412102017024

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941011290654412800

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941061707492978688


> Mateer, meanwhile, had been under scrutiny for his anti-LGBT views.
> 
> In a series of speeches made in 2015, Mateer compared homosexuality to bestiality, advocated for gay conversion therapy and described transgender children as a part of “Satan’s plan.”
> 
> Also in 2015, Mateer slammed the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage, calling it “disgusting.”
> 
> "What is the limiting? Why couldn't four people want to get married?” he said. “Why not one man and three women? Or three women and one man? ... I mean, it's disgusting."




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941060945127858176


> A White House spokesperson confirmed earlier Wednesday that Talley, a Justice Department attorney, offered to withdraw his nomination.
> Critics railed against Talley's nomination, noting he has practiced law for less than three years and has never tried a case in court.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Merry Reaper said:


> Alkomesh2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In historical terms the investigation is actually moving really quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> You believe that Trump is literally Hitler.
> 
> Stevefox believes that Trump is a dictator.
> 
> Please don't try to convince me that both of you are dealing in reality and facts with regards to this (or any other) anti-Trump investigations.
Click to expand...

What a random misdirect, you clearly know you're wrong on this one if you're trying to raise that strawman from the dead. 

Reality and facts are that this has been one of the quickest and most successful at this point in its tenure of any special investigation in the modern era.

They tend to last 3 years, alot never get to the point of indicting someone and even fewer end up with a plea of guilty or a conviction.

There is a nice graph of them somewhere I can try to dig you if you'd like.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> What a random misdirect, you clearly know you're wrong on this one if you're trying to raise that strawman from the dead.


Strawman is bringing up an argument you didn't make. You made the argument that Trump is literally Hitler. Did you not make that argument? Do you not stand by that statement? 

It speaks to credibility, prejudice and gullibility with regards to your interest in this "investigation" and its outcome and I'm just cutting directly to the chase by avoiding the potential of you making a claim that you're simply making a point about investigations. Completely irrelevant argument in the context of what's being discussed. What you're engaged in is wishful thinking and a pipe dream just hoping and praying that something would turn up some day. As such, I made the statement about not dealing in reality. 

In one year, they've got nothing. In the types of investigations you're talking about, there's usually actual evidence of what's being "investigated". Here, they've basically just opened up a can of worms on FBI's special counsel's own internal corruption. 

This isn't a "normal" investigation for obvious reasons. The well is poisoned. Who polices the police when the police have shown corruption within their ranks. It destroys the credibility of anything they've gathered up till now and any reasonable person needs to be looking at this as well.

http://www.11alive.com/article/news...sion/465-6dab9b20-d6d3-4f2f-9e98-5997591c7401



> *Suspend Robert Mueller's politically tainted investigation into Russia-Trump collusion*
> 
> The FBI has historically had a well-earned reputation for competence and integrity. The American people deserve no less when it comes to extraordinary investigations that touch the highest levels of government. Justice demands that these matters be pursued with the utmost honesty, probity and impartiality. However, evidence is emerging that special counsel and former FBI director Robert Mueller’s investigation of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, as well as the Hillary Clinton email investigations, have been fatally compromised by naked politics.
> 
> The central figure in both probes is FBI agent Peter Strzok. Strzok helped conduct the sweetheart interviews of Clinton, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin in the email investigation, in which the latter two blatantly lied about their knowledge of the bootleg server. They were not charged. Strzok also changed then-FBI Director James Comey’s draft language on Clinton’s use of her illicit server from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless,” which is the difference between criminal behavior and an unconscious error.
> 
> Strzok promoted the Fusion GPS “Steele dossier,” the sketchy gossip-ridden anti-Trump document paid for by the Clinton campaign and compiled with input from Russian intelligence sources. This document was used to persuade a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to authorize government surveillance of members of the Trump team during a political campaign. It was an unprecedented investigative intrusion into the American political process that makes Watergate look like amateur hour.
> 
> Strzok reportedly led the interview of then-national security adviser Michael Flynn, who ostensibly told the lies that led to his firing and landed him in a plea bargain with investigators. Judge Rudolph Contreras, who accepted Flynn’s guilty plea, has since inexplicably recused himself from the case. Contreras is a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge and might have been involved with authorizing surveillance against the Trump team.
> 
> Strzok left his fingerprints on pivotal aspects of the Clinton and Trump investigations, the two most significant such legal actions this century. However, in August, Strzok was quietly removed from the Trump investigation. It later emerged that he was trading anti-Trump text messages with his mistress, Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer who was also assigned to the Mueller investigation. The FBI is now examining 10,000 of their texts, Fox News reports.
> 
> Thoughtful observers can look at this fact pattern and conclude that Strzok’s actions had the potential to be driven by strong bias against President Trump. The ongoing investigations might turn up evidence how deep this animus went, and whether he actively colluded with members of the Clinton team. And because he was central to every important aspect of these cases, the entire episode could simply be fruit of the poison Strzok.
> 
> But it gets worse. Rather than treating Strzok’s removal with the transparency and candor it deserved, the Mueller team hushed it up and began stonewalling congressional inquiries. It reached the point where House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes threatened FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein with contempt.
> 
> Worse still, former associate deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr was demoted days ago for unspecified contacts with figures behind the Steele dossier. It now appears that Ohr knew Steele and met with him while the tainted dossier was being written. Any such direct involvement by an Obama administration official with the political effort to take down the Republican candidate is a scandal of high order.
> 
> These are not the only suspect political ties between Mueller lieutenants and Clinton world:
> 
> Aaron Zebley, Mueller’s former chief of staff at the FBI and “right hand man” on the current investigation, previously represented Justin Cooper, Clinton’s IT guy who set up the unsecure server in her Chappaqua home, and destroyed her BlackBerrys with a hammer.
> Mueller team member and Justice Department prosecutor Andrew Weissmann wrote a fawning email to outgoing acting Attorney General Sally Yates, saying he was “so proud and in awe” of her for defying President Trump in enforcing his travel ban. Weissmann also attended Hillary Clinton’s election night party in New York City, The Wall Street Journal reported.
> More: Robert Mueller terrifies President Trump. Of course he wants him gone.
> 
> *At least nine members of Mueller’s team have given donations to the Obama, Clinton or other Democratic campaigns. One of them, attorney Jeannie Rhee, has defended President Obama's deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, now a focus of the investigation into potentially illegal use of “unmasking” foreign intelligence against Trump associates, the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton during the email investigation. Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe is being investigated for possible Hatch Act violations during wife Jill McCabe's failed 2015 Virginia Senate run. During this race, his wife received more than $700,000 in donations from Clinton-connected PACs.
> *
> Investigative journalist Sara Carter has said that “a lot more is going to come out” regarding other text messages from people connected to the investigation that could expose improper political biases.
> 
> In a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, FBI Director Christopher Wray consistently deflected questions regarding these types of conflicts by deferring to ongoing investigations being conducted by the Justice Department’s inspector general. He also continued to stonewall on providing information on the FBI’s use of the Steele dossier and the FISA warrant it helped generate, citing vague national security concerns.
> 
> *We are left with an appearance of an unacceptable degree of political prejudice and a troubling series of unanswered questions. It is dangerous to subject the office of the president to a gravely biased investigation undertaken with a reckless spirit. Should further evidence of untoward bias emerge, Americans may conclude that the justice system itself is illegitimate, with all that entails.
> *
> The most prudent move would be to suspend the special counsel investigation until the Justice Department inspector general’s office and other watchdogs can conclude their investigations into possible illegitimate or illegal actions taken by members of Mueller’s team. Then Congress must be given time to review the conclusions of the internal investigations as well as conclude their own ongoing inquiries.
> 
> The stakes are too high to allow a clique of politicized government agents to destroy the integrity of the investigative apparatus, and damage the office of the presidency.


I'm not calling for its suspension, but at this point it's very obvious that it's not just small parts of the investigation that are corrupt, but it's almost entirely poisoned.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Merry Reaper said:


> Alkomesh2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a random misdirect, you clearly know you're wrong on this one if you're trying to raise that strawman from the dead.
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman is bringing up an argument you didn't make. You made the argument that Trump is literally Hitler. Did you not make that argument? Do you not stand by that statement?
> 
> It speaks to credibility, prejudice and gullibility with regards to your interest in this "investigation" and its outcome and I'm just cutting directly to the chase by avoiding the potential of you making a claim that you're simply making a point about investigations. Completely irrelevant argument in the context of what's being discussed.
> 
> In one year, they've got nothing. In the types of investigations you're talking about, there's usually actual evidence of what's being "investigated". Here, they've basically just opened up a can of worms on FBI's special counsel's own internal corruption.
> 
> This isn't a "normal" investigation for obvious reasons. The well is poisoned. Who polices the police when the police have shown corruption within their ranks. It destroys the credibility of anything they've gathered up till now and any reasonable person needs to be looking at this as well.
Click to expand...

No I never made statement and you know I never did. I noted he used the same general campaign strategy as hitler which is true. Its a random strawman you brought up to distract from an argument you're know you're wrong on.

Special investigations are the appropriate vessel for this because Trump fired the CIA director when they were leading the investigation remember? 

You're right that one isn't normally used in these circumstances but that is 100% Trump's fault and it has to be this way. 

Also a guilty plea and several indictments isn't nothing it's actually massive for a special investigation, especially this early on.


----------



## stevefox1200

The investigation was agreed on by a bi-partisan group

Robert Muller is a FUCKING REPUBLICAN 

This is not some "liberal conspiracy" 

and it doesn't matter who the fuck they donated too during the election, that's irreverent bullshit

Should they remove everyone who voted "wrong" from the investigation?

This a bullshit smear job where they try to paint investigators as bad people, its the same shit as when they try to paint the victims of crimes as racist or sexist

Also can we quit posting Opinion Pieces as facts and news stories, Dilberts latest blog or Channel 6 in the evenings shout out block are not meant to be taken as news


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> No I never made statement and you know I never did. I noted he used the same general campaign strategy as hitler which is true. Its a random strawman you brought up to distract from an argument you're know you're wrong on.


If I say that "You know, Leftists operate like ISIS in that they destroy statues" (I do that sometimes as a joke btw and I'm never serious because I know that it's a ludicrous comparison) ... Anyone with half a brain would know that I'm intentionally invoking the name of something incredibly terrible to portray someone else in the worst light possible. That that comparison is incredibly disingenuous and outright propaganda. 

I am stuck on that comparison and I won't let you forget it because you made that comparison and now you have to live with it mainly since it was a serious comparison and it's an intentionally disingenuous comparison. And you haven't retracted it since. You can't even stand by your own beliefs being thrown back in your face. 



> Special investigations are the appropriate vessel for this because Trump fired the CIA director when they were leading the investigation remember?


Trump fired the CIA directot? 



> You're right that one isn't normally used in these circumstances but that is 100% Trump's fault and it has to be this way.


No it isn't. The "investigation" managed to clear itself through by claiming that it's about Russian interference in American elections. That's it. The fact that it has ballooned into something completely different is now appearing to be more and more like opposition party led agenda. The agents are tainted. The investigation is poisoned. It needs to die. 



> Also a guilty plea and several indictments isn't nothing it's actually massive for a special investigation, especially this early on.


The fact that you bring this up in such an obscure manner, it's pretty obvious you don't know what the indictments are for. 

Can you tell me without googling?


----------



## Art Vandaley

"DEC. 4, 2017 AT 7:26 AM
Mueller Is Moving Quickly Compared To Past Special Counsel Investigations
By Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux

Filed under Russia Investigation

For months, there were rumors about a possible indictment against Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser and key campaign aide. He had been under investigation by special prosecutor Robert Mueller since soon after the probe into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia began in May. On Friday morning — more than six months after Mueller’s inquiry started and more than a month after the first charges were leveled in the investigation — Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI. That may seem like a long time for an investigation to begin yielding criminal charges, but based on the timing of the first indictments and guilty pleas, Mueller is moving fast.

Our analysis of special counsel probes in the modern era, starting in 19791 shows that the fact that Mueller’s investigation has produced criminal charges at all sets it apart — a majority of the investigations over the past four decades ended without charges being filed against anyone. Moreover, in the inquiries that produced criminal charges, the first occurred more than a year, on average, after the special prosecutor was appointed — while Mueller’s investigation produced its first charges after less than five months.

Historically, major special counsel investigations that have led to charges have lasted for years, with indictments trickling out as an inquiry gains momentum. Flynn has acknowledged that he is cooperating with Mueller, which suggests that more charges could be coming, as a result of the information he’s contributing to the investigation.

Special prosecutors used to be a rare phenomenon, appointed in an ad hoc fashion by the president or attorney general when signs of major wrongdoing within the federal government were perceived to warrant an investigator who had no conflicts of interest related to the probe, according to Katy Harriger, a professor of politics at Wake Forest University who is the author of a book on special prosecutor investigations. Then Watergate happened, and Congress tried to create more legal protections for investigators by creating an “independent counsel” who was appointed by a three-judge panel rather than someone in the executive branch.

But the part of the law that created the independent counsel’s office expired in 1999, and special prosecutors — once again appointed by the Department of Justice — have returned to being relatively rare.2 It’s anybody’s guess just how long the Mueller investigation will last, although special prosecutor investigations tend to be measured in years, not months.


In many of these investigations, criminal charges came out slowly over the course of years. For example, the first person indicted in the investigation into the Reagan-era Iran-contra scandal3 pleaded guilty in April 1987, just four months after the investigation started.4 Over the following five years, 13 other government officials were indicted, including former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, although his indictment did not come down until June 1992. (Six were pardoned by George H.W. Bush shortly before he left office, including Weinberger, and two of the cases were dismissed.)

Some of the shorter investigations centered on one or two figures: the special counsel investigation into whether former Reagan aide Michael Deaver had lied to a grand jury about his lobbying activities; the inquiry into whether former White House political director Lyn Nofziger violated conflict-of-interest laws by lobbying for various clients (Nofziger was convicted, but the case was dismissed on appeal); and the investigation of Alexis Herman, Bill Clinton’s secretary of labor, over allegations that she took a cash bribe or solicited illegal campaign donations while she was a Clinton aide (the only indictment in the case was of a Singaporean businessman). Similarly, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby was the only person indicted in the special counsel investigation into the disclosure of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity (he was indicted and convicted on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury; his sentence was commuted by President George W. Bush).

Other investigations took significantly longer than Mueller’s to result in charges. It took more than a year for the independent counsel investigating potential mismanagement and corruption by Samuel Pierce, Ronald Reagan’s secretary of housing and urban development, to issue charges (Pierce was never indicted, but lower-level staff were convicted). The same was true of investigations into whether Clinton’s HUD secretary, Henry Cisneros, had lied to FBI agents about payments to his former mistress and whether Clinton’s secretary of agriculture, Mike Espy, had improperly taken gifts from businesses and lobbyists (Cisneros pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and was later pardoned by Clinton; Espy was acquitted at trial).


Some investigations are especially lengthy because special prosecutors often stumble on other information when they’re pursuing a case, Harriger said. It’s unlikely that Mueller’s investigation will follow the same path as the Whitewater probe, in which Kenneth Starr’s review of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s investment in an Arkansas real estate company during Bill Clinton’s time as a state official blossomed into several unrelated investigations, including an inquiry into the death of White House aide Vince Foster and, ultimately, the scandal related to Monica Lewinsky and the president’s impeachment. But it’s too early to know for sure where Mueller will go.

“It’s a slow and complex process, and it’s hard to predict where it’s going to go next,” Harriger said."

fivethirtyeight.com/features/mueller-is-moving-quickly-compared-to-past-special-counsel

There's even a cute graph if you follow the link. 

Also the idea that an investigation by a Republican appointed by a Republican into a Republican should be shut down for suspected bias is laughable to any reasonable minded person.

The right are campaigning against the investigation because they know they won't like what it will find.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> "DEC. 4, 2017 AT 7:26 AM
> Mueller Is Moving Quickly Compared To Past Special Counsel Investigations
> By Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux
> 
> Filed under Russia Investigation
> 
> For months, there were rumors about a possible indictment against Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser and key campaign aide. He had been under investigation by special prosecutor Robert Mueller since soon after the probe into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia began in May. On Friday morning — more than six months after Mueller’s inquiry started and more than a month after the first charges were leveled in the investigation — Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI. That may seem like a long time for an investigation to begin yielding criminal charges, but based on the timing of the first indictments and guilty pleas, Mueller is moving fast.
> 
> Our analysis of special counsel probes in the modern era, starting in 19791 shows that the fact that Mueller’s investigation has produced criminal charges at all sets it apart — a majority of the investigations over the past four decades ended without charges being filed against anyone. Moreover, in the inquiries that produced criminal charges, the first occurred more than a year, on average, after the special prosecutor was appointed — while Mueller’s investigation produced its first charges after less than five months.
> 
> Historically, major special counsel investigations that have led to charges have lasted for years, with indictments trickling out as an inquiry gains momentum. Flynn has acknowledged that he is cooperating with Mueller, which suggests that more charges could be coming, as a result of the information he’s contributing to the investigation.
> 
> Special prosecutors used to be a rare phenomenon, appointed in an ad hoc fashion by the president or attorney general when signs of major wrongdoing within the federal government were perceived to warrant an investigator who had no conflicts of interest related to the probe, according to Katy Harriger, a professor of politics at Wake Forest University who is the author of a book on special prosecutor investigations. Then Watergate happened, and Congress tried to create more legal protections for investigators by creating an “independent counsel” who was appointed by a three-judge panel rather than someone in the executive branch.
> 
> But the part of the law that created the independent counsel’s office expired in 1999, and special prosecutors — once again appointed by the Department of Justice — have returned to being relatively rare.2 It’s anybody’s guess just how long the Mueller investigation will last, although special prosecutor investigations tend to be measured in years, not months.
> 
> 
> In many of these investigations, criminal charges came out slowly over the course of years. For example, the first person indicted in the investigation into the Reagan-era Iran-contra scandal3 pleaded guilty in April 1987, just four months after the investigation started.4 Over the following five years, 13 other government officials were indicted, including former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, although his indictment did not come down until June 1992. (Six were pardoned by George H.W. Bush shortly before he left office, including Weinberger, and two of the cases were dismissed.)
> 
> Some of the shorter investigations centered on one or two figures: the special counsel investigation into whether former Reagan aide Michael Deaver had lied to a grand jury about his lobbying activities; the inquiry into whether former White House political director Lyn Nofziger violated conflict-of-interest laws by lobbying for various clients (Nofziger was convicted, but the case was dismissed on appeal); and the investigation of Alexis Herman, Bill Clinton’s secretary of labor, over allegations that she took a cash bribe or solicited illegal campaign donations while she was a Clinton aide (the only indictment in the case was of a Singaporean businessman). Similarly, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby was the only person indicted in the special counsel investigation into the disclosure of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity (he was indicted and convicted on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury; his sentence was commuted by President George W. Bush).
> 
> Other investigations took significantly longer than Mueller’s to result in charges. It took more than a year for the independent counsel investigating potential mismanagement and corruption by Samuel Pierce, Ronald Reagan’s secretary of housing and urban development, to issue charges (Pierce was never indicted, but lower-level staff were convicted). The same was true of investigations into whether Clinton’s HUD secretary, Henry Cisneros, had lied to FBI agents about payments to his former mistress and whether Clinton’s secretary of agriculture, Mike Espy, had improperly taken gifts from businesses and lobbyists (Cisneros pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and was later pardoned by Clinton; Espy was acquitted at trial).
> 
> 
> Some investigations are especially lengthy because special prosecutors often stumble on other information when they’re pursuing a case, Harriger said. It’s unlikely that Mueller’s investigation will follow the same path as the Whitewater probe, in which Kenneth Starr’s review of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s investment in an Arkansas real estate company during Bill Clinton’s time as a state official blossomed into several unrelated investigations, including an inquiry into the death of White House aide Vince Foster and, ultimately, the scandal related to Monica Lewinsky and the president’s impeachment. But it’s too early to know for sure where Mueller will go.
> 
> “It’s a slow and complex process, and it’s hard to predict where it’s going to go next,” Harriger said."
> 
> fivethirtyeight.com/features/mueller-is-moving-quickly-compared-to-past-special-counsel
> 
> There's even a cute graph if you follow the link.
> 
> The right are campaigning against the investigation because they know they won't like what it will find.


"indicted at all" ... meanwhile we're not even going to tell you what he was indicted for in the entire 2000 words we put out because we know all you want to read is that someone got indicted. 

What was he indicted for? And what does his indictment have to do with the Trump/Russia collusion narrative? What does this have anything to do with proving that Trump did anything wrong? 

But we're not going to tell you anything .. Here's some random unrelated bullshit about other cases because we know you're not really here to learn about facts, but because we know you're here to continue to dream about Trump/Russia collussion. Look at all these cases. See ... Evidence. 

You're a guy from the legal profession aren't you? Where are your own insights into the indictments of the individuals? 

If you don't provide any insights, you don't even tell us what the indictment was for and how it relates to Trump / Russia collusion, then why are you wasting time simply posting articles that are a dime a dozen? 

What are you even here for? What do you know? How have you made up your mind? I care about your thoughts. I can read someone else's thoughts and tear them apart. An article with hundreds of holes, a few examples of other cases that have nothing to do with this case and no facts about even what exactly the person was indicted for and an analysis of that indictment is a waste of everyone's time. 



> Also the idea that an investigation by a Republican appointed by a Republican into a Republican should be shut down for suspected bias is laughable to any reasonable minded person.


If that's how you judge bias then you're a poor judge of anything. 

Meanwhile ignore the expose of a Clinton operative inside the investigative team. Of course, he didn't influence anything. 

It's a tainted investigation. 

You don't have the knowledge to discuss the "Russian investigation". You're not even a good conspiracy theorist. You make even a worse case than people I've talked to about the Faked Moon Landing and Sandy Hook being a false flag. 

At least if you're going to subscribe to a conspiracy theory, learn about the indictments and why they happened instead of just copy-pasting one article ... even though I asked you to talk about the indictments without googling. You're not even putting in the effort to do that even :lmao



stevefox1200 said:


> The investigation was agreed on by a bi-partisan group
> 
> Robert Muller is a FUCKING REPUBLICAN
> 
> This is not some "liberal conspiracy"
> 
> and it doesn't matter who the fuck they donated too during the election, that's irreverent bullshit
> 
> Should they remove everyone who voted "wrong" from the investigation?
> 
> This a bullshit smear job where they try to paint investigators as bad people, its the same shit as when they try to paint the victims of crimes as racist or sexist
> 
> Also can we quit posting Opinion Pieces as facts and news stories, Dilberts latest blog or Channel 6 in the evenings shout out block are not meant to be taken as news


DON'T SMEAR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE FEEDING ME MY LIES! Of course they lose their credibility when they fucking talk about how much they hate Trump and who they donate to. They should never have been on the team in the first place. They donated to the opposing political party and yet we're not supposed to question their motives :lmao :lmao 

Suddenly the FBI becomes incorruptible? Why, because they're leading a sham "investigation" into a particular thing that you have already imagined an outcome for? This is incredibly asinine. 

Meanwhile, you're sitting here and feeding me BULLSHIT WITHOUT evidence that Trump colluded with Russia but I'm supposed to believe that after an agency has been exposed for bias that they're not biased because questioning the integrity of this special counsel is forbidden despite ACTUAL Evidence ... meanwhile you're questioning the legitimacy of your ENTIRE federal government without evidence of anything ... Why? Because that's the comfortable lie you want to believe. 

But you're ok with the lack of evidence, the lack of results.

You can't even be consistent. :lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/12/11/black-lives-matter-blm-republicans-natural-allies/



> Why Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Republicans are Natural Allies (or should be)
> Posted December 11, 2017
> 
> One of the big changes in our national consciousness, thanks to President Trump, is that many of us are starting to see politics in terms of “deals.” We are also thinking about a growing economy. Compare that approach to the Obama/Bernie/Clinton worldview that is more about wealth transfer in a world of scarcity. For my purposes today, you don’t need to decide which approach is better. I only make the claim that we are more focused on the Art of the Deal than at any time in American politics. This is one of the many ways President Trump is in our heads.
> 
> 
> And the deal-making mindset, along with some lucky coincidences, has created the greatest opportunity for improvement that the African-American community has seen in decades. At the same time, Republicans have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to earn a larger share of the black vote in 2018 and beyond. All we are missing is the right deal. Is there a potential deal that is good for President Trump and the GOP while also being good for BLM?
> 
> Yes. And it isn’t even hard.
> 
> I’ll get to that deal after some necessary context. (It’s worth your time.)
> 
> You probably remember that candidate Trump famously asked African-American voters during the campaign “What the hell do you have to lose?” It sounded like a weak offer when I first heard it. But combined with his deal-making approach to politics, you could also see it as an invitation to pitch some ideas. The door is open.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of you might recall that when Colin Kaepernick started the kneeling trend in the NFL, I publicly offered to help translate any ideas he might have for improving the lives of black Americans into “Republican language” so there would be some hope of persuading the group that held the most political power. I never heard any specific suggestions from Kaepernick. But as I often say, he gets full credit as a Master Persuader for capturing our attention and holding it. He has skin in the game, he broke no laws, and he turned a back-burner issue in America into a front-burner issue. I give Kaepernick an A+ for American activism. Was Kaepernick offensive to people who love the flag and respect the police? Absolutely. That’s why we paid so much attention. But he didn’t break anything except for the way we think, and that was his objective.
> 
> As of this writing, Kaepernick only got us halfway to where he wants us to be. He lacked specific suggestions for improvement. Black Lives Matter has been similar. They get high marks for attracting attention, but they have so far been more provocative than helpful. I need to pause here to tell you that BLM has a wide range of personalities and priorities in it. On one extreme you have folks who are anti-police, anti-borders, pro-violence, and other unhelpful positions. But other chapters support the rule of law, including support for police, and are looking for practical solutions to real problems. If you dislike the extremists in BLM, consider supporting the BLM leaders who are focused on peaceful and practical solutions. That’s the mindset that gave us Martin Luther King Jr. I think that worked out for everyone.
> 
> Black Lives Matter (NY Chapter), under the leadership of Hawk Newsome, just came up with a set of suggested improvements that can — with a little negotiating — appeal to both Democrats and Republicans. If both parties like what they see, Republicans have the stronger hand because they are in power at the moment. The tie goes to the party that can make things happen. Love him or hate him, President Trump does make things happen. And he likes making deals. In other words, BLM of NY is answering President Trump’s invitation with a “What do you have to lose?” offer of their own.
> 
> If you have the time to hear my persuasive pitch of BLM-NY’s ideas on video, see them here. For the full persuasive effect, watch the video before reading the “spoilers” that follow. But this blog post can be consumed without watching the video.
> 
> I contacted Hawk Newsome to see how I could help his cause after watching a video in which he flipped a crowd of Trump-supporters from haters to friends in about five minutes. It was one of the most impressive acts of persuasion I have ever seen. Watch it here and see what I mean. This isn’t the BLM you thought you knew.
> 
> Hawk shared with me an early version of his chapter’s suggested improvements for the country. Again, I was impressed. The suggestions were beneficial to Americans in general, not just the black community, although that group might feel they have the most to gain, and perhaps they do. This was the same sort of persuasion strategy that got President Obama elected twice. Obama emphasized his policies, not his color, and that approach allowed people of every ethnicity to support him. BLM of NY figured out how to do the same thing. They offer practical suggestions that are designed to be good for people in general. I can support that.
> 
> Prior to publication of BLM-NY’s suggestions, I ran them past a prominent Republican to see what he thought. To my surprise, the prominent Republican — who shall remain nameless for now — told me BLM was thinking too small. So he offered as an alternative some bigger themes that I’ll share with you first because these are quite compatible with BLM’s priorities.
> 
> A Prominent Republican’s Vision for Improving Black Lives (because they matter):
> 
> Create safer neighborhoods to attract jobs and create optimism.
> Fix school bureaucracies in communities where students are failing.
> Create apprenticeships for unskilled adults
> Address the opiod epidemic directly and by improving the environment.
> You probably think those are good priorities. BLM agrees. And if I took it further and asked you which group thinks Charter schools are a good idea, you might be surprised to learn that the answer is “both.” On the big stuff, and on much of the small stuff too, BLM is entirely compatible with Republican ideals. When you are trying to make a deal, it helps to start with the parts upon which you agree.
> 
> Now I’ll share with you the BLM-NY list of suggestions. These ideas go directly to improving the credibility of the police. Republicans want the police to be credible too. Republicans also like good data, the rule of law, voting participation, and legal decisions that are free of bias. That’s what BLM-NY is focused on too. Here’s their list. Notice that every suggestion is useful for citizens in general, not just one ethnic group.
> 
> Ideas from Black Lives Matter – New York
> 
> Prosecute and jail police that falsify reports.
> Police must call an ambulance if defendant complains of illness.
> Voting rights for people in prison
> Independent prosecutors for police killings of unarmed civilians.
> Comprehensive national database of police shootings.
> New York holiday for Day of Remembrance for victims of police brutality.
> I’ll discuss these points in order.
> 
> Prosecute and jail police that falsify reports.
> 
> I think most Republicans would agree that a police officer who falsifies a police report must be held accountable. Republicans like the rule of law, and they like honesty. So far, BLM and Republicans are on the same page.
> 
> Police must call an ambulance if defendant complains of illness.
> 
> You might not know that people in police custody have died while begging for medical care that was not granted. I think we’d all want access to emergency medical care if we were in police custody. You might see some abuses of the system, but I think we’d all agree this one is worth discussing.
> 
> Voting rights for people in prison
> 
> I’ve never understood why prisoners lose the right to vote. Voting makes people feel part of the system. It seems like one of the few psychological influences that can nudge law-breakers toward becoming law-abiding. Realistically, only a small percentage of convicted criminals would bother to vote. The prickly part is that most would (presumably) vote Democrat. But Republicans can compete for those votes, and should. A good start would involve taking the lead in returning the vote to that class of folks.
> 
> Independent prosecutors for police killings of unarmed civilians.
> 
> Why not try independent prosecutors for police shootings of unarmed civilians? You could test it in one city or more and see how it goes. Budget-wise, I suspect we’d be better off in the long run with this sort of credibility-improving process. Perhaps you’d get less after-verdict violence. It’s worth discussing, and probably worth testing somewhere.
> 
> Comprehensive national database of police shootings.
> 
> Republicans will argue that the data does not show police are more violent with black suspects. African-Americans will tell you their lived experience says otherwise. BLM-NY offers the only sensible way forward, recommending national standards for reporting police violence against unarmed civilians. Who hates better data?
> 
> New York holiday for Day of Remembrance for victims of police brutality.
> 
> New York can decide on whether or not it wants a Day of Remembrance for victims of police brutality. I think the idea as proposed is divisive, framing the situation as one in which police are the bad guys. The point of the suggestion is to keep the problem of police violence against unarmed citizens in our thoughts, but I’m sure there’s a more productive way to do that. For example, if BLM and the GOP find a way to work together on some parts of this list, no one will forget that anytime soon. I prefer focusing on the positives.
> 
> Now consider how perfect the set-up is for a win-win deal between African-American voters and the GOP. President Trump’s biggest political problem is the perception that he’s a racist. Improving the economy and the job market doesn’t fix that problem, although it helps. But taking seriously BLM-NY’s list of suggestions — in some negotiated and improved form — would be a game-changer.
> 
> President Obama was hugely popular among black voters, but there is a sense in the African-American community that he didn’t deliver. Democrats have no charismatic leader at the moment, and not much power at the federal level compared to the GOP. Never before has the GOP been in such a strong position to make a play for a good portion of the African-American vote. All they need to do to get the ball rolling is take BLM-NY’s suggestions seriously as a basis for a deal. And BLM-NY is making that easy by presenting practical ideas that are not race-specific.
> 
> I spoke with Hawk again yesterday and both of us had just watched the recent viral video of a police shooting of an unarmed man in a hallway as it had been recorded on the police officer’s body cam. When you see the video you can understand why the cop opened fire. The man was reportedly armed, according to the initial call to police, and refused to keep his hands where he was ordered to keep them. In this case, the body cam protected the police officer as well as the reputation of the police by showing us exactly how the tragedy unfolded. Hawk and I were left wondering if a greater focus on body cams for police would be a practical approach to building confidence between the black community and police. I don’t know the answer, but here again we see a practical idea that I assume Republicans can embrace.
> 
> And to that I say, why the hell not?


----------



## Art Vandaley

@merry reaper ;
The article I posted looks at literally every special investigation since the 70s which you would have realised had you bothered reading it.

You argued the investigation is failing and used the alternate fact that it "hasn't achieved anything" as proof.

I've then posted an article which looks at every investigation since the 1970s which shows that this is actually wildly succesful by historical standards.

Not just by the fact of mere indictments, though yes, the fact there has been a mere indictment makes it more successful than most. 

But also by the fact it actually has 2 guilty pleas already.

So, given all that, what exactly is the relevance of what the indictments were for?


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> The article I posted looks at literally every special investigation since the 70s which you would have realised had you bothered reading it.
> 
> You argued the investigation is failing and used the alternate fact that it "hasn't achieved anything" as proof.
> 
> I've then posted an article which looks at every investigation since the 1970s which shows that this is actually wildly succesful by historical standards.
> 
> Not just by the fact of mere indictments, though yes, the fact there has been a mere indictment makes it more successful than most.
> 
> But also by the fact it actually has 2 guilty pleas already.
> 
> So, given all that, what exactly is the relevance of what the indictments were for?


Because the success of the investigation is hinged on proving a) Russian interference in the election and b) Trump / Russia collusion and how the two are intertwined. One is the stated goal and the other is the implied promise of this investigation. If the investigation is nowhere near its goal and turns up nothingburger after nothing burger for a year, it is a failure. 

Since the investigation is nowhere near finding anything even remotely close to either. 

The indictments are not relevant to the stated, implied or even imagined goals of the investigation. 

This is a junk investigation and your posting a ridiculous link about other investigations is meaningless and again irrelevant.

Now give me your thoughts on the indictments. Them happening means nothing based on the conclusion of they were for. Since you're pretending to know something about this when you know nothing about it, this is a total waste of my time. It's all one giant nothing. Basically brain food for those who think that Trump is either Hitler or a Dictator because it justifies their beliefs. Has nothing to do with reality whatsoever. 

Thanks for the daily dose of WF Infowars though


----------



## Art Vandaley

Merry Reaper said:


> Since you're pretending to know something about this when you know nothing about it, this is a total waste of my time.


Considering I was able to correct you about the relative speed/success of this special investigation compared to previous ones I evidently know more about it than you.

We're a year into an investigation that going by history will take 3 at least and up to 5, we wouldn't have expected it to have finished yet. Its like critising cake mix for not being a cake yet.

Give it time. 

Also one low level employee being a Democrat doesn't impugn an investigation run by a Republican short of evidence that that low level employee has actually done something improper in which case we should consider the impropriety.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Considering I was able to correct you about the relative speed/success of this special investigation compared to previous ones I evidently know more about it than you.
> 
> We're a year into an investigation that going by history will take 3 at least and up to 5, we wouldn't have expected it to have finished yet. Its like critising cake mix for not being a cake yet.
> 
> Give it time.
> 
> Also one low level employee being a Democrat doesn't impugn an investigation run by a Republican short of evidence that that low level employee has actually done something improper in which case we should consider the impropriety.


Taking a out other investigations or how long they take is not relevant to this investigation. 

You're skirting all the questions. You're ignoring that nothing has been accomplished. People who know stuff are eager to show it off. You know nothing. Tell me what you do know. Tell me what you know about who has been indicted and why and what their indictments have accomplished for the stated and implied objectives of the investigation?

Just give it more time is another dream. You bringing up other investigations and how long they took is part of that fantasy. They have no relevance or bearing on this case or this investigation. This is why at this point keeping this alove or ending it both is going to create an entire generation of 9/11 truthers. 

Show me 1 piece of evidence that has come out that even remotely suggests that anything at all has been found out about Russian interference and Trump / Russian collusion. 

Just one piece of evidence. Just one story that has even remotely suggested that this investigation has progressed towards finding anything out at all. Just one.

Give it time. Give it time. Sounds more like "Mommy just 5 more minutes. I'm having a great dream!"

Ridiculous, sham investigation by a corrupt FBI special counsel is an extremely low bar for people to prop as a legitimate source for determining "truth". It's sad the lengths people have to go to in order to keep living in their fantasy world.

Let's have a special counsel to investigate this special counsel and let's see how many demons are hidden in their closets


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> Taking a out other investigations or how long they take is not relevant to this investigation.
> 
> You're skirting all the questions. You're ignoring that nothing has been accomplished. People who know stuff are eager to show it off. You know nothing. Tell me what you do know. Tell me what you know about who has been indicted and why and what their indictments have accomplished for the stated and implied objectives of the investigation?
> 
> Just give it more time is another dream. You bringing up other investigations and how long they took is part of that fantasy. They have no relevance or bearing on this case or this investigation. This is why at this point keeping this alove or ending it both is going to create an entire generation of 9/11 truthers.
> 
> Show me 1 piece of evidence that has come out that even remotely suggests that anything at all has been found out about Russian interference and Trump / Russian collusion.
> 
> *Just one piece of evidence. Just one story that has even remotely suggested that this investigation has progressed towards finding anything out at all. Just one.
> *
> Give it time. Give it time. Sounds more like "Mommy just 5 more minutes. I'm having a great dream!"


The Trump server in PA that pings the Russia Bank (Alfa Bank). 80% of the Pings to that Trump server in the middle of no where came from Alfa Bank

Side note, guess who had the 2nd most pings. A company connected to Dick DeVos whose wife if Betsy DeVos.

why would a Russia bank be pinging a Trump server in the middle of nowhere? that does not raise an eyebrow for you?

You want something else?


Donald Trump Jr. on Wednesday cited attorney-client privilege to avoid telling lawmakers about a conversation he had with his father, President Donald Trump, after news broke this summer that the younger Trump — and top campaign brass — had met with Russia-connected individuals in Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign.

Though neither Trump Jr. nor the president is an attorney, Trump Jr. told the House Intelligence Committee that there was a lawyer in the room during the discussion, according to the committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California. Schiff said he didn’t think it was a legitimate invocation of attorney-client privilege.

“I don’t believe you can shield communications between individuals merely by having an attorney present,” he said, after the committee’s lengthy interview with Trump Jr. “That’s not the purpose of attorney-client privilege.”


----------



## Art Vandaley

Merry Reaper said:


> Taking a out other investigations or how long they take is not relevant to this investigation.


Yes it is.

The fact that special investigations always take a long time is relevant to the fact that this special investigation is taking a long time.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> The Trump server in PA that pings the Russia Bank (Alfa Bank). 80% of the Pings to that Trump server in the middle of no where came from Alfa Bank
> 
> Side note, guess who had the 2nd most pings. A company connected to Dick DeVos whose wife if Betsy DeVos.
> 
> why would a Russia bank be pinging a Trump server in the middle of nowhere? that does not raise an eyebrow for you?


Your own liberal Snopes claimed that that's unproven [emoji38]

That happened more than a year ago. If it was any kind of smoking gun at all, it would have led somewhere.



Alkomesh2 said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> The fact that special investigations always take a long time to come is relevant to the fact that this special investigation is taking a long time.


And others also take a long time and get us nothing but wasted time and resources and millions of "truthers". 

So like I originally said, wishful thinking that it "might" lead to something. Keep it alive as long as it allows you to live in your fantasy that something "might" come of it.

That means absolutely nothing with regards to it's potential for success. Still completely irrelevant.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Merry Reaper said:


> And others also take a long time and get us nothing but wasted time and resources and millions of "truthers".
> 
> So like I originally said, wishful thinking that it "might" lead to something. Keep it alive as long as it allows you to live in your fantasy that something "might" come of it.
> 
> That means absolutely nothing with regards to it's potential for success. Still completely irrelevant.


Its wishful thinking by people on the left that it will definetly lead to something, but equally wishful thinking by you and people on the right that it won't. 

We're a year into an investigation the likes of which tend to last 3-5 years.

Though two flipped witnesses is a pretty good sign more is to follow as they wouldn't have done the deals they did unless it was in exchange for info which implicates someone higher up.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Its wishful thinking by people on the left that it will definetly lead to something, but equally wishful thinking by you and people on the right that it won't.
> 
> We're a year into an investigation the likes of which tend to last 3-5 years.
> 
> Though two flipped witnesses is a pretty good sign more is to follow as they wouldn't have done the deals they did unless it was in exchange for info which implicates someone higher up.


If ignoring doziens of investigations that go on for decades without leading to anything and ignoring what the indictments were for is the basis for your decision then you're welcome for it. 

Meanwhile. I'm not in the same boat as you are. The absence of evidence and even the absence of knowing what that something even is and finding something that would fundamentally change the nature of the investigation and become something completely different to find a different crime than the original assumed crime doesn't make me delusional. At all. You probably haven't understood a lick of what I said in this paragraph anyways.

You can't start at point a and investigate b and indictments for c while investigating d and indicting for f then investigate for g and claim that the investigation into a was a success. This is incrediblly irrelevant. The investigation is still not a success. You don't even know how chain of events work :lol

We're never going to be the same. That's another delusion.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> If ignoring doziens of investigations that go on for decades without leading to anything and ignoring what the indictments were for is the basis for your decision then you're welcome for it.
> 
> Meanwhile. I'm not in the same boat as you are. The absence of evidence and even the absence of knowing what that something even is and finding something that would fundamentally change the nature of the investigation and become something completely different to find a different crime than the original assumed crime doesn't make me delusional. At all. You probably haven't understood a lick of what I said in this paragraph anyways.
> 
> We're never going to be the same. That's another delusion.


How is this investigation into leading to anything? The only person who his delusional here is you. Manaford just got indicted, and Flynn got caught lying, that is just two things that have already came out of this investigation, but sure hasn't led to anything. 

Also Manaford made a deal so he is giving up something bigger.

And Don Jr and Kushner are also in being investigated and could go down any day now.


----------



## Art Vandaley

@ merry reaper ;
They're going after low level people, pinning them for crimes and then doing plea deals whereby they plea to lesser offences than they could be found guilty for in return for info relevant to the main investigation. 

Its standard practice for investigating corruption.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> How is this investigation into leading to anything? The only person who his delusional here is you. Manaford just got indicted, and Flynn got caught lying, that is just two things that have already came out of this investigation, but sure hasn't led to anything.
> 
> Also Manaford made a deal so he is giving up something bigger.
> 
> And Don Jr and Kushner are also in being investigated and could go down any day now.


Flynn was indicted for lying about making an inconsequential statement about what he said to Russians. The "like" itself was what he was indicted for. The "like" he said was inconsequential.

Manafort was indicted for stuff he did under a different administration. Nothing at all related to Trump in any way at all.

Neither of the two indictments have anything at all to do with the Russia interference investigation let alone the Trump / Russia collusion. 

You guys are new to this conspiracy theory stuff. I can tell. It's not natural to you.



Alkomesh2 said:


> @ merry reaper ;
> They're going after low level people, pinning them for crimes and then doing plea deals whereby they plea to lesser offences than they could be found guilty for in return for info relevant to the main investigation.
> 
> Its standard practice for investigating corruption.


Still not following the chain of events are you? This was NEVER an investigation about corruption. Usually they find corruption at some point. Somewhere. There is a reason to continue digging. There was no corruption found. The "corruption" indictment aren't even about corruption related to Trump. They're related to activities under a different administration.

At the same time, corrupt officials have been caught in their corruption have intentionally tainted this investigatio, hence it needs to die because now it's no longer credible. 

It's only credible to partisan hacks. Even itt the only three people actively supporting it hate Trump for various reasons and have compared him to Hitler a Dictator and BM whose list is too long to list. Your own interests in this are partisan.

Similar partisan hacks are now found within the FBI team. 

The investigation is tainted and poisoned. There is no reason for it to continue. They're not going to something. Making something out of nothing is not the objective. This whole thing has turned people into tools of the DNC.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Trump would not be trying to get this investigation shut down so hard, if he did not have something to hide and was worried they will find it.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Merry Reaper said:


> You guys are new to this conspiracy theory stuff. I can tell. It's not natural to you.


Aren't you're trying to argue that the investigation by a Republican appointed by a Republican is actually part of some vast Democratic conspiracy?



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump would not be trying to get this investigation shut down so hard, if he did not have something to hide and was worried they will find it.


Yup.



Merry Reaper said:


> Still not following the chain of events are you? This was NEVER an investigation about corruption. Usually they find corruption at some point. Somewhere. There is a reason to continue digging. There was no corruption found. The indictments aren't even about corruption related to Trump. They're related to activities under a different administration.
> 
> At the same time, corrupt officials have been caught in their corruption have intentionally tainted this investigatio, hence it needs to die because now it's no longer credible.
> 
> It's only credible to partisan hacks. Even itt the only three people actively supporting it hate Trump for various reasons and have compared him to Hitler a Dictator and BM whose list is too long to list. Your own interests in this are partisan.
> 
> Similar partisan hacks are now found within the FBI team.
> 
> The investigation is tainted and poisoned. There is no reason for it to continue.


I've already explained why the indictments weren't about Trump specifically. Its about flipping lower level people to get evidence about higher ups and it's standard practice. If you're reading something into that you shouldn't. 

And again an investigation by a Republican appointed by a Republican into a Republican isn't suspicious for anti Republican bias because one low level employee happens to be a Democrat.

How on earth is it tainted or poisoned by that fact?


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Aren't you're trying to argue that the investigation by a Republican appointed by a Republican is actually part of some vast Democratic conspiracy?


I never called the investigation a conspiracy? I called it a sham that was infiltrated and tainted by corrupt agents. And that's actually a fact. 

The FBI hasn't been forthcoming about what their intentions are. 

The conspiracy theory is that there is Trump / Russia collusion. You're the conspiracy theorist. Hence why you guys have dubious claims, ridiculous theories, no evidence and a ton of wishful thinking. All hallmarks of conspiracy theorists. 



> Yup.


What steps has he taken to shut it down? 

Also, I thought that Trump is literally Hitler, a Dictator and a fascist? Why would he need to "try" to shut something down and not do it since he has all the power in the world?


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Aren't you're trying to argue that the investigation by a Republican appointed by a Republican is actually part of some vast Democratic conspiracy?
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already explained why the indictments weren't about Trump specifically. Its about flipping lower level people to get evidence about higher ups and it's standard practice. If you're reading something into that you shouldn't.
> 
> And again an investigation by a Republican appointed by a Republican into a Republican isn't suspicious for anti Republican bias because one low level employee happens to be a Democrat.
> 
> How on earth is it tainted or poisoned by that fact?


6 of 15 agents were Clinton donors. 3 were Republican donors. That makes it a pretty partisan group. It's enough grounds to question their motives. 

And he's not a low level employee. Read into how much pworr he actually had. Even New York times called him a top agent. 

This is why I keep saying. You're a conspiracy theorist and not even a good one :lmao


----------



## Art Vandaley

Merry Reaper said:


> I never called the investigation a conspiracy? I called it a sham that was infiltrated and tainted by corrupt agents. And that's actually a fact.


No that is a conspiracy theory.

Its a theory involving a conspiracy....

Even if true, which it isn't and you have literally no reason to believe it is, and you'd have to believe that a Republican appointed by Jeff Sessions is in on it...



Merry Reaper said:


> 9 of 15 agents were Clinton donors.
> 
> And he's not a low level employee. Read into how much pworr he actually had. Even New York times called him a top agent.


The leader/boss/person actually in charge of everything who has absolute right of veto is a Republican donor.

Even if they were a top agent they were still just an agent, a grunt with no actual power.

The mere fact that an agent, or even 9, were democratic leaning in no way impugns the investigation.

What do you actually allege they've done wrong?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> I never called the investigation a conspiracy? I called it a sham that was infiltrated and tainted by corrupt agents. And that's actually a fact.
> 
> The FBI hasn't been forthcoming about what their intentions are.
> 
> The conspiracy theory is that there is Trump / Russia collusion. You're the conspiracy theorist. Hence why you guys have dubious claims, ridiculous theories, no evidence and a ton of wishful thinking. All hallmarks of conspiracy theorists.
> 
> 
> 
> *What steps has he taken to shut it down? *
> 
> Also, I thought that Trump is literally Hitler, a Dictator and a fascist? Why would he need to "try" to shut something down and not do it since he has all the power in the world?


You can't be serious dude. Trump first asked Comey to shut down the investigation, then when he wouldn't Trump fired him. Now Trump is trying to get the GOP to stop the investigation and now get Muller fired as well.

You don't even live in reality anymore


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> You can't be serious dude. Trump first asked Comey to shut down the investigation, then when he wouldn't Trump fired him. Now Trump is trying to get the GOP to stop the investigation and now get Muller fired as well.
> 
> You don't even live in reality anymore


Trump fired the incompetent baffoon that cost Hillary the election. Which is it? Before Trump took office Democrats were calling for his head and now he's suddenly their hero :lmao .

Trump can fire Meuller any time he wants without any repercussions to himself because he's not under investigation. He doesn't need anyone to do it for him. 

The investigation of Meuller was never about Trump and it isn't even about Trump yet. 

Even the FBI is clear that it has nothing to do with Trump repeatedly and no that's not self preservation :lmao. 

Keep dreaming of "something is going to turn up". 

People are allowed their fantasies.



Alkomesh2 said:


> No that is a conspiracy theory.


How is it a conspiracy when one top (NYT words not mine) corrupt agent was already fired after nearly a year into the investigation FOR BIAS. 

One corrupt cop can taint the entire investigation. That's not conspiracy, that's fact :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> Trump fired the incompetent baffoon that cost Hillary the election. Which is it? Before Trump took office Democrats were calling for his head and now he's suddenly their hero :lmao .
> 
> Trump can fire Meuller any time he wants without any repercussions to himself because he's not under investigation. He doesn't need anyone to do it for him.
> 
> The investigation of Meuller was never about Trump and it isn't even about Trump yet.
> 
> Even the FBI is clear that it has nothing to do with Trump repeatedly and no that's not self preservation :lmao.
> 
> Keep dreaming of "something is going to turn up".
> 
> People are allowed their fantasies.
> 
> 
> 
> How is it a conspiracy when one top (NYT words not mine) corrupt agent was already fired after nearly a year into the investigation FOR BIAS.
> 
> One corrupt cop can taint the entire investigation. That's not conspiracy, that's fact :lmao


I love how you deflect when it comes to Comey. HIs Hilary and Trump investigations are two different things. 
But keep ignore that fact like you always do.

You keep saying Mullers investigation is not against Trump yet Trump seems to think so thus why he wants Muller fired. Trump knows he is getting close and that is why Trump wants Muller gone. Also Muller is investigating everyone around Trump, his next sights are set on Don Jr and Kushner, and Trump knows that is where the connections will connect him the most. 

If Trump had nothing to worry about, he would want to fire a 2nd person doing this investigation

You are the only one living in fantasy land here


----------



## Art Vandaley

Merry Reaper said:


> How is it a conspiracy when one top (NYT words not mine) corrupt agent was already fired after nearly a year into the investigation FOR BIAS.


Because its a theory involving a conspiracy. 



> One corrupt cop can taint the entire investigation.


There is no allegation of corruption, there is an allegation that they are Democrats. And as far as I am aware there is no allegation they have actually done anything to taint the investigation.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Alkomesh2 said:


> Because its a theory involving a conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no allegation of corruption, there is an allegation that they are Democrats. And as far as I am aware there is no allegation they have actually done anything to taint the investigation.


Not to mention wasn't that text that just came out like from 2016? Its not from when that person was working on this investigation right?

not even sure how that text makes him corrupt. Its just Trump and his supporters making excuses for if and when they connect Trump.

They want their out to say oh it was corrupted.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> I love how you deflect when it comes to Comey. HIs Hilary and Trump investigations are two different things.
> But keep ignore that fact like you always do.
> 
> You keep saying Mullers investigation is not against Trump yet Trump seems to think so thus why he wants Muller fired
> 
> You are the only one living in fantasy land here


I said that Trump fired Comey for obvious incompetence and mishandling of the Clinton case. Everyone knows this. He mishandled it to the point of DNC originally claiming that they cost them the presidency before shutting up after cooking up the Russia collusion narrative.

He can fire Meuller anytime he wants :lmao

Again how does literally Hitler and literally a Dictator and literally a fascist not fire someone he has the power to fire?

He's never even made a single move that can even be construed as him "attempting to fire Meuller". That too is a fantasy :lmao



Alkomesh2 said:


> Because its a theory involving a conspiracy.


No conspiracy when a guy has been involved in an investigation with extreme bias for months with proof. 



> There is no allegation of corruption, there is an allegation that they are Democrats. And as far as I am aware there is no allegation they have actually done anything to taint the investigation.


He literally admitted it in his texts.



> “Maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace,” Page wrote.
> 
> “I can protect our country at many levels,” Strzok replied.
> 
> One message suggests that the pair and perhaps other more senior FBI officials were assessing Trump’s chances while at work.
> 
> “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Strzok wrote to Page in August 2016.


Andy is a reference to another senior FBI Official. It heavily indicates with proof that there was intent to iniure Trump's legitimacy even before he was elected. And that other agents were involved in a plan to do so.

The investigation was tainted. It needs to end.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> I said that Trump fired Comey for obvious incompetence and mishandling of the Clinton case. Everyone knows this. He mishandled it to the point of DNC originally claiming that they cost them the presidency before shutting up after cooking up the Russia collusion narrative.
> 
> He can fire Meuller anytime he wants :lmao
> 
> Again how does literally Hitler and literally a Dictator and literally a fascist not fire someone he has the power to fire?
> 
> He's never even made a single move that can even be construed as him "attempting to fire Meuller". That too is a fantasy :lmao


Everyone knows that is not why he fired him. If that is why he fired him he would have done it the first day he took office. Stop making excuses for Trump. Trump did it because the investigation Comey was on Trump worried he would find something on him. 

Trump keeps saying Meuller should be fired but he is being told he has no good reason to. Stop acting like Trump does not want to fire him.

You can live in your fantasy land all you want but the rest of us live in reality.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Everyone knows that is not why he fired him. If that is why he fired him he would have done it the first day he took office. Stop making excuses for Trump. Trump did it because the investigation Comey was on Trump worried he would find something on him.
> 
> Trump keeps saying Meuller should be fired but he is being told he has no good reason to. Stop acting like Trump does not want to fire him.
> 
> You can live in your fantasy land all you want but the rest of us live in reality.


Comey was never investigating Trump either :lmao 

Where has Trump said that Meuller needs to be fired. Provide proof.


----------



## Empress

Omarosa didn't waste any time. She's such a character. So, this should be a good interview.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941111508817399808

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941094961482780672

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941104064879910912

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941106237206298625


----------



## Art Vandaley

Merry Reaper said:


> No conspiracy when a guy has been involved in an investigation with extreme bias for months with proof.


You allege that a group of people are involved in a secret agreement to achieve an aim. That is a conspiracy whether true or not.



> There is no allegation of corruption, there is an allegation that they are Democrats. And as far as I am aware there is no allegation they have actually done anything to taint the investigation.


He literally admitted it in his texts.



> “Maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace,” Page wrote.
> 
> “I can protect our country at many levels,” Strzok replied.
> 
> One message suggests that the pair and perhaps other more senior FBI officials were assessing Trump’s chances while at work.
> 
> “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Strzok wrote to Page in August 2016.


Andy is a reference to another senior FBI Official. It heavily indicates with proof that there was intent to iniure Trump's legitimacy even before he was elected. And that other agents were involved in a plan to do so.

The investigation was tainted. It needs to end.[/QUOTE]

None of what you're posted are allegations of wrong doing. 

One low level employee disliking the person being investigated doesn't taint an investigation when there is no allegation of actual wrong doing.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> You allege that a group of people are involved in a secret agreement to achieve an aim. That is a conspiracy whether true or not.





> None of what you're posted are allegations of wrong doing.


Obvious STATED prejudice and STATED pre-meditated intent in discussions within a group of people, one of whom is involved with an investigative team for months afterwards with *written proof *of *prejudice *and *pre-meditated intent* is pretty damning proof. 

That's not a conspiracy theory. It's an evidence-based conclusion.

The diff is, I'm calling out the taint _after _it has been _exposed _with _written _proof. Andy McCabe is the acting Director of the FBI. This is not some "low-level" employee if he has the ear of the acting director of the FBI. You're now obviously lying to push a narrative. 



> *As the former No. 2 official in counterintelligence, Strzok helped lead the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server *and was involved in opening the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election, but he was reassigned to the human resources division this summer. Page was also briefly on Mueller's team before returning to the FBI, but she completed her detail before the special counsel's office was made aware of the texts.





> Later in a text from August 15, 2016, Strzok tells Page: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office" -- *an apparent reference to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe* -- "that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 . . . . " Page does not appear to have responded, according to records reviewed by CNN.


What are you smoking when you're calling him a "low-level" employee? 

Meanwhile, you're sitting there waiting for some proof to present itself of some wrong doing without knowing what that wrong doing could even be and what proof might actually prove this fantasy of yours. 

I'm not the one living a fantasy. The proof is in this guy's texts. Is there any other interpretation?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Alkomesh2 said:


> *You allege that a group of people are involved in a secret agreement to achieve an aim.* That is a conspiracy whether true or not.


There's more evidence of Sorzk in an agreement to smear Trump then there is that the Trump administration colluded with the Russians. Think about that for a moment. Those texts were in August and 4 months later we get the truth. They've been investigating Trump for a year and they have less than nothing.

This investigation will last as long as Trump is President.


----------



## stevefox1200

Merry Reaper said:


> Obvious STATED prejudice and STATED pre-meditated intent in discussions within a group of people, one of whom is involved with an investigative team for months afterwards with *written proof *of *prejudice *and *pre-meditated intent* is pretty damning proof.
> 
> That's not a conspiracy theory. It's an evidence-based conclusion.
> 
> The diff is, I'm calling out the taint _after _it has been _exposed _with _written _proof.
> 
> You're sitting there waiting for some proof to present itself of some wrong doing without knowing what that wrong doing could even be and what proof might actually prove this fantasy of yours.
> 
> I'm not the one living a fantasy. The proof is in this guy's texts. Is there any other interpretation?


The intent and the opinion of the investigator does not matter unless they do something illegal to invalidate said investigation

I'm sure most police enter the investigation with the mind set the person is guilty and they need to prove

I can not believe you are pushing the same lawyer bait that drug dealers use to prove that the investigator is "racist"



TheNightmanCometh said:


> There's more evidence of Sorzk in an agreement to smear Trump then there is that the Trump administration colluded with the Russians. Think about that for a moment. Those texts were in August and 4 months later we get the truth. They've been investigating Trump for a year and they have less than nothing.
> 
> This investigation will last as long as Trump is President.


Muller is a republican, he is in charge

Unless you think agents are giving him false evidence (which would be a surprise because they have flipped several people) than the political leanings and what they thought of Trump dosn't matter


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

stevefox1200 said:


> The intent and the opinion of the investigator does not matter unless they do something illegal to invalidate said investigation
> 
> I'm sure most police enter the investigation with the mind set the person is guilty and they need to prove
> 
> I can not believe you are pushing the same lawyer bait that drug dealers use to prove that the investigator is "racist"


We don't know what he has done. What we know is that he felt an insurance needed to be set up, in case Trump won, and as soon as Trump won a mysterious dossier showed up, ; a dossier many are speculating was the evidence the Obama administration needed to get a FISA warrant to survail the Trump administration; and which has been used as a chief argument that the Trump campaign may have colluded with the Russians.

For all the "when there's smoke there's fire" stories all of you have been clinging to over the past year, how this doesn't even warrant the same line of thinking is funny to me.


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> The intent and the opinion of the investigator does not matter unless they do something illegal to invalidate said investigation


Moving goal posts does not validate an ever changing and expanding probe. It needs to provide justification along the way. Where is any justification to continue to expand the probe? They have not found any evidence of Russian interference. They haven't found any evidence of Trump/Russia collusion. They're just looking. The fact that they're looking does not mean that there will ever be any evidence of wrong-doing or that there is any evidence of wrong-doing. 



> I'm sure most police enter the investigation with the mind set the person is guilty and they need to prove


Police enter investigations are based on probable cause of wrong-doing and continue to follow leads. They haven't even been able to establish probable cause to even imply that they're investigating Trump in any way shape or form - and yet you've got misinformed people who believe that Trump is definitely guilty and a Russian puppet - who don't even know or want to accept the reality that Trump isn't even under investigation and has not been since day 1. 

_They _can do all the digging they want - but shouldn't anymore because the investigation is tainted and has been for months. 

It also does not stop me from claiming that people with obvious hatred and prejudice and phobias are nothing more than deluded conspiracy theorists. 



> I can not believe you are pushing the same lawyer bait that drug dealers use to prove that the investigator is "racist"


Completely ridiculous analogy. This was assume that the man on defense is actually a drug dealer. No crime has been committed and the man isn't even under investigation of wrong-doing. There are phantom drugs that are believed to be real drugs and somehow these fantasy drugs were dealt in some fantasy and now this fantasy has become reality. 

Actually, the real analogy here is "The man is guilty, just keep digging. Oh shit, there's a dirty cop involved. Ok. Now he's fired. We're good. Nothing to see here".


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

stevefox1200 said:


> Muller is a republican, he is in charge
> 
> Unless you think agents are giving him false evidence (which would be a surprise because they have flipped several people) than the political leanings and what they thought of Trump dosn't matter


Can you explain what that has to do with my comment about Sorzk? I'm saying that there is textual evidence that Sorzk felt an insurance plan was needed in case Trump became President. What needs to be investigated is if he followed through on that.

You wanna keep Mueller investigating Trump, okay, but at least be ideologically consistent and say there should be a similar investigation on Sorzk and whether or not he's tainted Mueller's investigation.


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> You wanna keep Mueller investigating Trump, okay, but at least be ideologically consistent and say there should be a similar investigation on Sorzk and whether or not he's tainted Mueller's investigation.


Note that this taint was only found out because there is a counter-investigation currently taking place. He was only fired _after _the texts were discovered. 

Meuller has been working with an obvious Trump-hater who couldn't keep his mouth shut for months. In fact, he was hatching anti-Trump plans in the acting FBI director's office. There's no way this bastard wasn't an obvious partisan hack during the investigation as well.


----------



## stevefox1200

TheNightmanCometh said:


> We don't know what he has done. What we know is that he felt an insurance needed to be set up, in case Trump won, and as soon as Trump won a mysterious dossier showed up, ; a dossier many are speculating was the evidence the Obama administration needed to get a FISA warrant to survail the Trump administration; and which has been used as a chief argument that the Trump campaign may have colluded with the Russians.
> 
> For all the "when there's smoke there's fire" stories all of you have been clinging to over the past year, how this doesn't even warrant the same line of thinking is funny to me.


There is no evidence of the "Obama's tapping my phones" story and Trump dropped it almost immediately. It also makes perfect sense to wait until Trump won. Investigations of government figures take more precedence the more power the person has. If Trump had lost this investigation would likely not even be happening because Trump would be random private citizen and what he tried clearly did not work.

There is this mindset that "Why are they investigating A but not B" is some killer point, its not



Merry Reaper said:


> Moving goal posts does not validate an ever changing and expanding probe. It needs to provide justification along the way. Where is any justification to continue to expand the probe? They have not found any evidence of Russian interference. They haven't found any evidence of Trump/Russia collusion. They're just looking. The fact that they're looking does not mean that there will ever be any evidence of wrong-doing or that there is any evidence of wrong-doing.
> 
> 
> 
> Police enter investigations are based on probable cause of wrong-doing and continue to follow leads. They haven't even been able to establish probable cause to even imply that they're investigating Trump in any way shape or form - and yet you've got misinformed people who believe that Trump is definitely guilty and a Russian puppet - who don't even know or want to accept the reality that Trump isn't even under investigation and has not been since day 1.
> 
> _They _can do all the digging they want - but shouldn't anymore because the investigation is tainted and has been for months.
> 
> It also does not stop me from claiming that people with obvious hatred and prejudice and phobias are nothing more than deluded conspiracy theorists.
> 
> 
> 
> Completely ridiculous analogy. This was assume that the man on defense is actually a drug dealer. No crime has been committed and the man isn't even under investigation of wrong-doing. There are phantom drugs that are believed to be real drugs and somehow these fantasy drugs were dealt in some fantasy and now this fantasy has become reality.
> 
> Actually, the real analogy here is "The man is guilty, just keep digging. Oh shit, there's a dirty cop involved. Ok. Now he's fired. We're good. Nothing to see here".


The cop wasn't dirty 

The cop was questionable and was removed 

The only people calling this "poisoned" are the same people who were against it in the first place 

And this investigation was approved by a bi-partisan commission, government on both sides felt that an investigation was in order after being briefed but not only the evil FBI but also the NSA and CIA


----------



## Art Vandaley

Merry Reaper said:


> I'm saying that there is a) No evidence of wrong-doing. b) No crime has even been established and c) The FBI's investigation is tainted - with proof of taint.


1. There was enough evidence of wrong doing that a Repiblican felt he needed to start the investigation. 

2. Multiple crimes have been established so far and people have plead guilty to those crimes. 

3. If there is proof of a taint you certainly haven't posted it.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> 1. There was enough evidence of wrong doing that a Repiblican felt he needed to start the investigation.


The FBI has not even claimed that it has evidence and that they're holding on to it because it's sensitive. They have nothing. But I can understand that you want this magic box to exist where there's a ton of secret files and documents of wrong-doing. Yeah, that's a delusion. 



> 2. Multiple crimes have been established so far and people have plead guilty to those crimes.


None of those indictments have anything at all to do with Trump. One is for corruption by an individual as an individual and the other is for lying about something incredibly inconsequential. They're not damaging to the current administration. They're not even related to the current administration. Of course, you don't want to talk about the indictments themselves because the actual indictments not only damage your narrative, they destroy it. It's a result of cognitive dissonance. 



> 3. If there is proof of a taint you certainly haven't posted it.


So a guy openly claims that he hates Trump, wants to save the country from Trump, talks about a plan in the acting FBI director's office indicating premeditation to taint, still isn't proof of taint in the investigation. A guy who was fired after a counter-investigation was launched. If Meuller is impartial, but hadn't caught on to an anti-Trumper lunatic in his investigative team for MONTHS, then he's incompetent as fuck to lead the investigation anyways. 

In that case you guys are doomed to wait for an eternity for this "something" you're so keenly waiting for :lmao



stevefox1200 said:


> The cop wasn't dirty


The cop was fired by his boss for being dirty and you're saying that he isn't dirty :lmao 

Man, I never even claimed that Flynn or Manafort were innocent after they were both fired by Trump. 



> The cop was questionable and was removed


AKA Dirty. 



> The only people calling this "poisoned" are the same people who were against it in the first place


There are people now on both the left and the right and moderates that are finally starting to see that this isn't going anywhere and that it is indeed tainted. There are bi-partisan calls to end this charade. 



> And this investigation was approved by a bi-partisan commission, government on both sides felt that an investigation was in order after being briefed but not only the evil FBI but also the NSA and CIA


The investigation was approved based on some incredibly low level evidence of some random attempts by Russian hackers (none of which were consequential in the first place) - which made this an investigation into safeguarding AMERICAN interests. (of course some typical Russkiphobia played a huge role in motivating Americans to get this paranoid in the first place but that's besides the point). The foot got in the door with an easy first sell. Whatever the motivations behind are something that's up for debate. However, over time, the motivations have become clear - and with the dirty cop's involvement coming out into the open, this has turned into something of a nightmare for those who allowed it too. 

The reason why this investigation has blown up from its original course however is a) because of dirty cops involved that are leading it in ridiculous directions and b) because of the problems associated with ending the investigation itself that are now being portrayed as ending an investigation means guilt. 

It is paranoia building upon paranoia upon paranoia. It's feeding itself. It'll continue to grow because it's become a tumor that can't be controlled.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Trump supporters falling apart on this topic, its glorious to watch. Using the logic they are using right now since everyone around Trump is courrpt and tainted then Trump should quit as president right.

The hypocrisy of Trump supporters knows no bounds

They wanted this ended so badly because they know Trump is guilty. If he was innocent they would want it proven he is but like Trump they want it gone.

SAD!


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

stevefox1200 said:


> There is no evidence of the "Obama's tapping my phones" story and Trump dropped it almost immediately. It also makes perfect sense to wait until Trump won. Investigations of government figures take more precedence the more power the person has. If Trump had lost this investigation would likely not even be happening because Trump would be random private citizen and what he tried clearly did not work.
> 
> There is this mindset that "Why are they investigating A but not B" is some killer point, its not


I didn't say there was evidence to that story. I'm pointing out the ideological inconsistencies that you, and those who think like you, are making.

There is no evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians, but you believe that he did and it should be investigated. There is no evidence that Sorzk worked to set up an insurance plan to hurt Trump's Presidency, and you believe that he didn't, so an investigation isn't necessary. Yet, both fall under the same conspiratorial premise of "if there's smoke, there's fire". That's your ideological stance on Trump, but not Sorzk. Why?

The simple fact is this, if you think there is enough smoke for there to be an investigation against Trump, then you should feel the same way about Sorzk.

And your whole "Why are they investigating A and not B" theory doesn't hold up, because you're passively claiming that those who argue this are also stating "If you don't investigate B then you shouldn't investigate A", and nobody is saying that either. 

Nobody is saying that either and it is just your way of avoiding the Sorzk story, and it's fatal blow to your ideological consistency, by creating a false argument with the express purpose of discrediting your opponent. There can easily be an investigation of Sorzk and Trump at the same time.

Another inconsistency, Flynn was fired because he was dirty. Sorzk got fired because....he's a good guy and in no way was dirty.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump supporters falling apart on this topic, its glorious to watch. Using the logic they are using right now since everyone around Trump is courrpt and tainted then Trump should quit as president right.
> 
> The hypocrisy of Trump supporters knows no bounds
> 
> They wanted this ended so badly because they know Trump is guilty. If he was innocent they would want it proven he is but like Trump they want it gone.
> 
> SAD!


BM resorting to attacks in the middle of a debate. Keep being you, BM. Any time I feel down about something, I can just come here and see your posts and say, "Well, at least I'm not BM".

:jaydance4


----------



## Art Vandaley

Merry Reaper said:


> The FBI has not even claimed that it has evidence and that they're holding on to it because it's sensitive. They have nothing. But I can understand that you want this magic box to exist where there's a ton of secret files and documents of wrong-doing. Yeah, that's a delusion.


Investigators don't release evidence during an investigation.

Also I highly doubt the two people who plead guilty did so for fun, they plead guilty because they were shown evidence.



> None of those indictments have anything at all to do with Trump. One is for corruption by an individual as an individual and the other is for lying about something incredibly inconsequential. They're not damaging to the current administration. They're not even related to the current administration. Of course, you don't want to talk about the indictments themselves because the actual indictments not only damage your narrative, they destroy it. It's a result of cognitive dissonance.


I've explained this repeatedly in this thread but yet again, the indictments were about getting lower level people to flip and act as witnesses.

This is a standard prosecutorial tactic.



> So a guy openly claims that he hates Trump, wants to save the country from Trump, talks about a plan in the acting FBI director's office indicating premeditation to taint, still isn't proof of taint in the investigation. A guy who was fired after a counter-investigation was launched. If Meuller is impartial, but hadn't caught on to an anti-Trumper lunatic in his investigative team for MONTHS, then he's incompetent as fuck to lead the investigation anyways.


A low level employee disliking Trump does not taint an investigation set up by a Republican and run by a Republican.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Alkomesh2 said:


> A low level employee disliking Trump does not taint an investigation set up by a Republican and run by a Republican.


Strozk was not a "low level employee". He was the top FBI agent working for Mueller's special council investigation. When your top FBI agent is biased against Trump and he's the top FBI agent in an investigation of Trump, well, I don't know about you, but, to me, that looks like a big dirty messy taint all over the carpet kind of problem for the special investigation.


----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow @Merry Reaper @Pratchett @Miss Sally @virus21 @Fringe @Beatles123 @BruiserKC @Plato (if you have a Christmas username then I probably missed you/don't care about you)

Ann Coulter goes in on the GOP:



> WHY I SECRETLY WANTED MOORE TO LOSE: BROOKS 2020!
> December 13, 2017
> 
> Rep. Mo Brooks was the true Trumpian candidate in Alabama, which is why I endorsed him in the primary (here, here and here). When the accusations against Roy Moore first arose, I proposed that the president make a deal to replace Moore with Brooks.
> 
> Obviously, the GOP would be in a much better position right now if only Republicans had learned to hang on my every word.
> 
> Instead, everyone did exactly the wrong thing, and they got the worst of all possible worlds.
> 
> Trump should have endorsed Brooks in the primary, but he endorsed Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's pro-amnesty candidate, Luther Strange, on the advice of his son-in-law. Because who knows Alabama politics better than Jared Kushner? (I guess we can scratch the expression, "As goes Kushner, so goes Alabama!")
> 
> Now Trump has lost twice in a state that voted for him by a nearly 3-to-1 margin over Hillary just last year. Apparently, Trump's voters won't blindly follow him, whatever he does. I wonder if this is relevant information for the midterms ...
> 
> McConnell spent millions upon millions of dollars in nasty ads to defeat Mo Brooks in the primary, because Brooks takes sensible positions on immigration.
> 
> Can't have that! McConnell pulled out all the stops to block Brooks, so he could keep big donors rolling in cheap foreign workers. Soon they'll have all the labor they need -- and a federal government run by Hugo Chavez. The Chamber of Commerce is "diversifying" Republicans out of their jobs.
> 
> Thanks to McConnell's brilliant strategy of opposing Brooks, now he's stuck with another Democrat -- and a razor-thin Senate majority. McConnell fully deserves to lose his majority, but the rest of us don't deserve the horror of a Democratic Senate. Unfortunately, I can't figure out a way to do one and avoid the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most status-conscious Republicans were hysterical about Roy Moore's holy roller Christianity. I hope their tax cut bill dies. Should've backed Mo Brooks!
> 
> The good news is, even with the media carrying on 24-7 about Moore being a "CHILD MOLESTER!" and "PEDOPHILE," the election was still a nail-biter. I salute the good people of Alabama and admire their contempt for the media.
> 
> But, otherwise, Moore's loss is good news for patriotic Americans. First of all, the media would have set up tents outside Moore's Senate office around the clock, capturing his every utterance, so they could broadcast anything stupid he said and demand that all Republicans defend it or disavow it.
> 
> Most important, now Mo Brooks can run in 2020 and return the seat to a respectable Alabamian who is rock-solid on the most important issue.
> 
> Everyone who screwed the pooch on this one better realize fast: All that matters is immigration. It's all that matters to the country, and it's all that matters for winning elections.
> 
> "Anti-establishment" is not a winning issue. Without immigration as the GOP's lodestar, every election will be a rerun of the Tea Party from 2010 to 2012, when Republicans lost Senate seat after Senate seat, entirely in unforced errors.
> 
> We'll have to watch helplessly as "establishment Republicans" fight "anti-establishment Republicans" over the right to milk a he-goat. Both sides will lose, and Democrats will sweep Congress and destroy our country.
> 
> Immigration was never a top issue for Moore, though, when pressed, he gave the right answers. That's not a good way to prioritize.
> 
> Republicans who treat immigration as a backburner issue should be required to run on the issues they consider more important -- in California. See how your arguments fare in a state that's already been transformed by immigration. That's your new country.
> 
> How stupid do you have to be to carry on about taxes, defense spending, ISIS, abortion or the Ten Commandments while intentionally losing on the one issue that will determine the outcome of all these other issues? Too stupid to be of any real help.
> 
> That's why McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan keep producing loss after loss for Trump. They've turned the Trump presidency into the Bush presidency -- but, this time, with Jared Kushner! (Obviously, any Republican president would desperately seek Kushner's counsel -- but could Jeb! have gotten Ivanka, too?)
> 
> GOP candidates are not going to win on hating the Republican establishment any more than Republicans are going to win on Donald Trump's personality. The Alabama election proved both sides of that equation.
> 
> For years, Sen. Jeff Sessions, whose seat was being replaced in Alabama, was the one stalwart on immigration in the Senate -- and a thorn in Mitch McConnell's side. Sessions won his last re-election with 97 percent of the vote. (And then he voted for all those tax cut and partial-birth abortion bills you idiot Republicans are so obsessed with -- and which would never get a hearing in California.)
> 
> What was Trump's winning issue, again? Three syllables ... sounds like "BUILD THE WALL"? During the campaign, every time Trump came out with a new proposal on immigration, other Republicans would hysterically denounce him -– and then he'd soar in the polls.
> 
> Now that he's tried everything else, can't Trump try the issue that won him the election? We want to get tired of winning.
> 
> COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER
> DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Strozk was not a "low level employee". He was the top FBI agent working for Mueller's special council investigation. When your top FBI agent is biased against Trump and he's the top FBI agent in an investigation of Trump, well, I don't know about you, but, to me, that looks like a big dirty messy taint all over the carpet kind of problem for the special investigation.


Show one shred of evidence that Strozk did anything biased against Trump in the investigation.

You really think that anyone who does an investigation or is a judge does not have an opinion about the person they are looking into or judging before hand?

it's their job to be impartial and unless you can show he did anything underhanded while investigating Trump you've got nothing.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer

Alkomesh2 said:


> Investigators don't release evidence during an investigation.
> 
> Also I highly doubt the two people who plead guilty did so for fun, they plead guilty because they were shown evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained this repeatedly in this thread but yet again, the indictments were about getting lower level people to flip and act as witnesses.
> 
> This is a standard prosecutorial tactic.
> 
> 
> 
> A low level employee disliking Trump does not taint an investigation set up by a Republican and run by a Republican.


_*If I am not mistaken, he was a not a low level employee but a top FIB agent for the special counsel investigation under Mueller. *_


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Investigators don't release evidence during an investigation.


And sometimes they don't release evidence because they don't have any. If you believe they do, it's a fantasy. 



> Also I highly doubt the two people who plead guilty did so for fun, they plead guilty because they were shown evidence.


Another fantasy. 



> I've explained this repeatedly in this thread but yet again, the indictments were about getting lower level people to flip and act as witnesses.
> 
> This is a standard prosecutorial tactic.


Another fantasy. 



> A low level employee disliking Trump does not taint an investigation set up by a Republican and run by a Republican.


Another fantasy. 

In a team of 15 investigators investigating one of the highest levels of investigations in the land, the former #2 of the Hillary probe .. is not a low level employee. 

Just a bunch of fantasies, alternative facts, clever use of language. That's pretty much the entire content of your posts now. No knowledge whatsoever. Conjecture. Hypothesizing. 

All because you think that Trump is Hitler, a mafia don, a mob boss, a russian spy, a corrupt official. It's amazing how little regard you have for your own credibility.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Show one shred of evidence that Strozk did anything biased against Trump in the investigation.


I see, so we shouldn't even bother investigating whether he actually did anything because we can't point to anything that he did at this moment?

I wonder how that conclusion of yours hasn't extended it's way to Trump yet.

I mean, after all, show one shred of evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians to fix the election.

opcorn


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I see, so we shouldn't even bother investigating whether he actually did anything because we can't point to anything that he did at this moment?
> 
> I wonder how that conclusion of yours hasn't extended it's way to Trump yet.
> 
> I mean, after all, show one shred of evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians to fix the election.


So the answer is no then. That is what I thought.


----------



## CamillePunk

I think the way to deal with Trump-Russia for we Trump supporters is to allow the left-wing conspiracy theorists, which seems to be most lefties these days, believe it's legit and that Trump will go down. Then, when the investigation dies with Trump still the President, the shock will create a moment of cataclysmic cognitive dissonance similar to (and hopefully canceling out) the effect of the 2016 election result and *hopefully* fuse our two movies back together and they can rejoin us in our _relatively_ shared "reality", leaving them free to enjoy the booming Trump economy and the utter defeat of ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Speaking of ISIS, they should really change their name at this point. :hmm: I wonder how long it'll be before I can enjoy a classic episode of Archer or that great Bob Dylan song off of _Desire_ without thinking of those losers. 

This only works if they really believe Trump will get impeached though. You have got to let them have that.


----------



## stevefox1200

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I didn't say there was evidence to that story. I'm pointing out the ideological inconsistencies that you, and those who think like you, are making.
> 
> There is no evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians, but you believe that he did and it should be investigated. There is no evidence that Sorzk worked to set up an insurance plan to hurt Trump's Presidency, and you believe that he didn't, so an investigation isn't necessary. Yet, both fall under the same conspiratorial premise of "if there's smoke, there's fire". That's your ideological stance on Trump, but not Sorzk. Why?
> 
> The simple fact is this, if you think there is enough smoke for there to be an investigation against Trump, then you should feel the same way about Sorzk.
> 
> And your whole "Why are they investigating A and not B" theory doesn't hold up, because you're passively claiming that those who argue this are also stating "If you don't investigate B then you shouldn't investigate A", and nobody is saying that either.
> 
> Nobody is saying that either and it is just your way of avoiding the Sorzk story, and it's fatal blow to your ideological consistency, by creating a false argument with the express purpose of discrediting your opponent. There can easily be an investigation of Sorzk and Trump at the same time.
> 
> Another inconsistency, Flynn was fired because he was dirty. Sorzk got fired because....he's a good guy and in no way was dirty.


let me put this simply

SORZK WASN'T FUCKING DIRTY

HE DIDN'T BREAK THE LAW, FLYNN DID 

Muller could have kept him, he didn't do anything

They got rid of him because its fucking lawyer bait, they wanted absolutely zero hooks for lawyers they were going after

Even if he held back an investigation till Trump was president THAT IS ALSO NOT ILLEGAL OR IMMORAL.

Police hold back on investigations till they will be more effective and will have more support. Smashing into him during the election would have been an awful idea and if Hillary had won there would have been no point. 

Sorzk may loathe Trump and want to throw him jail for whatever he possibly can, that is also not illegal. 

Until the investigations breaks the law to get evidence it is not dirty no matter what lawyer bait is thrown out


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> So the answer is no then. That is what I thought.


When you have to answer your own questions so you can proclaim victory. BM 212-0 in debates. LOL

:loss


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> I think the way to deal with Trump-Russia for we Trump supporters is to allow the left-wing conspiracy theorists, which seems to be most lefties these days, believe it's legit and that Trump will go down. Then, when the investigation dies with Trump still the President, the shock will create a moment of cataclysmic cognitive dissonance similar to (and hopefully canceling out) the effect of the 2016 election result and *hopefully* fuse our two movies back together and they can rejoin us in our _relatively_ shared "reality", leaving them free to enjoy the booming Trump economy and the utter defeat of ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Speaking of ISIS, they should really change their name at this point. :hmm: I wonder how long it'll be before I can enjoy a classic episode of Archer or that great Bob Dylan song off of _Desire_ without thinking of those losers.
> 
> This only works if they really believe Trump will get impeached though. You have got to let them have that.


the GOP is going to get destroyed in 2018 and 2020

Trumps approval rating is a record low and the GOP is starting to lose important elections. The tax bill and this net neutrality thing isn't doing them any favors either. And once they see how Trump and the GOP will be taking away their social security and other things they paid into, they are done





TheNightmanCometh said:


> When you have to answer your own questions so you can proclaim victory. BM 212-0 in debates. LOL
> 
> :loss


Because you know he did nothing wrong or illegal. If he did, again show what he did. Stop trying to deflect.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

stevefox1200 said:


> let me put this simply
> 
> SORZK WASN'T FUCKING DIRTY


Ya, but I mean, like, he could have been. How do you know he wasn't?


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> the GOP is going to get destroyed in 2018 and 2020
> 
> Trumps approval rating is a record low and the GOP is starting to lose important elections. The tax bill and this net neutrality thing isn't doing them any favors either. And once they see how Trump and the GOP will be taking away their social security and other things they paid into, they are done


I'm going to save some popcorn for you.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Because you know he did nothing wrong or illegal. If he did, again show what he did. Stop trying to deflect.


What evidence do you have that Trump did anything wrong or illegal? You have none.

WHOOOO, I WIN ANOTHER WON!!!! I'M THE BEST DEBATER HERE!!!!

Again, you're arguing that since there isn't any evidence there should be no investigation. That's not how it's ever worked, BM. And how this ideological stance doesn't extend to Trump just shows how completely blind you are, oh, and biased.

Admit that there's even a 1% chance Trump is completely innocent of any Russian related meddling. You can't, you're incapable.

There's even a 1% chance Strzok didn't taint the Trump investigation. See, I can do it. Why can't you?

opcorn


----------



## stevefox1200

This forum has had long discussions on 

Pizzagate

Spirit cooking

The NWO

George Soros

Uranium One

Hollywood satanists 

Seth Rich

That was all reasonable 

A bi-partisan investigation backed by all three major intelligence departments with every major news source supporting it?

conspiracy theory, fake news, just read Ann Coulter's opinion piece and this Youtube commentator



TheNightmanCometh said:


> Ya, but I mean, like, he could have been. How do you know he wasn't?


We should drop a year long investigation with multiple arrests and confessions, all major intelligence services backed and full government support from both parties with the only hint of corruption being a flaw that noticed and corrected by the investigation almost immediately? 

I'm tired


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> What evidence do you have that Trump did anything wrong or illegal? You have none.
> 
> WHOOOO, I WIN ANOTHER WON!!!! I'M THE BEST DEBATER HERE!!!!
> 
> Again, you're arguing that since there isn't any evidence there should be no investigation. That's not how it's ever worked, BM. And how this ideological stance doesn't extend to Trump just shows how completely blind you are, oh, and biased.
> 
> Admit that there's even a 1% chance Trump is completely innocent of any Russian related meddling. You can't, you're incapable.
> 
> There's even a 1% chance Strzok didn't taint the Trump investigation. See, I can do it. Why can't you?
> 
> opcorn



There is slight chance Trump does not have ties to Russia, sure, but like I have said, if he didn't then he wouldn't be so adamant about shutting down this investigation, the more people Mueller investigation the more Trump starts to freak out. Trump is not acting like an innocent person. If Trump had nothing to hide, he would welcome the investigation.


----------



## Reaper

CamillePunk said:


> I'm going to save some popcorn for you.


I'll bring the violin.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> If there is slight chance Trump does not have ties to Russia, sure, but like I have said, if he didn't then he wouldn't be so adamant about shutting down this investigation, the more people Mueller investigation the more Trump starts to freak out. Trump is not acting like an innocent person. If Trump had nothing to hide, he would welcome the investigation.


All Trump has done is bitch about it still going on. If he wanted to stop it, he could. He has the power to do so at any moment.

If he was really wanting to stop it, why wouldn't he just do it? The longer he lets this charade go on, the less he's going to look like a dictator. A dictator would have squashed this investigation before it even began.

That being said, we got a guy who was the lead investigator for the Trump investigation stating that there should be an insurance policy in case Trump becomes President, and that doesn't even give you pause? Not even for a second? Not even after the dossier has been largely proven false, was funded by the DNC, and just so happened to be released less than a month after the election?

Seriously?


----------



## FriedTofu

stevefox1200 said:


> This forum has had long discussions on
> 
> Pizzagate
> 
> Spirit cooking
> 
> The NWO
> 
> George Soros
> 
> Uranium One
> 
> Hollywood satanists
> 
> Seth Rich
> 
> That was all reasonable
> 
> A bi-partisan investigation backed by all three major intelligence departments with every major news source supporting it?
> 
> conspiracy theory, fake news, just read Ann Coulter's opinion piece and this Youtube commentator
> 
> 
> 
> We should drop a year long investigation with multiple arrests and confessions, all major intelligence services backed and full government support from both parties with the only hint of corruption being a flaw that noticed and corrected by the investigation almost immediately?
> 
> I'm tired


But...but Benghazi...


----------



## Reaper

Even USA Today has had enough  It's an Op-Ed and there are some errors in there. So take it for what it's worth. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ratic-investigation-robbins-column/938619001/



> Suspend Robert Mueller's politically tainted investigation into Russia-Trump collusion
> 
> A new report says the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election has cost millions. Video provided by Newsy Newslook
> 
> It is dangerous to subject the office of the president to a gravely biased probe undertaken with a reckless spirit.
> 
> The FBI has historically had a well-earned reputation for competence and integrity. The American people deserve no less when it comes to extraordinary investigations that touch the highest levels of government. Justice demands that these matters be pursued with the utmost honesty, probity and impartiality. However, evidence is emerging that special counsel and former FBI director Robert Mueller’s investigation of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, as well as the Hillary Clinton email investigations, have been fatally compromised by naked politics.
> 
> The central figure in both probes is FBI agent Peter Strzok. Strzok helped conduct the sweetheart interviews of Clinton, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin in the email investigation, in which the latter two blatantly lied about their knowledge of the bootleg server. They were not charged. Strzok also changed then-FBI Director James Comey’s draft language on Clinton’s use of her illicit server from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless,” which is the difference between criminal behavior and an unconscious error.
> 
> Strzok promoted the Fusion GPS “Steele dossier,” the sketchy gossip-ridden anti-Trump document paid for by the Clinton campaign and compiled with input from Russian intelligence sources. This document was used to persuade a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to authorize government surveillance of members of the Trump team during a political campaign. It was an unprecedented investigative intrusion into the American political process that makes Watergate look like amateur hour.
> 
> Strzok reportedly led the interview of then-national security adviser Michael Flynn, who ostensibly told the lies that led to his firing and landed him in a plea bargain with investigators. Judge Rudolph Contreras, who accepted Flynn’s guilty plea, has since inexplicably recused himself from the case. Contreras is a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge and might have been involved with authorizing surveillance against the Trump team.
> 
> Strzok left his fingerprints on pivotal aspects of the Clinton and Trump investigations, the two most significant such legal actions this century. However, in August, Strzok was quietly removed from the Trump investigation. It later emerged that he was trading anti-Trump text messages with his mistress, Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer who was also assigned to the Mueller investigation. The FBI is now examining 10,000 of their texts, Fox News reports.
> 
> Thoughtful observers can look at this fact pattern and conclude that Strzok’s actions had the potential to be driven by strong bias against President Trump. The ongoing investigations might turn up evidence how deep this animus went, and whether he actively colluded with members of the Clinton team. And because he was central to every important aspect of these cases, the entire episode could simply be fruit of the poison Strzok.
> 
> But it gets worse. Rather than treating Strzok’s removal with the transparency and candor it deserved, the Mueller team hushed it up and began stonewalling congressional inquiries. It reached the point where House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes threatened FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein with contempt.
> 
> Worse still, former associate deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr was demoted days ago for unspecified contacts with figures behind the Steele dossier. It now appears that Ohr knew Steele and met with him while the tainted dossier was being written. Any such direct involvement by an Obama administration official with the political effort to take down the Republican candidate is a scandal of high order.
> 
> These are not the only suspect political ties between Mueller lieutenants and Clinton world:
> 
> Aaron Zebley, Mueller’s former chief of staff at the FBI and “right hand man” on the current investigation, previously represented Justin Cooper, Clinton’s IT guy who set up the unsecure server in her Chappaqua home, and destroyed her BlackBerrys with a hammer.
> Mueller team member and Justice Department prosecutor Andrew Weissmann wrote a fawning email to outgoing acting Attorney General Sally Yates, saying he was “so proud and in awe” of her for defying President Trump in enforcing his travel ban. Weissmann also attended Hillary Clinton’s election night party in New York City, The Wall Street Journal reported.
> More: Robert Mueller terrifies President Trump. Of course he wants him gone.
> 
> At least nine members of Mueller’s team have given donations to the Obama, Clinton or other Democratic campaigns. One of them, attorney Jeannie Rhee, has defended President Obama's deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, now a focus of the investigation into potentially illegal use of “unmasking” foreign intelligence against Trump associates, the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton during the email investigation. Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe is being investigated for possible Hatch Act violations during wife Jill McCabe's failed 2015 Virginia Senate run. During this race, his wife received more than $700,000 in donations from Clinton-connected PACs.
> 
> Investigative journalist Sara Carter has said that “a lot more is going to come out” regarding other text messages from people connected to the investigation that could expose improper political biases.
> 
> In a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, FBI Director Christopher Wray consistently deflected questions regarding these types of conflicts by deferring to ongoing investigations being conducted by the Justice Department’s inspector general. He also continued to stonewall on providing information on the FBI’s use of the Steele dossier and the FISA warrant it helped generate, citing vague national security concerns.
> 
> We are left with an appearance of an unacceptable degree of political prejudice and a troubling series of unanswered questions. It is dangerous to subject the office of the president to a gravely biased investigation undertaken with a reckless spirit. Should further evidence of untoward bias emerge, Americans may conclude that the justice system itself is illegitimate, with all that entails.
> 
> The most prudent move would be to suspend the special counsel investigation until the Justice Department inspector general’s office and other watchdogs can conclude their investigations into possible illegitimate or illegal actions taken by members of Mueller’s team. Then Congress must be given time to review the conclusions of the internal investigations as well as conclude their own ongoing inquiries.
> 
> The stakes are too high to allow a clique of politicized government agents to destroy the integrity of the investigative apparatus, and damage the office of the presidency.
> 
> James S. Robbins, a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors and author of This Time We Win: Revisiting the Tet Offensive, has taught at the National Defense University and the Marine Corps University and served as a special assistant in the office of the secretary of Defense in the George W. Bush administration. Follow him on Twitter: @James_Robbins.
> 
> You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @USATOpinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to [email protected].


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> All Trump has done is bitch about it still going on. If he wanted to stop it, he could. He has the power to do so at any moment.
> 
> If he was really wanting to stop it, why wouldn't he just do it? The longer he lets this charade go on, the less he's going to look like a dictator. A dictator would have squashed this investigation before it even began.
> 
> That being said, we got a guy who was the lead investigator for the Trump investigation stating that there should be an insurance policy in case Trump becomes President, and that doesn't even give you pause? Not even for a second? Not even after the dossier has been largely proven false, was funded by the DNC, and just so happened to be released less than a month after the election?
> 
> Seriously?


You still have not shown how he was being biased in his investigation against Trump. You are acting like he was texting negative things about Trump while investing him. It was before. Anyone investing Trump will either like him or not like him. it's their job to be unbiased. Unless you can show how he did anything biased against Trump this is a nothing burger. 

If there were texts of someone saying what a great president will be and they happened to be investing him would you claim oh this is going to be tainted?


----------



## stevefox1200

That's an opinion piece, the same one that was posted earlier

A suspension wouldn't end the investigation

The writer has been going "WAHT ABOUT CLINTON" since the election and is a massive Trump supporter backing him in everything from North Korea to writing about how stupid the NFL was for backing their players 

https://mobile.twitter.com/James_Robbins?max_id=852249899416604671

Look at the pieces he has written 

jesus fucking christ

I remember the days when Batko would post RT and Alex Jones news over and over and whenever someone asked for a more analytical or neutral source he tell them that all other sources were western lies


----------



## birthday_massacre

stevefox1200 said:


> That's an opinion piece, the same one that was posted earlier
> 
> A suspension wouldn't end the investigation
> 
> The writer has been going "WAHT ABOUT CLINTON" since the election and a massive Trump supporter
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/James_Robbins?max_id=852249899416604671
> 
> Look at the pieces he has written
> 
> jesus fucking christ


Why are you surprised, one of the Trump supporters biggest heroes is a fucking comic strip writer. Next they will start posting onion articles.


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> That's an opinion piece, the same one that was posted earlier


Yes. I already mentioned that. 



> Even USA Today has had enough  *It's an Op-Ed and there are some errors in there. So take it for what it's worth. *


The point just flew right over your head. 

Though there's something here that's happening that's really tickling me a *lot*. But I'll keep it to myself for now. :lol


----------



## stevefox1200

Merry Reaper said:


> Yes. I already mentioned that.
> 
> 
> 
> The point just flew right over your head.
> 
> Though there's something here that's happening that's really tickling me a *lot*. But I'll keep it to myself for now. :lol


Why even post op-ends? 

Why post an op-end from a Trump support about supporting Trump, what else could he possibly say?

Why?


----------



## Art Vandaley

I notice no one from the right has made a single accusation of wrong doing against a member of the Mueller investigative team.

Note I'm not asking for evidence that said allegation is true, just the allegation itself.


----------



## CamillePunk

stevefox1200 said:


> Why even post op-ends?
> 
> Why post an op-end from a Trump support about supporting Trump, what else could he possibly say?
> 
> Why?


Why are you so triggered by people posting opinion pieces that you disagree with? :lol This isn't a news thread. Opinion pieces are fine, regardless of their position. Disagree on the content of the article if you like (or don't comment at all, a path I often take) but telling people what they should and shouldn't post is laughable. :lol

This control freak behavior really explains your unyielding support for the deep state.


----------



## DesolationRow

Scott Adams's prescription for having prisoners vote would be, were it nationally adopted, the death knell of the Republican Party. :lol Whereas he's wondering why prisoners lose "the right to vote" I am wondering why we should be increasing the degree of democracy rather than disbanding as much of it as possible considering the matter in full. :lol

Having said that, Donald Trump addressing the U.S. population about his stances alongside Black Lives Matters's would be interesting and entertaining, and there is no reason to dismiss the group's desires out of hand without evaluating them.

Ann Coulter, meanwhile, was right about Mo Brooks versus Roy Moore. Moore is a messianic Christian Lockean liberal, having lustfully imbibed from the Declaration of Independence and its propagandistic platitudes until he became intoxicated over the supposed rights of man. Brooks is a straightforward conservative and all that entails, but at least he was hawkish on what may be referred to as "the national question," that of immigration. Alabaman Republicans "played themselves" in the parlance of today; thousands upon thousands of them, as well as Trump voters in general, opted to stay home.


----------



## stevefox1200

CamillePunk said:


> Why are you so triggered by people posting opinion pieces that you disagree with? :lol This isn't a news thread. Opinion pieces are fine, regardless of their position. Disagree on the content of the article if you like (or don't comment at all, a path I often take) but telling people what they should and shouldn't post is laughable. :lol
> 
> This control freak behavior really explains your unyielding support for the deep state.


I don't get opinion pieces 

They are fluff, anyone can write them and at the same time they posted on this forum like people post news articles to "prove things"

Most news sites shove their opinion pieces pretty deep down


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> Why are you so triggered by people posting opinion pieces that you disagree with? :lol This isn't a news thread. Opinion pieces are fine, regardless of their position. Disagree on the content of the article if you like (or don't comment at all, a path I often take) but telling people what they should and shouldn't post is laughable. :lol
> 
> This control freak behavior really explains your unyielding support for the deep state.


The issue is the person posted the op-ed after yours tried to portray it as an example of even Trump-sceptic media are tired of the investigations. When it was merely the editors at that particular outlet giving multiple sides opportunities to present their position to their readers. :shrug


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/940982154913345536
:hmmm


----------



## Empress

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941292562920255488

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941304007762567168

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941320903656427520


> “It has come to our attention that Vice President Pence intends to make an official visit to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, and asked me to receive him officially,” Adeeb Joudeh, who is responsible for the keys to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, wrote in a letter on Wednesday, according to Israel's Channel 2 News.
> 
> “I absolutely refuse to officially welcome the American Vice President Mr. Mike Pence at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and I will not be physically in church during his visit," he continued.
> 
> “This is an expression of my condemnation of President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel."




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941306294887178240

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941302531526938624


----------



## birthday_massacre

ReignDeer said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941306294887178240


The white house needs


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

birthday_massacre said:


> The white house needs


*I've got some BAD NEWS for Republicans. It looks like Paul Ryan is giving up before mid terms even start* :lol https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ryan-could-retire-after-2018-midterms-report/ar-BBGKovC



> House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) is reportedly considering retiring after the 2018 midterms.
> 
> Politico reported Thursday that Ryan has told his "closest confidants" that his current term as speaker will be his last.
> 
> According to Politico interviews with three dozen of Ryan's colleagues, aides, lobbyists and allies, "not a single person believed Ryan will stay in Congress past 2018."
> 
> Ryan is currently pushing for tax reform, which Congressional Republicans have said they hope to get to President Trump's desk by Christmas.


*
He knows his party is fucked next year. Hopefully more of them follow suit and roll over so the defeat is quick and painless.*


----------



## Cabanarama

DecEmber Moon said:


> *I've got some BAD NEWS for Republicans. It looks like Paul Ryan is giving up before mid terms even start* :lol https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ryan-could-retire-after-2018-midterms-report/ar-BBGKovC
> 
> 
> *
> He knows his party is fucked next year. Hopefully more of them follow suit and roll over so the defeat is quick and painless.*


Not just his party, but even his own seat is at risk... with his massive unpopularity, being in only a +4 R PVI district, and having a very strong Democratic opponent in Randy Bryce who has already started campaigning hard and raised over a shitload of money...
The midterms can't come soon enough. Barring something major in 2018 that changes everything, we're looking looking at a minimum 30 seats gained for the Democrats, possibly 50 or more. And the victory in Alabama gives them a very possible path to taking over the senate...


----------



## Empress

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941396511023403008
This is why I take none of the grousing about agents not liking Trump seriously. He's not special. Furthermore, there were FBI agents openly discussing their hostilities about Hillary Clinton and promising Guliiani an investigation. 

As for Paul Ryan, cowardice is his natural streak. He's taking the easy way out. He knows damn well that his seat was in jeopardy. 

The Democrats only need to gain 2 seats to regain the Senate. I hope it's more and an unrelenting blue wave.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

ReignDeer said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941302531526938624


UCLA treated him like a child. Because being retarded enough to attempt shoplifting in a country known for its horrendous human rights record is what one would expect from someone who is as logically and ethically nearsighted as a child.

Although I enjoy LaVar's shenanigans, his reaction disappointed me more so than LiAngelo's crime, because I honestly expected that he'd eat the smallest slice of humble pie ever in light of Trump essentially bailing his son out.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> UCLA treated him like a child. Because being retarded enough to attempt shoplifting in a country known for its horrendous human rights record is what one would expect from someone who is as logically and ethically nearsighted as a child.
> 
> Although I enjoy LaVar's shenanigans, his reaction disappointed me more so than LiAngelo's crime, because *I honestly expected that he'd eat the smallest slice of humble pie ever in light of Trump essentially bailing his son out*.


I would agree with you if not for Trump being a child and tweeting how he doubts those kids will even thank him for bailing them out before they had a chance to even thank him.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

Having a blue wave would suck. Trump might be a dumbass online but I'm for a lot of these policy changes that have been coming out. If only we could have kept Net Neutrality and repealed Obamacare instead.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Undertaker23RKO said:


> Having a blue wave would suck. Trump might be a dumbass online but I'm for a lot of these policy changes that have been coming out. If only we could have kept Net Neutrality and repealed Obamacare instead.


repealed Obamacare with what? Single payer? yes, please.

Are you really for Trumps other moves like with the EPA, Education, etc etc

Trump has been a disaster when it comes to undoing environmental protections


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

birthday_massacre said:


> I would agree with you if not for Trump being a child and tweeting how he doubts those kids will even thank him for bailing them out before they had a chance to even thank him.


The fact that LiAngelo confirmed that UCLA forced him to thank Trump for bailing him out proved that Trump was, at least in regard to Ball, correct in his assumption.

:draper2


----------



## birthday_massacre

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> The fact that LiAngelo confirmed that UCLA forced him to thank Trump for bailing him out proved that Trump was, at least in regard to Ball, correct in his assumption.
> 
> :draper2


They are both acting like a child, the thing is one of them is a full grown adult and is president.
Trump acts like a toddler. You really think Trumps tweets make him look good?


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

birthday_massacre said:


> repealed Obamacare with what? Single payer? yes, please.
> 
> Are you really for Trumps other moves like with the EPA, Education, etc etc
> 
> Trump has been a disaster when it comes to undoing environmental protections


What has he done environmentally other than leave that climate group, which was a handshake agreement that we were footing the bill for? If there is more I genuinely don't know.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Undertaker23RKO said:


> What has he done environmentally other than leave that climate group, which was a handshake agreement that we were footing the bill for? If there is more I genuinely don't know.


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ent-rules-reversed.html?mtrref=www.google.com


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

birthday_massacre said:


> They are both acting like a child, *the thing is one of them is a full grown adult* and is president.
> Trump acts like a toddler. You really think Trumps tweets make him look good?












They're both full-grown adults and you damn well know it. :mj4

And I already told you that Trump's shit-talking is one reason why I'm a fan of his. :trump3


----------



## birthday_massacre

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> They're both full-grown adults and you damn well know it. :mj4
> 
> And I already told you that Trump's shit-talking is one reason why I'm a fan of his. :trump3


LiAngelo is a 19 year old kid. That is not a full grown adult. Come on LUMPY. He cant even legally drink yet


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

birthday_massacre said:


> LiAngelo is a 19 year old kid. That is not a full grown adult. Come on LUMPY. *He cant even legally drink yet*


Because we all know that a shoplifter will obviously wait until they're of legal age to smoke and drink. :lmao

A sign of him becoming an adult was graduating from high school and going to college. It's nobody's fault other than LaVar's for failing to teach him better than to do something as idiotic as shoplifting.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Because we all know that a shoplifter will obviously wait until they're of legal age to smoke and drink. :lmao
> 
> A sign of him becoming an adult was graduating from high school and going to college. It's nobody's fault other than LaVar's for failing to teach him better than to do something as idiotic as shoplifting.


A full-grown adult is not 19, he is still a TEEN.

Full grown adult is 25-30

But sure pretend a teen is a full grown adult, only in Trumpland


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

birthday_massacre said:


> A full-grown adult is not 19, he is still a TEEN.
> 
> Full grown adult is 25-30
> 
> But sure pretend a teen is a full grown adult, only in Trumpland


Young adulthood's age range is not universally set in stone. For example, the Erikson stages of development place 18 as the baseline age and 39 or even 40 as the capped age.

If he's old enough to grow facial hair and attend college, he's an *adult*, period.


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> LiAngelo is a 19 year old kid. That is not a full grown adult. Come on LUMPY. He cant even legally drink yet


This kind of thinking is why people are debating if kids in College can really debate anything and so therefore they shouldn't be exposed to anything "harmful". So when are people ready to be adults? 45?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> This kind of thinking is why people are debating if kids in College can really debate anything and so therefore they shouldn't be exposed to anything "harmful". So when are people ready to be adults? 45?


Nice deflection on trying to defend Trump acting like a child vs some 19-year-old immature college kid

One is a POTUS and the older is a college kid. You can't compare the two.

But keep defending Trump lol


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> Nice deflection on trying to defend Trump acting like a child vs some 19-year-old immature college kid


Not deflecting, it's a legit question. I don't care about trump and this guy, I'm sick of people pushing the narrative that people cannot think for themselves at 18 or so and nobody is really an adult until 30+.


----------



## Empress

21 is a full fledged adult IMO. 25 is when you need to get your shit together and the grace period ends. 

As for LiAngelo, I see him as a 19 year old teenager. It's literally in his age description. I really resent Black youth being denied their youth; treated as grown men/women just because they're tall, facial hair, develop faster, get in trouble or in the wrong place at the wrong time. Trayvon Martin and Tamir Rice were also regarded as men despite being young. It's not as if LiAngelo is Donald Trump Jr.'s age and still being described as a "young man" when he got caught lying about Russia. 

LiAngelo fucked up. I expect that of teenagers and young adults. I hope he learned from his experience. Donald Trump is a man in his 70's still having outbursts similar to a toddler. I would hope that people expect more of an elderly man, especially one who holds the highest office in the land, than a teenager.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> Not deflecting, it's a legit question. I don't care about trump and this guy, I'm sick of people pushing the narrative that people cannot think for themselves at 18 or so and nobody is really an adult until 30+.


19 is a TEEN its right in the age nineTEEN.

21 is when you officially become an adult, but we were talking about a full grown adult, which is sometime between 25-30.

As for people not being able to think for themselves at 19, what are you talking about? The discussion was able Trump and Ball both acting immaturely and that Trump is a 70 year old and is president, its expected he does not act like a child where as Ball is still an immature 19 year old and again most kids in college at 19 are still super immature because they are college kids


----------



## CamillePunk

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ome-wound-up-hands-isis-terrorists/949209001/



> The U.S. bought weapons for Syrian rebels — and some wound up in the hands of ISIS terrorists
> 
> WASHINGTON — Sophisticated weapons the U.S. military secretly provided to Syrian rebels quickly fell into the hands of the Islamic State, a study released Thursday disclosed.
> 
> The report said the Islamic State’s possession of these weapons remains a threat to the U.S.-led coalition still operating against the terror group in Iraq and Syria.
> 
> The arms included anti-tank weapons purchased by the United States that ended up in possession of the Islamic State within two months of leaving the factory, according to the study by Conflict Armament Research, an organization that tracks arms shipments. The study was funded by the European Union and German government.
> 
> Efforts by the United States and other countries to supply weapons to rebel groups “have significantly augmented the quantity and quality of weapons available to (Islamic State) forces,” the report concluded.
> 
> The study examined 40,000 weapons and other items recovered from the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, during the past three years. The militants have been retreating across Iraq and Syria as U.S.-backed forces have routed them from their strongholds.
> 
> Investigators were unable to determine whether ISIS captured the weapons on the battlefield or whether the rebels sold or gave the arms to the terror group.
> 
> The report cites an ISIS propaganda video showing militants with weapons captured last year from the New Syrian Army, an alliance of fighters battling the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
> 
> It has long been known that ISIS captured a huge amount of American weapons —including tanks and artillery — when the militant group swept into Iraq from Syria in 2014 and routed several divisions of Iraqi soldiers, many who abandoned their weapons and fled.
> 
> *The new study raises questions about a different source for weapons: arms secretly sent to rebel factions fighting Syrian President Bashar Assad in his long civil war. The covert CIA program, begun by the Obama administration in 2013, was ended earlier this year by President Trump.* Saudi Arabia, which — like the U.S. — strongly opposes Assad, also supplies weapons to rebel groups.
> 
> The CIA declined to comment on the report.
> 
> The findings highlight the risk of introducing weapons into a civil war, where it is difficult to track the arms or control how they are ultimately used.
> 
> The covert U.S. arms program was designed to pressure Assad and prevent extremists from getting an upper hand in the civil war. “We didn’t have a lot of choices at the time,” said Andrew Tabler, an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It was the best way to manage the situation.”
> 
> Many rebels backed by the U.S. were overrun by extremists like ISIS, which was growing in power.
> 
> The covert program arming anti-Assad rebels is distinct from the Pentagon's publicly acknowledged operation to arm the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), an alliance of Kurds and Arabs fighting ISIS, but not Assad. That program has continued, and the SDF has successfully pushed militants from Raqqa, the Islamic State’s strongholds in Iraq and Syria.
> 
> The report did not find any evidence of SDF weapons falling into ISIS' hands, as was the case with anti-Assad rebels. The Pentagon has said it carefully tracks weapons it provides to the Syrian Democratic Forces.
> 
> Most of the weapons secretly sent to factions in Syria were purchased by the United States and Saudi Arabia from arms manufactured in Eastern Europe. The U.S. government contracts with private companies who make the overseas purchases.
> 
> That's necessary because most militants in Iraq and Syria use AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades made in former Soviet bloc countries or China. Those weapons are not compatible with most U.S.-manufactured ammunition and other supplies.
> 
> The report said the way the U.S. government purchased the weapons raised troubling concerns about controlling arms sales.
> 
> Some weapons were diverted to Syria, even though the U.S. or Saudi Arabia may have signed a contract not to transfer the weapons after purchasing them, the report said.


Sure is great to have a president who *doesn't* arm ISIS. :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ome-wound-up-hands-isis-terrorists/949209001/
> 
> Sure is great to have a president who *doesn't* arm ISIS. :trump


yeah Trump just arms Saudi Arabia, you know where most of the 9/11 terrorist came from


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> 19 is a TEEN its right in the age nineTEEN.
> 
> 21 is when you officially become an adult, but we were talking about a full grown adult, which is sometime between 25-30.
> 
> As for people not being able to think for themselves at 19, what are you talking about? The discussion was able Trump and Ball both acting immaturely and that Trump is a 70 year old and is president, its expected he does not act like a child where as Ball is still an immature 19 year old and again most kids in college at 19 are still super immature because they are college kids


Honestly I never seen the tweet you guys were mentioning I thought you were one of those people who were trying to push a narrative that people who are 18-25 cannot think for themselves. That was my only beef. If that's not your stance than I apologize but yup, people are immature at that age.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> Honestly I never seen the tweet you guys were mentioning I thought you were one of those people who were trying to push a narrative that people who are 18-25 cannot think for themselves. That was my only beef. If that's not your stance than I apologize but yup, people are immature at that age.


No my point was both Trump and Ball were acting immature with their tweets but one of them is a 70-year-old full grown adult who is president and the other is a 19-year-old immature college kid who at least has an excuse to be mature since most college kids at that age are immature. If he was a 25-30 year old then Ball would not have had an excuse either. that is what I was getting at


----------



## Dr. Middy

Merry Reaper said:


> You believe that Trump is literally Hitler.
> 
> Not that I'm singling you out (I'm aware you will likely have a very respectable position on this), but honestly it is when I see things like these that I re-affirm my lack of faith in having a federal government as anything more than a ceremonial position at most.
> 
> Ok, I know that there is no such thing as a free lunch in life, but I thought the whole POINT of the government charging taxes was so that they would make "public services" *free* ... So they take tax money to supposedly preserve and run these things and then operate them like private enterprise.
> 
> This is why the government has NO RIGHT to own and operate land because when it suits its purposes it FORCES people to pay more tax, STEALS the land and OPERATES it like a private enterprise. And they don't give it to private enterprise because then how will they profit from it?
> 
> I dunno, but this is thuggery - plain and simple.


So I think this might be as a result of the combination of the new tax plan that reduces the amount of overall taxes the government collects, which results in less of a trickle down to the Department of the Interior, who does all the managing for the national parks. The new 2018 budget that was passed also calls for cuts on the department as well, down $1.6 billion (or 12%) to $11.7 billion. That's a pretty sizable cut for them, so I suppose they would have to compensate elsewhere. 

In the long run though the small raise in prices and the elimination of fees won't do much to compensate for that loss in funding, since that article mentioned they only plan to generate around $70 million or so (so around like 7% I think?). Makes me wonder if there really is a point for that small an increase, but if there is a legitimate need for certain maintenance and infrastructure, I wouldn't be too opposed to it (I'm nowhere near as negative on our government as a whole as you, but I'm not too favorable on it). Granted, I'm sure they could easily just streamline all of their funding and budget how they spend better, which goes for pretty much every government agency as a whole. 

I would like if they made available a list of projects they would use the money on and make it public, I feel like it would make people feel better about it, and showing them what they really would use the money for could entice people to donating to them depending on what said projects would entail. 

I think it also depends on who runs specific places as well. I go up to Marconi Beach every year, which is part of Cape Cod National Seashore. Typically in peak summer season, cars are $20 daily, and you can also buy a seasonal pass for only $60. But I can easily see where the money goes, as the land is kept immaculate, including the path to the beach (which includes a large 50 foot structure from the top of some sand dunes to the bottom), the sand dunes themselves, and lifeguards. One tropical system last year wiped out the huge complex of stairs that led to the beach, and they were able to work quickly and get another structure up and running before the busy summer season arrived. So I had no problem with the price they charge if I know everything is well maintained and taken care off. 

Appreciate you bringing this up to me though!


----------



## DesolationRow

The one and only witty statement ever uttered by John Podhoretz was his recent remark that Donald Trump ought to be impeached for forcing the world's attention on the patently insipid LaVar Ball. :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

19 is an adult in the UK, still immature adult but an adult none the less. I was dumb as fuck at 19.


----------



## Reaper

Stop babying 19 year olds .... At 19 a young man is more than ready to support himself and his family, have and raise kids and be a good man - if he's raised properly. This is not a slight at black people, but this is a general slight on overall society that has forgotten how to raise young men to be mature individuals by their late teens because we expect too little of them. 

I had started working properly at 17. By 19 I was working part-time to support myself, while also helping my parents run their store, and going to university (I had skipped a year and was fast tracked for academic excellence) ... Was an MBA by the time I was 23 despite getting into an accident and was in the full-time work two months after graduation having recieved multiple offers while I was still in school. Was engaged at 22 and married by 26. By 30, I had already had 13 years of work experience in my CV, a marriage and a divorce. My wife's in her mid 20's and she's got 9 years of work experience under her belt. Like what the fuck is this shit about 19 being too young? I don't get it at all. It seems like an excuse to keep people from owning up to personal responsibility for their actions. 

I gave 70% of my earnings to my parents - which they saved on my behalf to pay for my wedding. I made no poor financial decisions and I made no stupid "childish" decisions. The only mistake I have made all my life was falling in love with an abusive girl and staying in that relationship too long --- but that had nothing to do with my age. 

I'm not the exception. I'm the norm. 19 is not a child by any stretch of the imagination at all. Men are capable of critical thinking and making good decisions if they have a good background by 16-17. We're babying men too much imo.


----------



## krtgolfing

DesolationRow said:


> The one and only witty statement ever uttered by John Podhoretz was his recent remark that Donald Trump ought to be impeached for forcing the world's attention on the patently insipid LaVar Ball. :lol


Or maybe he should say thank you for helping my son get out of jail. Trump is a total asshole, but I would still say thank you if he helped me out in a similar manner.


----------



## Reaper

This is what happens when the cancer of socialism meets the cancer of progressivism. 

A poor man with down syndrome is sat down in front of a board and told just how much he's a burden to society. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941356706185039878
This is why American can and should NEVER become a totalitarian social welfare state because ultimately it's not conservatism that wants to rid society of individuals with down syndrome. It's progressivism because since the social welfare creates poverty, therefore it needs to get rid of the weakest and sees it as a burden. Conservatives and even religious conservatives see children with down syndrome and autism a test from their creator and therefore value its existence. 

Social welfare statists absolutely do not want to take care of the weak. They want to abort the weak. They preach the poverty doctrine and instead of saying that the individual should be responsible for generating wealth for themselves and their child, they simply say "kill the weak". 

It's not Capitalism that believes in destroying the weak. Capitalism merely acknowledges that there will always be poverty. It does not want to kill millions and then claim that their socialism worked for those who survived! 

Genetic perfection through Abortion is a progressive ideal. It's worse than even meritocracy. And mixed in with the poverty doctrine of socialism, it's worse than cancer because at least with cancer you don't have a choice who dies. 

With Social welfare statism (like we saw in Iceland) however, _people_ choose who get to live or die.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Merry Reaper said:


> This is what happens when the cancer of socialism meets the cancer of progressivism.
> 
> A poor man with down syndrome is sat down in front of a board and told just how much he's a burden to society.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941356706185039878
> This is why American can and should NEVER become a totalitarian social welfare state because ultimately it's not conservatism that wants to rid society of individuals with down syndrome. It's socialism because since social welfare creates poverty, therefore it needs to get rid of the weakest. Social welfare statists absolutely do not want to take care of the weak. They want to abort the weak.
> 
> It's not Capitalism that believes in destroying the weak. It's progressivism. It has always been proressivism. And mixed in with the poverty doctrine of socialism, it's worse than cancer because at least with cancer you don't have a choice who gets to die. With Social welfare statism (like we saw in Iceland) people choose who get to live or die.


And all this time I was told the leftists are the ones who care about people, and have compassion for others.


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> And all this time I was told the leftists are the ones who care about people, and have compassion for others.


I only saw contempt in the tone and body language of the man who was doing the calculations. It was very off-putting. If I was there as the father of this child, I would have punched the living daylights out of this asshole.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Merry Reaper said:


> I only saw contempt in the tone and body language of the man who was doing the calculations. It was very off-putting. If I was there as the father of this child, I would have punched the living daylights out of this asshole.


It always bothers the hell out of me when I have to hear how people with certain "conditions" basically are told don't deserve to live. Having a friend who has a condition deemed "undesirable" , its one of the reasons why I'm not in favor of abortion . You can't cure these conditions if you believe in killing them all instead


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> It always bothers the hell out of me when I have to hear how people with certain "conditions" basically are told don't deserve to live. Having a friend who has a condition deemed "undesirable" , its one of the reasons why I'm not in favor of abortion . You can't cure these conditions if you believe in killing them all instead


The greatest irony of "burdensome" children being aborted is that we have people who say that their NORMAL children can't take care of themselves till they're about 20-30. Without realizing this most parents have reduced their normal children to be low functioning "adults" as well, well into their 20's and even 30's. 

Basically, what I see is that people want the ability to have sex whenever they want but not the consequences and so they come up with reasons to justify their abortions. Ok. Have sex. Have multiple partners. But if you don't want a kid, take the necessary precautions ... Oh but they don't want to do that as well. 

It just seems like people really just want to run away from responsibilities ... period.

Standing up for the weak is how socialism starts. But then as society becomes poorer and poorer, the end stage of socialism turns to extreme darwinism. You can't take care of me, you are hoarding wealth, where is your money, give me your money or you will die. We can't take care of the weak. They're a burden. We can't treat them. We can't take care of children. Abort. 

The end stage of socialism is ALWAYS going to be genocide. There is no other logical conclusion to exclusive social welfare policies without having a good mix of capitalism into the mix. Socialism on its own can never survive. but at the same time as social welfare statist policies become stricter and stricter and suck up more and more capital pushing countries into negative "growth", capitalism starts failing and we're back to end stage darwinism. It's still seen as capitalism's fault. WHY DID THE RICH PEOPLE LEAVE. I WANTED THEIR MONEYS!!! 

But "capitalism" is the evilz ones!


----------



## skypod

In what way is someone with Downs Syndrome valued in a capitalist society? There's a glass ceiling as far as work goes that only a few break through. Or is the value in that rich people like seeing others suffer with no help so they can feel better about their own lives? 

Not sure how you can turn people who gladly accept that people with Downs Syndrome get help from a percentage of our paycheck, to capitalists who don't want to spend a penny of their income helping them. How in that scenario is the former the bad guy. Like I would gladly accept that some of my taxes go to people in need. I might meet someone in the pub tonight who says "I don't want a penny of my income going to any of these cunts" and I'm a worse person than him? Didn't expect that flip. 

People call government patronising but is anything more disingenuous than libertarians saying "no, it'll be better for society in the long run if you don't get any help now. You'll learn to become self sufficient. Trust me."


----------



## Reaper

skypod said:


> In what way is someone with Downs Syndrome valued in a capitalist society? There's a glass ceiling as far as work goes that only a few break through. Or is the value in that rich people like seeing others suffer with no help so they can feel better about their own lives?
> 
> Not sure how you can turn people who gladly accept that people with Downs Syndrome get help from a percentage of our paycheck, to capitalists who don't want to spend a penny of their income helping them. How in that scenario is the former the bad guy. Like I would gladly accept that some of my taxes go to people in need. I might meet someone in the pub tonight who says "I don't want a penny of my income going to any of these cunts" and I'm a worse person than him? Didn't expect that flip.
> 
> People call government patronising but is anything more disingenuous than libertarians saying "no, it'll be better for society in the long run if you don't get any help now. You'll learn to become self sufficient. Trust me."


Wild strawman that is completely baseless and void of any knowledge of reality whatsoever. People who are anti-tax are pro-charity and that has been proved repeatedly in multiple studies. @Stinger Fan can hook you up with some real knowledge. 

I raised three children that were not mine, gave them school books and computers. Gave a servant of mine more than half my paycheck so he could buy a bike. Gave another servant a full paycheck so he could buy his son a barber's chair. My parents have spent millions on charity. My mom runs a charity from home where she fund raises for poor servant women. None of us are pro-government ... all of us are libertarians who accept that government is the worst idea humans have ever come up with and that taxes are basically only paying for the government itself and feeding its corruption more than it is helping society. 

BTW, if you're receiving a tax break or tax refund of any kind, your taxes aren't paying for _anything_. It just creates the false impression that you're a "tax payer". Nah. You're a tax leecher - especially if you use the excuse that your taxes are helping society in order to not give to charity. And if you don't give charity, then you're far more selfish than I am. I give charity every month. That is exactly why taxation creates more selfish people because even people who get their tax money back and pay little to no taxes, they get to pretend that they're contributing to society when they aren't.

Taxation is bad all around. Not only does it not actually help people, it creates more people who say that since they're tax payers (even though they get their money back), they're helping people when they're not.

Not only does central planning make everything more costly and less transparent, it also creates hoards of selfish ass people who pretend that they're "charitable". It's the perfect self-promotion tactic. I PAY MUH TAXES ... meanwhile filing for the maximum tax return possible and greedily spending that money on yourself. HAH! You're not fooling anyone.


----------



## Stinger Fan

skypod said:


> In what way is someone with Downs Syndrome valued in a capitalist society? There's a glass ceiling as far as work goes that only a few break through. Or is the value in that rich people like seeing others suffer with no help so they can feel better about their own lives?
> 
> Not sure how you can turn people who gladly accept that people with Downs Syndrome get help from a percentage of our paycheck, to capitalists who don't want to spend a penny of their income helping them. How in that scenario is the former the bad guy. Like I would gladly accept that some of my taxes go to people in need. I might meet someone in the pub tonight who says "I don't want a penny of my income going to any of these cunts" and I'm a worse person than him? Didn't expect that flip.
> 
> People call government patronising but is anything more disingenuous than libertarians saying "no, it'll be better for society in the long run if you don't get any help now. You'll learn to become self sufficient. Trust me."


It's a myth that conservatives aren't generous with their money or that they don't care about people to help them. Conservatives have no issue and are more than willing to donate their money to charities as evident by them donating as much or even more than liberals. 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
^From 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html
^From 2008

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/08/study-red-states-more-charitable-079888
^From 2012

https://www.philanthropy.com/article/As-Wealthy-Give-Smaller-Share/152481#note
^From 2014 

The whole "conservatives don't care" is just another trick to make people join the liberal team, its just a way to divide people. I'm not saying conservatives are better better, don't get me wrong but this idea needs to go, its garbage and only serves to divide people.


----------



## Reaper

I hate to say this, but Muslims have the concept of charity right. 

They're supposed through divine doctrine to pay 2.5% (zakat) of all liquid and physical assets they own to charity every year ... BUT they don't have to pay it to the government, or an institution or their mosques or even muslim charities. It requires no forced taxation and no centralized planning. In fact, it actually limits the power of their governments into manipulating Muslims into paying taxes in the name of helping the poor since they're required by divine doctrine to do so. There is also no threat of incarceration. There is only the threat of facing god after death and trying to explain to him why they weren't charitable. 

I'd say that their divine doctrine has made them highly resistant to communist/socialist corruption and more charitable than is widely known.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> It's a myth that conservatives aren't generous with their money or that they don't care about people to help them. Conservatives have no issue and are more than willing to donate their money to charities as evident by them donating as much or even more than liberals.
> 
> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
> ^From 2008
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html
> ^From 2008
> 
> https://www.politico.com/story/2012/08/study-red-states-more-charitable-079888
> ^From 2012
> 
> https://www.philanthropy.com/article/As-Wealthy-Give-Smaller-Share/152481#note
> ^From 2014
> 
> The whole "conservatives don't care" is just another trick to make people join the liberal team, its just a way to divide people. I'm not saying conservatives are better better, don't get me wrong but this idea needs to go, its garbage and only serves to divide people.


We have already been over this, most of the money conservatives give is to their church that is not really charity. Not to mention a lot of those are rich people and they have more money to give so of course the give more money.


You can have one rich conservative donation equal 100 "liberal" donations, but does that mean conservatives are more charitable?

it also says in one of the article "religion has a big influence on giving patterns."


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> We have already been over this, most of the money conservatives give is to their church that is not really charity. Not to mention a lot of those are rich people and they have more money to give so of course the give more money.
> 
> 
> You can have one rich conservative donation equal 100 "liberal" donations, but does that mean conservatives are more charitable?


You're just salty :lol


----------



## Cabanarama

So Roy Moore still hasn't conceded. But I guess that's typical of him to not take no for an answer
At this point, he should be used to coming in a little behind...


----------



## Draykorinee

Merry Reaper said:


> This is what happens when the cancer of socialism meets the cancer of progressivism.
> 
> A poor man with down syndrome is sat down in front of a board and told just how much he's a burden to society.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941356706185039878
> This is why American can and should NEVER become a totalitarian social welfare state because ultimately it's not conservatism that wants to rid society of individuals with down syndrome. It's progressivism because since the social welfare creates poverty, therefore it needs to get rid of the weakest and sees it as a burden. Conservatives and even religious conservatives see children with down syndrome and autism a test from their creator and therefore value its existence.
> 
> Social welfare statists absolutely do not want to take care of the weak. They want to abort the weak. They preach the poverty doctrine and instead of saying that the individual should be responsible for generating wealth for themselves and their child, they simply say "kill the weak".
> 
> It's not Capitalism that believes in destroying the weak. Capitalism merely acknowledges that there will always be poverty. It does not want to kill millions and then claim that their socialism worked for those who survived!
> 
> Genetic perfection through Abortion is a progressive ideal. It's worse than even meritocracy. And mixed in with the poverty doctrine of socialism, it's worse than cancer because at least with cancer you don't have a choice who dies.
> 
> With Social welfare statism (like we saw in Iceland) however, _people_ choose who get to live or die.


Dutch TV presenter with down syndrome asks a question and gets an answer for his documentary. The right takes it out of context and makes it seem they just sat him down to tell him off for being a burden.
Shameless misuse of a person with down syndrome by the right.

This clip is from two years ago and was created by people with down syndrome as part of a documentary about empowering people with down syndrome and how important they are to society.

The fact people say 'poor man' sat down and told what he's worth really shows the mentality of those people, they value down syndrome people so little they can't see that they could possibly choose the situation themselves and must be put in to it.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Trump nominee for federal district court.















I'm sure there's lots of competent conservative judges he could have picked. Why this guy?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Merry Reaper said:


> I'm not the exception. I'm the norm. 19 is not a child by any stretch of the imagination at all. Men are capable of critical thinking and making good decisions if they have a good background by 16-17. We're babying men too much imo.


Cosigned. When I was growing up, 16 was when you left secondary education in the UK and either went into further education to aim for a degree or looked for work (or both as was my case, I needed to save a LOT that summer lol.) 16 is the age of consent here too. I think both society and specifically American society (drinking age 21 for example is insane) like to try and enforce this notion of an extended childhood and molly-coddle people to the point of barely functioning. 

I hear stories from friends all the time with small businesses who hire 18-20 year olds here in the UK who have almost no usable skills in the workplace - as bad as never having mopped a floor or washed dishes in their lives. How is that ok? I think part of it is a bi-product of people simply having much better financial situations than when I was growing up, I was working newspaper rounds, stacking shelves in the local store, washing neighbours cars, walking dogs, literally everything I could possibly think of to earn money. 

Now, I'm not suggesting that 19 years of age is by any means a time where everybody out there is going to be a well adjusted, emotionally stable and balanced adult, but they're still an adult. You get tried as an adult, you go to real jail, in most places in the world you're of legal drinking age, smoking age, driving age and age of sexual consent. If you are of an age where all of those things are generally considered acceptable by society then you can be treated like a fucking adult in my mind. And that's without even going into less developed places where younger people are missing out on their education and entering the workforces. People shouldn't get excuses to be an asshole, you had that chance, it was called high school. Grow the fuck up and be a man is my opinion.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> Stop babying 19 year olds .... At 19 a young man is more than ready to support himself and his family, have and raise kids and be a good man - if he's raised properly. This is not a slight at black people, but this is a general slight on overall society that has forgotten how to raise young men to be mature individuals by their late teens because we expect too little of them.
> 
> I had started working properly at 17. By 19 I was working part-time to support myself, while also helping my parents run their store, and going to university (I had skipped a year and was fast tracked for academic excellence) ... Was an MBA by the time I was 23 despite getting into an accident and was in the full-time work two months after graduation having recieved multiple offers while I was still in school. Was engaged at 22 and married by 26. By 30, I had already had 13 years of work experience in my CV, a marriage and a divorce. My wife's in her mid 20's and she's got 9 years of work experience under her belt. Like what the fuck is this shit about 19 being too young? I don't get it at all. It seems like an excuse to keep people from owning up to personal responsibility for their actions.
> 
> I gave 70% of my earnings to my parents - which they saved on my behalf to pay for my wedding. I made no poor financial decisions and I made no stupid "childish" decisions. The only mistake I have made all my life was falling in love with an abusive girl and staying in that relationship too long --- but that had nothing to do with my age.
> 
> I'm not the exception. I'm the norm. 19 is not a child by any stretch of the imagination at all. Men are capable of critical thinking and making good decisions if they have a good background by 16-17. We're babying men too much imo.


That is funny you are talking about not babying a 19-year-old yet you are babying the POTUS who is in his 70s. 

Keep strawmaning the point I was making.

I have already explained what I meant a number of times. But have had it


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Dutch TV presenter with down syndrome asks a question and gets an answer for his documentary. The right takes it out of context and makes it seem they just sat him down to tell him off for being a burden.
> Shameless misuse of a person with down syndrome by the right.
> 
> This clip is from two years ago and was created by people with down syndrome as part of a documentary about empowering people with down syndrome and how important they are to society.
> 
> The fact people say 'poor man' sat down and told what he's worth really shows the mentality of those people, they value down syndrome people so little they can't see that they could possibly choose the situation themselves and must be put in to it.


What a stupid way to determine value. Here's how we tell you how much you're worth by telling you the cost of keeping you alive... What?

Still does not take anything away from the fact that socialism + progressives advocates for the murder of genetically inferior fetuses. 

If they were so valuable, then why is killing the fetus legal?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941682241490571264
Is this also presented out of context? Or are we as a society (especially in Europe) actually supporting Eugenics?


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *Attorney Lisa Bloom sought to line up paydays for women accusing Trump of sexual misconduct*
> 
> Legal powerhouse Lisa Bloom tried to line up big paydays for women who were willing to accuse President Trump of sexual misconduct during the final months of last year’s election, according to an explosive report.
> 
> The Hill reported Friday that Bloom worked with campaign donors and tabloid media outlets to arrange compensation for the alleged victims and a commission for herself, offering to sell their stories. In one case, Bloom reportedly arranged for a donor to pay off one Trump accuser’s mortgage and attempted to score a six-figure payment for another woman. The former ultimately declined to come forward after being offered $750,000, the clients told The Hill.
> 
> The Hill cited contract documents, emails and text messages it obtained -- including an exchange of texts between one woman and Bloom that referred to pro-Hillary Clinton political action committees.
> 
> Bloom, who is the daughter of famous attorney Gloria Allred and, like her mother, specializes in representing women in sexual harassment cases, worked for four women who were considering accusing Trump. Two went public, and two declined.
> 
> Bloom did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Fox News.
> 
> In a statement to The Hill, Bloom acknowledged trying to get her clients paid, but said the payments were to help the women stay safe, and in some cases relocate.
> 
> “Donors reached out to my firm directly to help some of the women I represented,” Bloom said.
> 
> Bloom, who has also represented accused sexual harasser Harvey Weinstein, in addition to women who've accusing Bill Cosby and Bill O’Reilly, acknowledged her standard terms require clients to pay her commissions, which may be as high as 33 percent if she sells their stories to media outlets.
> 
> Bloom told The Hill she had no contact with Clinton or her campaign.
> 
> The Hill spoke to makeup artist Jill Harth, who filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Trump in 1997, accusing him of pushing her up against a wall at his Mar-a-Lago estate and groping her. Although she withdrew the suit, nearly 20 years later, the litigation resurfaced during the presidential campaign and Harth was thrust into the spotlight. She asked Bloom to represent her after Trump denied her accusations.
> 
> “I consider myself lucky to have had Lisa Bloom by my side after my old lawsuit resurfaced. She advised me with great competence and compassion,” Harth told The Hill.
> 
> Bloom arranged payment from the licensing of some photos Harth had to the news media, and then helped set up a GoFundMe.com account to raise money for Harth, The Hill reported.
> 
> “Jill put herself out there, facing off with Donald Trump,” Bloom’s husband wrote in a fund-raising appeal, according to The Hill. “Let’s show her some love”
> 
> The effort raised a little over $2,300, according to The Hill.
> 
> Bloom also reportedly arranged for a Clinton donor to help Harth pay off the mortgage on her Queens apartment. The amount was less than $30,000, according to a source directly familiar with Harth’s situation. Public records show Harth’s mortgage was recorded as extinguished on Dec. 19, 2016, public records show.
> 
> Trump denies assaulting or harassing women, although an “Access Hollywood” tape surfaced during the campaign in which he boasted he could grab women by their privates and get away with it. Trump dismissed the comments as “locker room talk.”


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-accusing-trump-sexual-misconduct-report.html

I wonder why other media outlets aren't reporting on this more? Whether or not she was trying to get women to lie, this should be a pretty important story regardless.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-accusing-trump-sexual-misconduct-report.html
> 
> I wonder why other media outlets aren't reporting on this more? Whether or not she was trying to get women to lie, this should be a pretty important story regardless.


Just because shit like this happens does not mean Trump has sexually assaulted women. It also does not mean everyone women is lying, if a couple are found to be lying.

Also is there proof she paid anyone to lie like you are claiming or just pay for them to tell their story?


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-accusing-trump-sexual-misconduct-report.html
> 
> I wonder why other media outlets aren't reporting on this more? Whether or not she was trying to get women to lie, this should be a pretty important story regardless.


"Because whoring women who prostitute themselves for money has nothing to do with the fact they were raped because we just need to maintain our delusion that they were raped because it feels our daily requirement of Trump hating hysteria"


----------



## Cabanarama

Stinger Fan said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-accusing-trump-sexual-misconduct-report.html
> 
> I wonder why other media outlets aren't reporting on this more? Whether or not she was trying to get women to lie, this should be a pretty important story regardless.


How is this an important story when it doesn't change anything?

We all know that both Lisa Bloom and her mother are basically akin to ambulance chasers who take on victims of sexual assault and harassment on as clients so they can exploit the victims for their own personal fame and fortune. It doesn't negate what happened to them or vindicate their abuser.


----------



## Draykorinee

Merry Reaper said:


> What a stupid way to determine value. Here's how we tell you how much you're worth by telling you the cost of keeping you alive... What?
> 
> Still does not take anything away from the fact that socialism + progressives advocates for the murder of genetically inferior fetuses.
> 
> If they were so valuable, then why is killing the fetus legal?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941682241490571264
> Is this also presented out of context? Or are we as a society (especially in Europe) actually supporting Eugenics?


Socialism doesn't advocate anything, some socialists might, in the same way that the rise of capitalism was built on the bodies of millions of labour workers who worked in horrific conditions doesn't mean all capitalism or capitalists are evil.
The majority of socialists are unlikely to believe in eugenics in my experience. No ism should ever hold complete sway over a populace.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Socialism doesn't advocate anything, some socialists might, in the same way that the rise of capitalism was built on the bodies of millions of labour workers who worked in horrific conditions doesn't mean all capitalism or capitalists are evil.
> The majority of socialists are unlikely to believe in eugenics in my experience. No ism should ever hold complete sway over a populace.


Capitalism actually did advocate for slavery and poor working conditions for workers. In some parts of the world it still does.

I don't see what your point is.

The connection between how costly it is to have and sustain someone with down syndrome and advocating for abortion for economic reasons is also very obvious and in this context this connection is resulting in abortion of children with down syndrome. They aborted the entire generation out of Iceland recently.

There's no obvious cause and effect here. There are other factors too obviously but no conversation is complete without taking about all the factors that go into making decisions with regards to abortion. And yes economic reasons in social welfare states is one of those factors. You yourself acknowledged it so I don't know what we're arguing about when we're in agreement.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Eugenics is a right wing concept.

Valuing people on their economic worth is capitalism not socialism. 

Just because something appeared on tv in a country you consider socialist doesn't mean it's a socialist idea.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Are you kidding me? If Trump was not thinking about pardoning him he would just come out and say it. I don't believe his lawyer for a second claiming Trump is not considering it since Trump won't just come out and say that.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-doesn-t-rule-out-pardon-michael-flynn-n830061
*
Trump doesn’t rule out pardon for Michael Flynn*

resident Donald Trump on Friday declined to say if he would pardon Michael Flynn, his former national security adviser who recently pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI in special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe.

"I don't want to talk about pardons for Michael Flynn yet. We'll see what happens," Trump told reporters as he departed the White House to deliver a speech to FBI academy graduates.

"Let's see. I can say this: When you look at what's gone on with the FBI and with the Justice Department, people are very, very angry."

Flynn pleaded guilty in federal court to a charge of making false statements to the FBI about his communications with Russia on Dec. 1. He made two false statements about his interactions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak in late December 2016, according to court documents.

Flynn is the first senior White House official to be charged in the special counsel’s investigation into Moscow's alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election and the first to officially agree to cooperate.

A source close to the White House previously told NBC News that the Trump administration was "blindsided" by the news of Flynn's plea.

Trump on Friday decried the "sad" state of the FBI and he promised to reform the agency before he referred to recently released messages, between an FBI lawyer and an agent later assigned to Mueller's investigation, that were critical of him.

Trump's already shown he's not hesitant to exercise his pardon power. In August, he pardoned former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of criminal contempt for ignoring a judge's order not to detain suspected undocumented immigrants.

Ty Cobb, one of the president's lawyers, told NBC News that there is no consideration being given to a pardon for Flynn at this time.


----------



## Cabanarama

birthday_massacre said:


> Are you kidding me? If Trump was not thinking about pardoning him he would just come out and say it. I don't believe his lawyer for a second claiming Trump is not considering it since Trump won't just come out and say that.
> 
> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-doesn-t-rule-out-pardon-michael-flynn-n830061
> *
> Trump doesn’t rule out pardon for Michael Flynn*
> 
> resident Donald Trump on Friday declined to say if he would pardon Michael Flynn, his former national security adviser who recently pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI in special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe.
> 
> "I don't want to talk about pardons for Michael Flynn yet. We'll see what happens," Trump told reporters as he departed the White House to deliver a speech to FBI academy graduates.
> 
> "Let's see. I can say this: When you look at what's gone on with the FBI and with the Justice Department, people are very, very angry."
> 
> Flynn pleaded guilty in federal court to a charge of making false statements to the FBI about his communications with Russia on Dec. 1. He made two false statements about his interactions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak in late December 2016, according to court documents.
> 
> Flynn is the first senior White House official to be charged in the special counsel’s investigation into Moscow's alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election and the first to officially agree to cooperate.
> 
> A source close to the White House previously told NBC News that the Trump administration was "blindsided" by the news of Flynn's plea.
> 
> Trump on Friday decried the "sad" state of the FBI and he promised to reform the agency before he referred to recently released messages, between an FBI lawyer and an agent later assigned to Mueller's investigation, that were critical of him.
> 
> Trump's already shown he's not hesitant to exercise his pardon power. In August, he pardoned former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of criminal contempt for ignoring a judge's order not to detain suspected undocumented immigrants.
> 
> Ty Cobb, one of the president's lawyers, told NBC News that there is no consideration being given to a pardon for Flynn at this time.


I think any talk of Trump pardoning Flynn will end the second we find out whatever the information is that Flynn gave to Mueller. Mueller had more than enough on Flynn to make sure he would spend the rest of his life sharing a bunk bed with his son in prison...instead, he lets him off with a charge of lying to the FBI... That doesn't happen unless Flynn gave him something big.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Cabanarama said:


> I think any talk of Trump pardoning Flynn will end the second we find out whatever the information is that Flynn gave to Mueller. Mueller had more than enough on Flynn to make sure he would spend the rest of his life sharing a bunk bed with his son in prison...instead, he lets him off with a charge of lying to the FBI... That doesn't happen unless Flynn gave him something big.


If Trump pardons Flynn should Trump be impeached?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Interesting:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/lisa-bloom-trump-accusers-paid-article-1.3701922



> Women’s rights lawyer Lisa Bloom sought paydays for women willing to accuse Donald Trump of sexual misconduct at the tail end of the 2016 presidential race, according to an explosive report.
> 
> Bloom offered to sell alleged victims’ stories to TV outlets—and arrange compensation from donors for those who came forward with allegations against President Trump, The Hill reported Friday, citing documents, emails and text messages between Bloom and the women.
> 
> She arranged for a donor to pay off one Trump accuser’s mortgage, and offered as much as $750,000 to another woman, who ultimately decided not to come forward, according to the report.
> 
> Bloom acknowledged pursuing donations for women who made accusations against Trump before last year’s election.
> 
> “Donors reached out to my firm directly to help some of the women I represented,” Bloom told The Hill.
> 
> She also acknowledged that her standard contracts required women to pay her commissions as high as 33% if she sold their stories to media outlets, The Hill reported.
> 
> “Our standard pro bono agreement for legal services provides that if a media entity offers to compensate a client for sharing his or her story we receive a percentage of those fees. This rarely happens. But, on occasion, a case generates media interest and sometimes (not always) a client may receive an appearance fee,” she told The Hill.
> 
> The Hill spoke to New York City makeup artist Jill Harth who received a small payout from Bloom.
> 
> Harth, a former beauty contestant manager, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Trump in 1997, but then withdrew it.
> 
> The litigation was uncovered during the election, and Harth’s name was revealed during the summer of 2016.
> 
> Trump called the accusations against her false, prompting her to become an outspoken critic of his and seek Bloom’s legal counsel.
> 
> She received a financial reward from photos sold to news media and from an online fundraiser—and later, was given less than $30,000 from a donor to help pay off the mortgage on her Queens apartment, The Hill reported.
> 
> Harth alleges that in 1993, Trump pushed her up against a wall at Mar-a-Lago and groped her, trying to get his hands under her dress, The Hill reported.
> 
> “Nothing that you’ve said to me about my mortgage or the Go Fund Me that was created to help me out financially affects the facts or the veracity of my 1997 federal complaint against Donald J. Trump for sexual harassment and assault,” she told The Hill.
> 
> Harth is reportedly writing a memoir about the whole experience.


Pieces of garbage like this is what makes it difficult for REAL victims of sexual harassment to come out with what they've experienced. Shameful.


----------



## birthday_massacre

SantaStopper said:


> Interesting:
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/lisa-bloom-trump-accusers-paid-article-1.3701922
> 
> 
> 
> Pieces of garbage like this is what makes it difficult for REAL victims of sexual harassment to come out with what they've experienced. Shameful.


Wasn't she just offering to pay people who were sexually assaulted by Trump to come out and tell their story and not to make it up?

I have not seen any evidence she was asking people to lie.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Another article on it from The Hill:



> A well-known women’s rights lawyer sought to arrange compensation from donors and tabloid media outlets for women who made or considered making sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump during the final months of the 2016 presidential race, according to documents and interviews.
> 
> California lawyer Lisa Bloom’s efforts included offering to sell alleged victims’ stories to TV outlets in return for a commission for herself, arranging a donor to pay off one Trump accuser’s mortgage and attempting to secure a six-figure payment for another woman who ultimately declined to come forward after being offered as much as $750,000, the clients told The Hill.
> 
> The women’s accounts were chronicled in contemporaneous contractual documents, emails and text messages reviewed by The Hill, including an exchange of texts between one woman and Bloom that suggested political action committees supporting Hillary Clinton were contacted during the effort.
> 
> Bloom, who has assisted dozens of women in prominent harassment cases and also defended film executive Harvey Weinstein earlier this year, represented four women considering making accusations against Trump last year. Two went public, and two declined.
> In a statement to The Hill, Bloom acknowledged she engaged in discussions to secure donations for women who made or considered making accusations against Trump before last year’s election.
> 
> “Donors reached out to my firm directly to help some of the women I represented,” said Bloom, whose clients have also included accusers of Bill Cosby and Bill O’Reilly.
> 
> Bloom said her goal in securing money was not to pressure the women to come forward, but rather to help them relocate or arrange security if they felt unsafe during the waning days of a vitriolic election. She declined to identify any of the donors.
> 
> And while she noted she represented sexual harassment victims for free or at reduced rates, she also acknowledged a standard part of her contracts required women to pay her commissions as high as 33 percent if she sold their stories to media outlets.
> 
> “Our standard pro bono agreement for legal services provides that if a media entity offers to compensate a client for sharing his or her story we receive a percentage of those fees. This rarely happens. But, on occasion, a case generates media interest and sometimes (not always) a client may receive an appearance fee,” she said.
> 
> “As a private law firm we have significant payroll, rent, taxes, insurance and other expenses every week, so an arrangement where we might receive some compensation to defray our costs seems reasonable to us and is agreed to by our clients,” Bloom added.
> 
> Bloom told The Hill she had no contact with Clinton or her campaign, but declined to address any contacts with super PACs that supported the Democratic presidential nominee.
> 
> Josh Schwerin, the communications director for Priorities USA Action, the largest pro-Clinton super PAC, told The Hill that the group had no relationship with Bloom and had no discussions with her about supporting Trump accusers.
> 
> One Bloom client who received financial help from Bloom was New York City makeup artist Jill Harth.
> 
> The former beauty contestant manager filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Trump in 1997 and then withdrew it under pressure. The news media discovered the litigation during the election, and Harth’s name became public in the summer of 2016. She asked Bloom to represent her in the fall after hearing Trump describe her allegations against him as false, and became a vocal critic of Trump.
> 
> “I consider myself lucky to have had Lisa Bloom by my side after my old lawsuit resurfaced. She advised me with great competence and compassion,” Harth told The Hill.
> 
> Harth said she did not originally ask Bloom for money, even though her cosmetics business suffered from the notoriety of the campaign stories about her.
> 
> But later, Bloom arranged a small payment from the licensing of some photos to the news media, and then set up a GoFundMe.com account to raise money for Harth in October 2016. “Jill put herself out there, facing off with Donald Trump. Let’s show her some love,” the online fundraising appeal set up by Bloom’s husband declared.
> 
> The effort raised a little over $2,300.
> 
> Bloom then arranged for a donor to make a larger contribution to help Harth pay off the mortgage on her Queens apartment in New York City. The amount was under $30,000, according to a source directly familiar with Harth’s situation. Public records show Harth’s mortgage was recorded as extinguished on Dec. 19, 2016.
> 
> Harth said the payments did not affect the merits of her allegations. She alleges that during a January 1993 meeting at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, the future president pushed her up against a wall and groped her, trying to get his hands up her dress.
> 
> “Nothing that you’ve said to me about my mortgage or the Go Fund Me that was created to help me out financially affects the facts or the veracity of my 1997 federal complaint against Donald J. Trump for sexual harassment and assault,” she told The Hill.
> 
> “Having to retell my experiences of Donald Trump's harassment is the hardest thing I've ever had to do.”
> 
> Trump has steadfastly denied assaulting or harassing women, even after a videotape surfaced in September 2016 in which he can be heard boasting that famous men like him can grab women by the genitalia without consequence. Trump has dismissed the tape as "locker room talk."
> 
> Harth is currently writing a memoir about her whole experience, but without Bloom’s help.
> 
> Bloom acknowledged arranging financial help for Harth, who she said had lost income because of the publicity surrounding her allegations.
> 
> “She endured a tidal wave of hate for it. It was very painful for her. And as a New York City makeup artist, Jill lost jobs after she came out publicly against Donald Trump. I believed that people wanted to donate to help her, so we set up the GoFundMe account,” she told The Hill.
> 
> The Hill does not identify the names of victims of sexual assault or harassment unless they go public on their own, like Harth.
> 
> But one woman who did not go public with allegations agreed to share her documents and talk to The Hill about her interactions with Bloom if The Hill honored its commitment to maintain her anonymity.
> 
> Both that woman and Harth, who were friends, stressed that Bloom never asked them to make any statements or allegations except what they believed to be true.
> 
> Their texts and emails indicate Bloom held a strong dislike of Trump though. Bloom is the daughter of Gloria Allred, another prominent attorney who is representing a number of women who have made accusations of sexual misconduct against Trump.
> 
> In an email to the unnamed woman, Bloom said that her story was “further evidence of what a sick predator this man is,” referring to Trump.
> 
> Documents also show Bloom’s efforts to get alleged victims of sexual assault or harassment to come out against Trump intensified as Election Day 2016 approached.
> When Harth, for instance, informed Bloom she had just made a Facebook post urging other women to come forward about Trump in October 2016, the lawyer texted back: “Wow Jill that would be amazing. 27 days until the election.”
> 
> And when a potential client abruptly backed out of a pre-election news conference in which she was supposed to allege she was sexually assaulted at age 13, Bloom turned her attention to another woman.
> 
> That woman, Harth’s friend, went back and forth for weeks with Bloom in 2016 about going public with an allegation of an unsolicited advance by Trump on the 1990s beauty contest circuit.
> 
> “Give us a clear sense of what you need and we will see if it we can get it,” Bloom texted the woman a week before Election Day.
> 
> “I’m scared Lisa. I can’t relocate. I don’t like taking other people’s money,” the woman wrote to Bloom.
> 
> “Ok let’s not do this then,” Bloom responded. “We are just about out of time anyway.”
> 
> The woman then texted back demanding to know why there was a deadline. “What does time have to do with this? Time to bury Trump??? You want my story to bury trump for what? Personal gain? See that 's why I have trust issues!!”
> 
> The woman told The Hill in an interview that Bloom initially approached her in early October through Harth. She said she considered coming forward with her account of an unsolicited advance by Trump solely to support her friend Harth, and not because she had any consternation with Trump, who ended the advance when she asked him to stop, she said.
> 
> The woman said Bloom initially offered a $10,000 donation to the woman’s favorite church, an account backed up by text messages the two exchanged.
> 
> “Please keep the donation offer confidential except to your pastor,” Bloom wrote the woman on Oct. 14, 2016.
> 
> When Bloom found out the woman was still a supporter of Trump and associated with lawyers, friends and associates of the future president, she texted a request that jarred the woman.
> 
> “When you have a chance I suggest you delete the August 2015 Facebook post about supporting Trump,” Bloom texted. “Otherwise the reporter will ask you how you could support him after what he did to you. Your call but it will make your life easier.”
> 
> The woman declined. “I hate to say it, but i still rather have trump in office than hillary,” the woman texted back. Bloom answered, “Ok I respect that. Then don’t change anything.”
> 
> Eventually the two decided the woman’s continued support of Trump was a benefit to her narrative if she went public with her accusations, the messages show. “I love your point about being a Trump supporter too,” Bloom texted on Oct. 14, 2016.
> 
> The text messages show the woman made escalating requests for more money.
> 
> By early November, the woman said, Bloom’s offers of money from donors had grown to $50,000 to be paid personally to her, and then even higher.
> 
> “Another donor has reached out to me offering relocation/security for any woman coming forward. I’m trying to reach him,” Bloom texted the woman on Nov. 3, 2016. Later she added, “Call me I have good news.”
> 
> The woman responded that she wasn’t impressed with the new offer of $100,000 given that she had a young daughter. “Hey after thinking about all this, I need more than $100,000.00. College money would be nice” for her daughter. “Plus relocation fees, as we discussed.”
> 
> The figured jumped to $200,000 in a series of phone calls with Bloom that week, according to the woman. The support was promised to be tax-free and also included changing her identity and relocating, according to documents and interviews.
> 
> Bloom told The Hill that the woman asked for money as high as $2 million in the conversations, an amount that was a nonstarter, but the lawyer confirmed she tried to arrange donations to the woman in the low six figures.
> 
> “She asked to be compensated, citing concerns for her safety and security and over time, increased her request for financial compensation to $2 million, which we told her was a non-starter,” Bloom told The Hill. “We did relay her security concerns to donors, but none were willing to offer more than a number in the low six figures, which they felt was more appropriate to address her security and relocation expenses.”
> 
> The woman said that when she initially talked to Bloom she simply wanted to support Harth and had no interest in being portrayed as an accuser or receiving money. But when Bloom’s mention of potential compensation became more frequent, the woman said she tried to draw out the lawyer to see how high the offer might reach and who might be behind the money.
> 
> Just a few days before the election, the woman indicated she was ready to go public with her story, then landed in the hospital and fell out of contact with Bloom.
> 
> The lawyer repeatedly texted one of the woman’s friends on Nov. 4, 2016, but the friend declined to put the woman on the phone, instead sending a picture of the client in a hospital bed.
> 
> Bloom persisted, writing in a series of texts to the friend that she needed to talk to her hospitalized client because it could have “a significant impact on her life” and a “big impact on her daughter” if she did not proceed with her public statement as she had planned.
> 
> “She is in no condition for visitors,” the friend texted Bloom back.
> 
> “If you care about her you need to leave her be until she is feeling better,” the friend added in another text.
> 
> Bloom hopped on a plane from California to come see the woman on the East Coast, according to the text messages and interviews.
> 
> The next day, the woman finally reconnected with Bloom and informed her she would not move forward with making her allegations public. Bloom reacted in a string of text messages after getting the news.
> 
> “I am confused because you sent me so many nice texts Wednesday night after my other client wasted so much of my time and canceled the press conference,” Bloom texted on Nov. 5, 2016. “That meant a lot to me. Thursday you said you wanted to do this if you could be protected/relocated. I begged you not to jerk me around after what I had just gone through.”
> 
> A little later, she added another text. “You have treated me very poorly. I have treated you with great respect as much as humanly possible. I have not made a dime off your case and I have devoted a great deal of time. It doesn’t matter. I could have done so much for you. But you can’t stick to your word even when you swear you will.”
> 
> After the woman was released from the hospital, she agreed to meet Bloom at a hotel on Nov. 6, just two days before Trump unexpectedly defeated Clinton.
> 
> The woman told The Hill in an interview that at the hotel encounter, Bloom increased the offer of donations to $750,000 but still she declined to take the money.
> 
> The woman texted Bloom that day saying she didn’t mean to let her lawyer down.
> 
> “You didn’t let me down,” Bloom texted back. “You came and spoke to me and made the decision that’s right for you. That’s all I wanted.”
> 
> Bloom confirmed to The Hill that she flew to Virginia to meet with the woman after she had changed her mind several times about whether to go public with her accusations against Trump.
> 
> “We invited her to meet with us at the hotel restaurant and she accepted. Ultimately, after another heartfelt discussion, she decided that she did not want to come forward, and we respected her decision,” Bloom told The Hill.
> 
> Bloom said the donor money was never intended “to entice women to come forward against their will.”
> 
> “Nothing can be further from the truth. Some clients asked for small photo licensing fees while others wanted more to protect their security,” she said.
> 
> Bloom declined to identify the name of any donors who would have provided money for women making accusations against Trump.
> 
> Harth and the woman who decided not to go public said they never were given any names of donors.
> 
> But Bloom told the woman who declined to come forward that she had reached out to political action committees supporting Clinton’s campaign.
> 
> “It’s my understanding that there is some Clinton Super Pack [sic] that could help out if we did move forward,” the woman wrote Bloom on Oct. 11, 2016. “If we help the Clinton campaign they in turn could help or compensate us?”
> 
> Bloom wrote back, “Let’s please do a call. I have already reached out to Clinton Super PACs and they are not paying. I can get you paid for some interviews however.”
> 
> The woman who ultimately declined to come forward with Bloom told The Hill that she stayed silent for an entire year afterward because she did not want to call attention to her family.
> 
> She said she supported Trump in 2016, and that he she held no resentment about the early 1990s advance because Trump stopped it as soon as she asked him.
> 
> She said she remains friends with many people associated with the president to this day, including one of his best personal friends and a lawyer who works for one of the firms representing Trump.
> 
> The woman said, however, no one associated with the Trump White House or the president forced her to come forward or made any offers to induce her to talk to The Hill. She said she agreed to do so only after she became disgusted to learn this past October that Bloom had agreed to work in defense of Weinstein.
> 
> “I couldn’t understand how she could say she was for people like me and then represent someone like him. And then all the money stuff I knew about. I just became frustrated,” she said.
> 
> Bloom dropped her representation of Weinstein as the accusations piled up against him, telling Buzzfeed that it had been a “colossal mistake.”
> 
> Nearly from the beginning, Bloom made clear to the woman she would have to pay her law firm a commission on any fees the attorney arranged from media outlets willing to pay for the woman’s story, according to a copy of a contract as well as a text message sent to the woman.
> 
> “Outlets with which I have good relationships that may pay for your first on camera interview, revealing your name and face: Inside Edition, Dr. Phil, LawNewz.com,” Bloom texted the woman just weeks before Election Day. “My best estimate of what I could get for you would be $10-15,000 (less our 1/3 attorney fee)."
> 
> “If you are interested I would recommend Inside Edition or Dr. Phil as they are much bigger. Dr. Phil is doing a show on Trump accusers next Tuesday in LA and would fly you here and put you up in a nice hotel, and pay for your meals as well, with your daughter if you like,” Bloom’s text added. “Media moves very quickly so you need to decide and then once confirmed, you need to stick to it.”
> 
> Representatives of "Inside Edition" and "Dr. Phil" said they did not pay any Trump accusers for appearances last year.
> 
> Bloom’s firm sent the woman a “media-related services” contract to represent her for “speaking out against Donald Trump” that laid out business terms for selling a story in the most direct terms.
> 
> “You will compensate the Firm thirty-three percent (33%) of the total fee that you collect, whether the media deal or licensing fees is for print, Internet, radio, television, film or any other medium,” Bloom’s proposed contract, dated Oct. 10, 2016, read. The woman said she signed the contract.
> 
> When Bloom found out in early November that the woman and the friend had discussions with CBS News about doing an interview on their own, the lawyer texted back: “CBS does not pay for stories.”
> 
> A little later Bloom sent another text suggesting the arrangements she was making could be impacted by the unauthorized media contacts. “You and your friends should not be shopping the story it will come back to bite you,” Bloom texted. “And this whole thing we have worked so hard to make happen will go away.”



http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...wyer-sought-donor-cash-for-two-trump-accusers


----------



## birthday_massacre

Could Kushner be the next to fall?



*Jared Kushner's legal team is seeking a crisis PR firm: Report*

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/15/jared-kushners-legal-team-is-seeking-a-crisis-pr-firm-report.html

Lawyers for President Donald Trump's senior advisor Jared Kushner have called at least two crisis public relations firms in the past two weeks, according to The Washington Post.
The president's son-in-law has been the subject of enormous amounts of press coverage as congressional and federal investigators ramp up their probes of the president's alleged ties to Russia.

Lawyers for President Donald Trump's senior advisor Jared Kushner have called at least two crisis public relations firms in the past two weeks, according to The Washington Post.

The president's son-in-law has been the subject of enormous amounts of press coverage as congressional and federal investigators ramp up their probes of the president's alleged ties to Russia.

Kushner's attorney Abbe Lowell told the Post that he was seeking a firm that handled high-profile clients that receive press attention, and cited the Post's inquiry as an example of why such a firm is needed.

Kushner is reportedly a subject of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe, though the special counsel's office does not comment about its investigation outside of official court documents.

In one court filing, Mueller alleges that a "very senior" Trump official directed former national security advisor Michael Flynn to contact foreign officials during the Trump transition. NBC News later reported that the senior official was Kushner.

Lowell did not respond to a request for comment from CNBC.

full report here

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...l-325pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.73549b70095e


----------



## Stinger Fan

Alkomesh2 said:


> Eugenics is a right wing concept.
> 
> Valuing people on their economic worth is capitalism not socialism.
> 
> Just because something appeared on tv in a country you consider socialist doesn't mean it's a socialist idea.


When in doubt, blame everyone else. That's usually the excuse for socialists to use, it's never a "real" socialist ideology ... when it fails.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Bloom got BTFO. :heston

To anyone who actually took his shit-talking on the Billy Bush tape as confirmation that he's a sexual abuser *and* fully believed the legion of women who conveniently came out en masse before the election to decry him as a sexual abuser:










:trump3



birthday_massacre said:


> Could Kushner be the next to fall?
> 
> 
> 
> *Jared Kushner's legal team is seeking a crisis PR firm: Report*
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/15/jared-kushners-legal-team-is-seeking-a-crisis-pr-firm-report.html
> 
> Lawyers for President Donald Trump's senior advisor Jared Kushner have called at least two crisis public relations firms in the past two weeks, according to The Washington Post.
> The president's son-in-law has been the subject of enormous amounts of press coverage as congressional and federal investigators ramp up their probes of the president's alleged ties to Russia.
> 
> Lawyers for President Donald Trump's senior advisor Jared Kushner have called at least two crisis public relations firms in the past two weeks, according to The Washington Post.
> 
> The president's son-in-law has been the subject of enormous amounts of press coverage as congressional and federal investigators ramp up their probes of the president's alleged ties to Russia.
> 
> Kushner's attorney Abbe Lowell told the Post that he was seeking a firm that handled high-profile clients that receive press attention, and cited the Post's inquiry as an example of why such a firm is needed.
> 
> Kushner is reportedly a subject of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe, though the special counsel's office does not comment about its investigation outside of official court documents.
> 
> In one court filing, Mueller alleges that a "very senior" Trump official directed former national security advisor Michael Flynn to contact foreign officials during the Trump transition. NBC News later reported that the senior official was Kushner.
> 
> Lowell did not respond to a request for comment from CNBC.
> 
> full report here
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...l-325pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.73549b70095e


:trump2 at the prospect of that pencil-necked ****** taking such a colossal L.


----------



## CamillePunk

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> :trump2 at the prospect of that pencil-necked ****** taking such a colossal L.


Yeah but then Ivanka would cry, triggering the apocalypse.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Yeah but then Ivanka would cry, triggering the apocalypse.


 Ivanka will ask daddy to pardon him for Hanukkah


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

CamillePunk said:


> Yeah but then Ivanka would cry, triggering the apocalypse.


After the recent Jerusalem deal, I'm confident that Teflon Don Juan could simply hop on over to Israel and wrangle up a nice, wholesome mensch for Ivanka to pay tiddlywinks with in the event The Kush gets burned.

:yoshi


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941825229868773376

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941825851376541697


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Merry Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941825229868773376
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941825851376541697



I love the smell of progressive-derived schadenfreude in the morning. :rock1

Also, relevant:


----------



## Trivette

Legendary Japanese wrestler The Great Sasuke dressed as The Great Trump. He cut a promo to the Tokyo crowd saying "TPP is Bullshit" before fighting Rocket Man.


----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow @Merry Reaper @Pratchett @Miss Sally @virus21 @Fringe @Beatles123 @BruiserKC @Plato @Lumpy McRighteous

Brexit and Trump, two results the left didn't expect, two results the left want to overturn by any means necessary:






Remember when they talk about the sanctity of democracy - they only really care about democracy when it goes their way. They're happy to discard it when it doesn't.


----------



## CamillePunk

double post lolol


----------



## Draykorinee

The left aren't trying to overturn Brexit.

The best they're trying to do is get a soft Brexit not a hard one.

Sure there are people who want it to not happen, but the vast majority of people have accepted that the majority of voters are idiots and that Brexit is gong to happen.

Paul says implement Brexit, no one actually voted on what that Brexit would consist of. He's a bigger idiot than I thought.

The irony that it was the right wing party that revolted against their leader is probably not lost on this moron.


----------



## Reaper

"It's a horrible accusation that the media operates with bias" :mj4










:trump2


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Merry Reaper @Pratchett @Miss Sally @virus21 @Fringe @Beatles123 @BruiserKC @Plato @Lumpy McRighteous
> 
> Brexit and Trump, two results the left didn't expect, two results the left want to overturn by any means necessary:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when they talk about the sanctity of democracy - they only really care about democracy when it goes their way. They're happy to discard it when it doesn't.


This is what annoys me about people. These people sit there and lecture everyone on populism and democracy and tell us the majority should get what it wants, well until their side loses the vote and then they bitch how it's unfair.

No matter what side you're on or what you believe, it's your job to be informed and to vote. If your side loses then take the L and next vote ensure you do more. Stop talking about democracy if you don't actually believe in it because trying to overturn a vote is dictatorship, not democracy.

Also leave Taylor Swift alone you sorry vultures! I don't like her music but she's not political, doesn't bother anyone yet there is this new crusade against her for some idiotic reason. Good grief, cannot even say you had a good year anymore.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941870583003996162


----------



## Dr. Middy

Merry Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941870583003996162


I mean, I'm staying on my parents health plan until the maximum age limit simply because it's the best available option and I should take advantage of that. :shrug

The insurance the job I work is offering is generally less reliable and costs more, and even my boss is telling me to ride out my parents plan as long as I can.


----------



## birthday_massacre

I love how Trump supporters just shit post about dumb things like what Taylor Swift tweets about to distract the fucked up Trump and his Admin are doing.

Like this http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/16/health/cdc-banned-words/index.html

Word ban at CDC includes 'vulnerable,' 'fetus,' 'transgender'

Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the very agency tasked with saving and protecting the lives of the most vulnerable, are now under order by the Trump administration to stop using words including "vulnerable" in 2018 budget documents, according to The Washington Post.

In a 90-minute briefing on Thursday, policy analysts at the nation's leading public health institute were presented with the menu of seven banned words, an analyst told the paper. On the list: *"diversity," "fetus," "transgender," "vulnerable," "entitlement," "science-based" and "evidence-based."*

Alternative word choices reportedly were presented in some cases. For instance, in lieu of "evidence-based" or "science-based," an analyst might say, "CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes," the source said. But those working on the Zika virus's effect on developing fetuses may be at a loss for appropriate -- or acceptable -- words.
The reaction in the room was "incredulous," the longtime CDC analyst told the Post. "It was very much, 'Are you serious? Are you kidding?'"
As news of the word ban spreads at the CDC, the analyst expects growing backlash.

"Our subject matter experts will not lay down quietly," the unnamed source said. "This hasn't trickled down to them yet.

Health and Human Services spokesman Matt Lloyd disputed the report in a statement to CNN.
"The assertion that HHS has 'banned words' is a complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process," Lloyd said. "HHS will continue to use the best scientific evidence available to improve the health of all Americans. HHS also strongly encourages the use of outcome and evidence data in program evaluations and budget decisions."
Others, outside the agency, are already responding with their own choice words.
"To pretend and insist that transgender people do not exist, and to allow this lie to infect public health research and prevention is irrational and very dangerous," Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said in a written statement.
"The Trump administration is full of dangerous science deniers who have no business near American public health systems like the CDC," she continued. "They are actually going to kill Americans if they do not stop."
Calling the order "reckless" and "unimaginably dangerous," Dana Singiser, vice president of public policy and government affairs for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, also weighed in.

You cannot fight against the Zika virus, or improve women's and fetal health, if you are unable to use the word 'fetus.' You must be able to talk about science and evidence if you are to research cures for infectious diseases such as Ebola," Singiser said. "You must be able to acknowledge the humanity of transgender people in order to address their health care needs. You cannot erase health inequities faced by people of color simply by forbidding the use of the words 'vulnerable' or 'diversity'."
"Here's a word that's still allowed," added Rush Holt, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "Ridiculous."
The Office of Management and Budget did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Wait, people in this thread who aren't moronic EDL supporters still think Brexit's a good idea? Despite the fact it's ALREADY cost us £300m a week since the vote? Despite the fact every single economist, think tank or organisation worth it's salt says it's a disaster? Despite the fact the Tory government is so inept they haven't even done studies on the effects of Brexit and have no plan to implement it over a year into negotiations? Despite potential breaking down the Good Friday agreement? Despite the fact that we're demonstrably worse off already and getting worse and we've not even left yet? I'll remember to tell that to the numerous offices that we're shutting down whilst we relocate all of their services to the continent so we survive the shitstorm that's coming our way :lmao


----------



## virus21




----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Merry Reaper @Pratchett @Miss Sally @virus21 @Fringe @Beatles123 @BruiserKC @Plato @Lumpy McRighteous
> 
> Brexit and Trump, two results the left didn't expect, two results the left want to overturn by any means necessary:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when they talk about the sanctity of democracy - they only really care about democracy when it goes their way. They're happy to discard it when it doesn't.


I'm not savvy with UK politics, but the way May has handled Brexit makes me better understand why she's gained the nickname "Mayhem".

Like Hilldog and Merkel, she is, in general:


----------



## Draykorinee

RavishingRickRules said:


> Wait, people in this thread who aren't moronic EDL supporters still think Brexit's a good idea? Despite the fact it's ALREADY cost us £300m a week since the vote? Despite the fact every single economist, think tank or organisation worth it's salt says it's a disaster? Despite the fact the Tory government is so inept they haven't even done studies on the effects of Brexit and have no plan to implement it over a year into negotiations? Despite potential breaking down the Good Friday agreement? Despite the fact that we're demonstrably worse off already and getting worse and we've not even left yet? I'll remember to tell that to the numerous offices that we're shutting down whilst we relocate all of their services to the continent so we survive the shitstorm that's coming our way


This is the stupidity of Paul saying 'just do it already!' Do what you cretin? How the fuck can you just do Brexit.

It's hilarious he thinks it's undemocratic for the government to have a say on what happens to our country, that's democracy you dipshit.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> This is the stupidity of Paul saying 'just do it already!' Do what you cretin? How the fuck can you just do Brexit.
> 
> It's hilarious he thinks it's undemocratic for the government to have a say on what happens to our country, that's democracy you dipshit.


Yeah and let's be honest, during the time since the vote the ONLY politicians who are attacking democracy are the Tories who've straight up tried to bypass the sovereignty of Parliament and make sweeping changes to law as and how they see fit without them passing through Parliament. THAT's what's attacking democracy, not representatives who were elected by the people doing the job they were elected to do - run the damn country without fucking it all up. Brexit IS fucking it up, before it's even happened, all for 37% of the population, half of which will be dead before we've even finished the transition deal. Ridiculous. Also the people who think Brexit was a "right wing" movement are massively off-base. For reference: Theresa May (right wing) die-hard remainer. David Cameron (right wing) die-hard remainer. Jeremy Corbyn (an actually lefty socialist) long time (as in since we entered the EU) euroskeptic. These are all well documented things. Nigel Farage is a no-mark on British politics, Americans should really stop using him as an indicator of left/right politics in the UK.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Most people on the far left I know backed Brexit because they saw the EU as a fundamentally capitalist institution.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Alkomesh2 said:


> Most people on the far left I know backed Brexit because they saw the EU as a fundamentally capitalist institution.


As opposed to an independent country run by the current Tory government for the foreseeable future, all of whom are capitalists who run huge business and do a lot of tax dodging? Your friends should pay more attention to what's going on in the country tbh. 

Brexit isn't really a partisan issue at all. It mostly boils down to: Remainers were mostly the people who paid attention to what all the economists/experts were saying, whilst also realising that the UK was one of the more powerful EU countries - introducing more EU laws than any other nation. Brexiteers were people who "had enough of experts," cared more about migration than economic stability despite the fact most of the groups they don't want here aren't from EU countries anyway and who thought EU politicians aren't elected (I'm guessing they missed all the ballot cards for those elections, I never did.) Then there was a third group almost as large (both remain and leave were incredibly close in size) who didn't have a clue at all so didn't vote. 

Unfortunately for us all, being "sick of experts" means you're making shit up in your head or listening to non-experts. The experts were vindicated many times over, we're fucked. Pretty much sums it up.


----------



## samizayn

RavishingRickRules said:


> Also the people who think Brexit was a "right wing" movement are massively off-base. For reference: Theresa May (right wing) die-hard remainer. David Cameron (right wing) die-hard remainer. Jeremy Corbyn (an actually lefty socialist) long time (as in since we entered the EU) euroskeptic. These are all well documented things. Nigel Farage is a no-mark on British politics, Americans should really stop using him as an indicator of left/right politics in the UK.


Come on now. I know truth distortion is the done thing in here, but this blatant?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

samizayn said:


> Come on now. I know truth distortion is the done thing in here, but this blatant?


There's no distortion there at all. That's all easily verifiable with a simple Google search. Nigel Farage even said flat out Corbyn was a EU sceptic who voted against everything to do with the EU in his entire career on his radio show. Farage has never been elected in UK parliament and was in a party that struggled to have consistent seats at all. Cameron was a remainer, so was Theresa May. It's never been a partisan issue. I'm assuming you're not from the UK? If so maybe start paying attention to what's going on in our country a little more.


----------



## Miss Sally

samizayn said:


> Come on now. I know truth distortion is the done thing in here, but this blatant?


If you're trying to imply Ravishing is some Righty or is something to that nature, well you're dead wrong. I don't agree with him a lot but insinuating he's making stuff up because he said something that doesn't fit your narrative is completely laughable. He's right, a Google search proves him right. 

I don't know much about Brexit but even I know there were a lot of Right Wingers wanting to remain. It's not "truth distortion" to realize that nor to realize quite a few far Left may also want to exit. That's because as Alko said above many feel the EU is a mega capitalist organization and they'd be right.

The EU pushes for a revolving door of cheap immigrant labor, regulations and political maneuvering which threatens a lot of local labor. The EU is fairly close to when Nobles and rich families ran Europe during the Medieval ages, just looking at their spending and their actions reeks of self-interest and irresponsibility.

Regardless if you're Pro EU or against them, you have to understand both Right and Left have reasons to like the EU and hate it. It's not a simple Right/Left topic.


----------



## samizayn

RavishingRickRules said:


> There's no distortion there at all. That's all easily verifiable with a simple Google search. Nigel Farage even said flat out Corbyn was a EU sceptic who voted against everything to do with the EU in his entire career on his radio show. Farage has never been elected in UK parliament and was in a party that struggled to have consistent seats at all. Cameron was a remainer, so was Theresa May. It's never been a partisan issue. I'm assuming you're not from the UK? If so maybe start paying attention to what's going on in our country a little more.


I understand now it wasn't your intention, but the post really read like you were trying to claim 'innocence' against something that THE ROTTEN LEFT were behind all along, which is obviously amusing. It was heavily partisan though. There was limp-wristed support among the leadership on both sides, yes, but the fervent brexit movement support came from within the conservative party, and obviously, the extreme majority of brexit vote and support came from conservative constituents. That, too, is fact.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

samizayn said:


> I understand now it wasn't your intention, but the post really read like you were trying to claim 'innocence' against something that THE ROTTEN LEFT were behind all along, which is obviously amusing. It was heavily partisan though. There was limp-wristed support among the leadership on both sides, yes, but the fervent brexit movement support came from within the conservative party, and obviously, the extreme majority of brexit vote and support came from conservative constituents. That, too, is fact.


176 of 317 Conservative MP's voted for Remain, how exactly was that a Conservative movement when more voted to stay than leave? Sure, Labour MP's predominately voted Remain too, but you seem convinced that there's some huge Conservative party push for Brexit and it's just not the case at all. The majority of MP's in the entire House of Commons didn't want Brexit to happen - I'm assuming because it's a horrifically bad idea as proved by the aftermath of the vote and the fact we've lost £300m a week (on top of the fees we were already paying and will still be paying in the Tory negotiated transition deal) as well as had recorded negative impact on the UK as a whole. 

That's the funny thing I guess, the people who argued for Remain (basically all of the economic world) have been vindicated. The people who were "sick of experts" should've listened. This bizarre delusion of "they need us more than them" is ridiculous, we're losing our trade deals with the entire world, they're losing trade deals with us. We import more than we export, our main "trade" is financial services, none of which are going to work post-brexit because of the time it takes to negotiate a deal. Anybody actually in business or well educated actually knew this was the case. So far I've yet to find a single Brexiter who can give 10 benefits they personally will receive from leaving the EU beyond "less brown faces" (Europe is a white face dominated continent, regardless of what Paul Golding's paranoia says) and £350m for the NHS which has already been proven to be bullshit. We're not gaining anything overall because of the sever damage to the economy, the "freedom to trade?" - I refer you to Theresa May lobbying the US to reduce increased tariffs on aircraft built in Northern Island which they then INCREASED further. People are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think Brexit will remotely be a "positive" thing for the UK. 

It's all good though, I should be able to transfer to Germany or France because I'm lucky enough to be management. I'll have to sell the house I've just bought before it's utterly worthless but that's a minor convenience to ensure my children grow up in a major economic power with all of the benefits that affords.


----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow @Goku 

Fascinating periscope from Scott Adams as he discusses Sam Harris' most recent podcast in which Harris criticizes Adams for a number of positions Adams supposedly has about Trump that he simply has never espoused. Now, Harris has had Adams on his podcast before so Harris *should* know he's mis-characterizing Adams greatly here. I actually have a high opinion of Sam Harris as a super intelligent, logical, ethically-concerned person, so the only explanation that seems to work for Harris seemingly making stuff up about what Scott Adams believes - despite having had one-on-one conversations with him - is that Sam Harris is within the mass hysteria bubble. He literally heard Scott Adams say something very different than what he actually has said. It's fascinating to hear him talk here. If Sam Harris can be trapped in the bubble, clearly no anti-Trumper is immune. 

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1vAxRMVoLrYJl

I can relate greatly to how distorted Adams' positions are by Harris here, considering it happens to me often as well. :lol It's easier to invent a position to criticize than to take on the things someone actually says.


----------



## CamillePunk

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...18810e7d44d_story.html?utm_term=.62b985d91acf

BEST FRIENDS

SHIPPING THE US AND RUSSIA SO HARD :mark:


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

CamillePunk said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...18810e7d44d_story.html?utm_term=.62b985d91acf
> 
> BEST FRIENDS
> 
> SHIPPING THE US AND RUSSIA SO HARD :mark:












:trump2


----------



## birthday_massacre

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> :trump2


Trump has to help his boss.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump has to help his boss.


Sorry BM, but that's one ship you and other anti-Trumpers will *never* sink. :trump3


----------



## virus21

So, we have corporations getting more powerful, technology gets more invasive and now robots are attacking the homeless. When did the world become a William Gibson novel


----------



## Goku

CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Goku
> 
> Fascinating periscope from Scott Adams as he discusses Sam Harris' most recent podcast in which Harris criticizes Adams for a number of positions Adams supposedly has about Trump that he simply has never espoused. Now, Harris has had Adams on his podcast before so Harris *should* know he's mis-characterizing Adams greatly here. I actually have a high opinion of Sam Harris as a super intelligent, logical, ethically-concerned person, so the only explanation that seems to work for Harris seemingly making stuff up about what Scott Adams believes - despite having had one-on-one conversations with him - is that Sam Harris is within the mass hysteria bubble. He literally heard Scott Adams say something very different than what he actually has said. It's fascinating to hear him talk here. If Sam Harris can be trapped in the bubble, clearly no anti-Trumper is immune.
> 
> https://www.pscp.tv/w/1vAxRMVoLrYJl
> 
> I can relate greatly to how distorted Adams' positions are by Harris here, considering it happens to me often as well. :lol It's easier to invent a position to criticize than to take on the things someone actually says.


That is amazing :lmao


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> If you're trying to imply Ravishing is some Righty or is something to that nature, well you're dead wrong. I don't agree with him a lot but insinuating he's making stuff up because he said something that doesn't fit your narrative is completely laughable. He's right, a Google search proves him right.
> 
> I don't know much about Brexit but even I know there were a lot of Right Wingers wanting to remain. It's not "truth distortion" to realize that nor to realize quite a few far Left may also want to exit. That's because as Alko said above many feel the EU is a mega capitalist organization and they'd be right.
> 
> The EU pushes for a revolving door of cheap immigrant labor, regulations and political maneuvering which threatens a lot of local labor. The EU is fairly close to when Nobles and rich families ran Europe during the Medieval ages, just looking at their spending and their actions reeks of self-interest and irresponsibility.
> 
> Regardless if you're Pro EU or against them, you have to understand both Right and Left have reasons to like the EU and hate it. It's not a simple Right/Left topic.


EU is not remotely capitalist. Accumulation of power is not a hallmark of capitalism. Capitalism is a _tool_ to gain power, but it is not its goal. Capitalism's stated goal is to _grow_ wealth. Re-investment of profits, achieving economies of scale and fulfilling needs is what's capitalist in nature. 

EU an inefficient "capitalist" organization that uses the threat of legal action and continuing to amass political power in order to continue to survive. It is the cancer that the free market would not allow to exist in a world void of illegitimate centralized power accumulation. In essence it works more like a communist enterprise than a capitalist enterprise. Any distraction from its communist nature is merely a distraction. It's not the truth. If EU starts moving away from accumulation of power, centralized planning, forcing member states to accept its agenda through legal action and using predatory tactics to legitimize itself, and demanding that it has its own standing army I'll change my mind.

What sort of a trade deal needs its own fucking army? I know. None. Only a fascist force that wants political capital and power over others does. EU is turning an illegitimate super-state and it needs to be killed off before it becomes any more of a suppressive force.



RavishingRickRules said:


> to bypass the sovereignty of Parliament


Parliament is not supposed to be sovereign. Parliament is supposed to be a group of Public Servants whose only purpose to exist is to implement the demands of its constituents.


----------



## CamillePunk

People use "capitalism" to refer to a lot of shit that fundamentally has nothing to do with the private ownership of the means of production or the free exchange of goods and services, which is all that capitalism really is.


----------



## Art Vandaley

CamillePunk said:


> People use "capitalism" to refer to a lot of shit that fundamentally has nothing to do with the private ownership of the means of production or the free exchange of goods and services, which is all that capitalism really is.


Aye and people on the far left tend to oppose the EU because it promotes the free exchange of goods and services between its members. 

They tend to ignore that it is massively protectionist with regards to the outside world.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Merry Reaper said:


> Parliament is not supposed to be sovereign. Parliament is supposed to be a group of Public Servants whose only purpose to exist is to implement the demands of its constituents.


Not in the UK mate, Parliament IS Sovereign in the UK. Look up the British civil war to see why that's the case


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Not in the UK mate, Parliament IS Sovereign in the UK. Look up the British civil war to see why that's the case


That's why i said "not _supposed_ to be". Otherwise what's the point if it has no limits to its power?


----------



## Empress

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942738172752154624

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942768700096155648

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942778500225921024


----------



## Miss Sally

The Government still hasn't answered much about the Vegas shooting. 

I'd not hold my breath waiting on any info for a death in Niger sadly.


----------



## Empress

Miss Sally said:


> The Government still hasn't answered much about the Vegas shooting.
> 
> I'd not hold my breath waiting on any info for a death in Niger sadly.


It chills me to the bone that a man can shoot almost 600 people and it's basically shrugged off. No official is even attempting to give a motive or much else.


----------



## Goku

So we all agree that government is the enemy? Good :cozy


----------



## Miss Sally

ReignDeer said:


> It chills me to the bone that a man can shoot almost 600 people and it's basically shrugged off. No official is even attempting to give a motive or much else.


It's suspicious as fuck.

Either there is stuff that ties him to a bigger terrorist threat or the lax security and Police response is so bad that it getting out would cost everyone involved millions. 

I've never seen it this quiet, usually info floods the media, with this it's hush hush.


----------



## Reaper

Welll ... Life comes at you fast:



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942793291862507525
So, does this mean that the best way to emancipate the black man is to own the black man? Someone give me a lesson in identitarian politics here.


----------



## MrMister

ReignDeer said:


> It chills me to the bone that a man can shoot almost 600 people and it's basically shrugged off. No official is even attempting to give a motive or much else.


Another thing that is astounding to me is that Mandalay Bay is seemingly not going to face any consequences of their negligence.


----------



## Empress

Trump reacts to today's crash


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942827072824672262

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942832105448529920

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942831261877506050


----------



## birthday_massacre

ReignDeer said:


> Trump reacts to today's crash
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942827072824672262
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942832105448529920
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942831261877506050


I thought Trump hates socialism.

Also

http://time.com/5069968/amtrak-derailment-infrastructure-plan-donald-trump/

*President Trump Proposed a Huge Cut to Rail Spending. Then Blamed the Amtrak Derailment on Poor Infrastructure*

As authorities were still trying to determine the causes — and the exact death toll — of Monday’s Amtrak derailment in Washington state, President Donald Trump immediately waded into a policy debate, teasing a “soon to be submitted infrastructure plan” for “roads, bridges, tunnels, railways (and more).”

“It is all the more reason why we must immediately start fixing the infrastructure of the United States,” Trump said in subsequent remarks on Monday.

But there’s one problem — the Trump Administration already has submitted an infrastructure plan as part of its 2018 budget proposal — and it proposes deep cuts to the nation’s rail systems.

Trump often talked about a $1 trillion infrastructure plan when he was a candidate, and he included a $1 trillion private/public infrastructure investment in the 2018 budget his administration proposed to Congress in May. The plan called for $200 billion in spending in infrastructure, but it also also limited money to build new or expand existing lines and slashed subsidies for rural lines.

Overall, the budget request would slash railroad funding from the President Barack Obama era by almost 13%, according to The Washington Post.

“The President’s infrastructure agenda reflects a “bait-and-switch”: rhetoric that suggests a commitment to rebuilding, but policies that would undermine our ability to do so,” wrote Jacob Leibenluft, a Senior Adviser at Center on Budget and Policy Priorities who worked for the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton’s campaign, in June.

The Post reported in September that the president was backing away from private-public partnership funding, but his administration has yet to reveal his new method of financing infrastructure investments. The White House did not immediately respond to request for comment about the infrastructure plan to which Trump alluded on Monday.

When Trump was touting his infrastructure plan, he seemed to be insinuating that funding had been sacrificed because of the money spent in the Middle East, citing a $7 trillion pricetag that exceeds most estimates. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have expanded, they’ve also exploded the national debt. Budgets, however, did not reflect those true costs and for years were treated as separate spending decisions, usually financed through borrowing.

And the criticism of red ink runs counter to this week’s push by Republicans in Congress to add another $1.5 trillion in borrowing to pay for tax cuts.


And there is this

http://time.com/5068604/trump-obama-climate-change-national-security/

*President Trump to Reverse Obama's Recognition of Climate Change as a National Security Threat*

President Trump will remove former President Obama’s declaration of climate change as a national security threat, according to a report on Trump’s new national security strategy plan.

Trump will announce his new plan on Monday, which cements his platform of “America First” by propping up American interests in what the president views as a competition with other countries, the Associated Press reports. People familiar with the plan tell the AP that Trump will establish that the U.S. will defend itself, even if it requires cutting others out on issues such as climate change.

Obama in 2015 said climate change presents an “urgent and growing threat to our national security.” That designation will disappear under Trump’s new strategy plan. The AP reports the plan will instead note the “importance of environmental stewardship.”

Trump, who referred to climate change as a hoax prior to taking office, has waged war on Obama’s regulations concerning the issue. Trump previously promised to pull the U.S. from the Paris Agreement—an international agreement reached in 2015 that provides a global approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.


----------



## Cabanarama

ReignDeer said:


> Trump reacts to today's crash
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942827072824672262
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942832105448529920


That's a pretty leftist response... And had a Democrat posted that, the right would cry about a "Socialist lefty exploiting a tragedy for their own political agenda"

Honestly, he's actually right on this one though. Maybe he should call out his fellow Republicans for obstructing anything being done to fix the infrastructure...


----------



## virus21

CamillePunk said:


> People use "capitalism" to refer to a lot of shit that fundamentally has nothing to do with the private ownership of the means of production or the free exchange of goods and services, which is all that capitalism really is.


And when most people bitch about the wrongs of capitalism, they're usually referring to corporatism


----------



## Reaper

Of course I oppose infrastructure spending. Spending by the government is and always will be an inefficient use of national resources. At most I support the idea of a national disaster relief fund but that too needs to be made voluntary. 

BTW with Meuller now going after Jill Stein now, the "investigation" is turning into a tumor. 

Anyone supporting it needs to take a long hard look at what they're supporting. This monster needs to be destroyed before it turns into an even bigger national embarrassment the it already is now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> Of course I oppose infrastructure spending.
> 
> BTW with Meuller now going after Jill Stein now, the "investigation" is turning into a tumor.
> 
> Anyone supporting it needs to take a long hard look at what they're supporting. This monster needs to be destroyed before it turns into an even bigger national embarrassment the it already is now.


The only thing that is a national embarrassment is Trump, and yes it will be an even bigger embarrassment when ht goes down, because he will have to be impeached.

But we get it, you don't care if Trump thinks he's above the law and can break any laws he wants. Trump wouldn't be trying so hard to shut this investigation down of he had nothing to hide.

As for Jill Stein isn't that old news, wasn't that found out back in June or July?


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> The only thing that is a national embarrassment is Trump, and yes it will be an even bigger embarrassment when ht goes down, because he will have to be impeached.
> 
> But we get it, you don't care if Trump thinks he's above the law and can break any laws he wants. Trump wouldn't be trying so hard to shut this investigation down of he had nothing to hide.
> 
> As for Jill Stein isn't that old news, wasn't that found out back in June or July?


Trump is not trying to stop the investigation.

You still haven't gotten a clue yet about this because of your antitrump hysteria.

I'm actually here looking at it from the overall national landsce of horrendous moves against even people like Jill Stein and you don't give a fuck as long as your antitrump fantasy is kept alive.

Your interest in this has nothing to do with the truth.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> Trump is not trying to stop the investigation.


LOL good one. Your delusions are really getting bad


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL good one. Your delusions are really getting bad


How is he trying to stop it? What moves has he made against it to try to stop it?

Be specific.


----------



## FriedTofu

virus21 said:


> And when most people bitch about the wrongs of capitalism, they're usually referring to corporatism


Unless you are content to be a small player, wouldn't a person being successful in the first lead to wanting the second?


----------



## CamillePunk

Pretty sure everyone is reporting today that Trump firmly believes he's going to be exonerated and is currently being lulled into a false confidence by his legal team, and they're forecasting a Trump meltdown when the exoneration doesn't come. There's certainly no indication he's trying to shut it down or anything like that. 

I'm going to go ahead and predict he won't be exonerated per se, as the whole point of this investigation for the deep state is for it to go on and on and be a distraction and stain on Trump's presidency, but it will eventually die out without any significant results. There won't be a Trump "meltdown". He's too busy winning on issues that matter to melt down over this circus sideshow. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> How is he trying to stop it? What moves has he made against it to try to stop it?
> 
> Be specific.


He fired Comey for one, he is looking to fire Mueller. He has admitted to firing Comey because of the Russian investigation


He is urging the GOP to get it shut down

http://www.businessinsider.com/trum...aders-to-end-the-russia-investigation-2017-11


You can ignore the facts all you want





CamillePunk said:


> Pretty sure everyone is reporting today that Trump firmly believes he's going to be exonerated and is currently being lulled into a false confidence by his legal team, and they're forecasting a Trump meltdown when the exoneration doesn't come. There's certainly no indication he's trying to shut it down or anything like that.
> 
> I'm going to go ahead and predict he won't be exonerated per se, as the whole point of this investigation for the deep state is for it to go on and on and be a distraction and stain on Trump's presidency, but it will eventually die out without any significant results. There won't be a Trump "meltdown". He's too busy winning on issues that matter to melt down over this circus sideshow. :lol


The whole reason they are lulling him into a false sense he is going to be exonerated is so he doesn't fire Muller so the dems dont have a reason to impeach him. Which if Trump fires Muller he should be impeached.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> He fired Comey for one, he is looking to fire Mueller. He has admitted to firing Comey because of the Russian investigation
> 
> 
> He is urging the GOP to get it shut down
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/trum...aders-to-end-the-russia-investigation-2017-11
> 
> 
> You can ignore the facts all you want


So basically no steps taken to end the investigation even though he has actual steps he can take to do so. 

Ok. Keep fantasizing.

Stop derailing this from the conversation about the ridiculous nature of expanding this national embarrassment further to investigate Jill Stein.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> So basically no steps taken to end the investigation even though he has actual steps he can take to do so.
> 
> Ok. Keep fantasizing.
> 
> Stop derailing this from the conversation about the ridiculous nature of expanding this national embarrassment further to investigate Jill Stein.


I proved how Trump is TRYING to and of course, you deflect. He already fired Comey which was a huge step and Trump admitted a reason he fired him was that of the Russia investigation.

The only people that try to derail the conversation are people like you because you love to distract with meaningless bullshit posts instead of what a disaster Trump is and how much closer Muller is at getting Trump and his admin.

You can't stop people from pointing out what Trump is doing. Go to fox new forums if you can't deal with the truth.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> The only people that try to derail the conversation are people like you because you love to distract with meaningless bullshit posts instead of what a disaster Trump is.


You derailed my comment about the expansion of the probe into Jill Stein back to Trump ebcause you're obsessed and missing the bigger picture. Sorry but there are other topics in politics that are discussed on here and let other people see posts of interest. 

Your antitrump hysteria is well know. Let other people converse instead of filling this thread with your deluded fantasies. You have your conspiracy theory thread for that. 

The probe is constantly delegtimizing itself.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> You derailed my comment about the expansion of the probe into Jill Stein back to Trump ebcause you're obsessed and missing the bigger picture. Sorry but there are other topics in politics that are discussed on here and let other people see posts of interest.
> 
> Your antitrump hysteria is well know. Let other people converse instead of filling this thread with your deluded fantasies.
> 
> The probe is constantly delegtimizing itself.


yeah, you have to post other political issues in a Trump thread to distract from what a disaster Trump is, that is why people like you always ignore all the fucked up things he is doing and instead would rather post about Taylor Swift and other BS

And since you can't defend Trump you do the kind of bullshit you are doing right now. That does not work, I'll keep pointing out how bad and corrupt Trump is.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

I'm not taking any sides at all, but I did see earlier in the UK press that they were reporting Trump as saying he wasn't looking to fire Mueller. I'm not going back to look for the article but I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> yeah, you have to post other political issues in a Trump thread to distract from what a disaster Trump is, that is why people like you always ignore all the fucked up things he is doing and instead would rather post about Taylor Swift and other BS


No. I don't need to post about Trump's failures or successes. Plenty of people do that already. I just quick comment on them and move on. I don't obsess and I don't need everyone to worship my opinion. 

The shit about Taylor Swift is relevant because she's only being attacked based on the delusion that she's a Trump supporter by deluded hystericals from your camp. 



RavishingRickRules said:


> I'm not taking any sides at all, but I did see earlier in the UK press that they were reporting Trump as saying he wasn't looking to fire Mueller. I'm not going back to look for the article but I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find. :shrug


Trump has several legal paths to fire Meuller. He has made no attempt to follow any such paths.

The probe expanding to Jill Stein (if true) makes it pretty clear that they not only don't have a direction but that its continued expansion is a result of it trying to find something to make itself legitimate despite giving us nothing. They're hoping to find something somewhere and at this point it's ballooning out of control.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RavishingRickRules said:


> I'm not taking any sides at all, but I did see earlier in the UK press that they were reporting Trump as saying he wasn't looking to fire Mueller. I'm not going back to look for the article but I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find. :shrug


He said the same thing about Comey right before he fired him. You really believe anything Trump says?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

birthday_massacre said:


> He said the same thing about Comey right before he fired him. You really believe anything Trump says?


It may surprise you to learn but I don't actually think about Trump an awful lot at all. I'm a bit more pre-occupied with Theresa May being possibly the weakest/worst Prime Minister in history and potentially making the Brexit fallout even worse than the (already vindicated) predictions of economic experts. Just be thankful that your leader isn't seemingly doing their hardest to drive the nation into insignificance on the world stage. :shrug


----------



## birthday_massacre

RavishingRickRules said:


> It may surprise you to learn but I don't actually think about Trump an awful lot at all. I'm a bit more pre-occupied with Theresa May being possibly the weakest/worst Prime Minister in history and potentially making the Brexit fallout even worse than the (already vindicated) predictions of economic experts. *Just be thankful that your leader isn't seemingly doing their hardest to drive the nation into insignificance on the world stage*. :shrug


But Trump is doing just that with some of his decisions when it comes to foreign relations. Trump is turning most of the world against the US and because of that, its going to leave the US behind.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

birthday_massacre said:


> But Trump is doing just that with some of his decisions when it comes to foreign relations. Trump is turning most of the world against the US and because of that, its going to leave the US behind.


Sorry, but are you serious? All Trump is doing is ruffling a few feathers, you're still going to be a superpower regardless of how many terms he serves. It's a little different from plunging your economy into turmoil, having no trade deals so losing your largest industry sector (financial services for us) as well as increasing the cost of imports to ridiculous levels. Removing workers rights and protections, potentially restarting terrorism between Northern Ireland and the Republic and generally forcing our country down a path that will leave us as an afterthought in world affairs in a decade or sooner. I know the USA is generally a lot more inward looking than many other places in the world but seriously, you have nothing to worry about in terms of international standing, you're still top dog lol.

edit: And I'll tell you something else, I might not like him but I'd have Trump as PM in a second if it meant getting rid of Theresa May. He'd at least be able to negotiate something better than "we'll give you everything, just please give me progress so my party don't tear me down."


----------



## Reaper

America's economy is currently in the best shape it has been in a long time. The UK needs to find a way to cater to American markets somehow if they want a piece of the pie.

I do agree with Ravishing though. This current UK government is one of the worst I've seen on display but what's waiting in the ranks isn't any better either. Britian's future just like Canada's future is just bleak.


----------



## Art Vandaley

I still can't think about May without thinking about the wheat field comment.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Merry Reaper said:


> America's economy is currently in the best shape it has been in a long time. The UK needs to find a way to cater to American markets somehow if they want a piece of the pie.


Most of us don't tbh. Trading with the USA means a dramatic drop in the quality of food we import, and the USA has made it clear that we're getting shafted in any trade with their recent actions on trade with the UK. The European market is much better for us all-round because we retain our much higher food standards, our financial services fit a huge need that wouldn't translate to the US (that's our biggest export actually) and it's closer to us than some of your states are to each other so not only are we getting this phenomenal produce but we're getting it fresh. Oysters could leave France this moment and I could have them for brunch if I wanted in 5 hours time.

edit: also the actual best candidate for a "good" Prime Minister is sadly in a very ineffectual party, in Vince Cable. If nothing else he's the only party leader who's got the balls and brains enough to want to stop the Brexit disaster before it happens. May and her entire party are worthless (what sort of Conservative party increases national debt in 2 terms by more than every single left-wing party combined? ridiculous) and Corbyn's a loon (though at least he actually gives a shit about people, as opposed to the party who're responsible for the deaths of thousands of vulnerable and disabled people.) It's all a bit of a mess tbh. It's not helped by the fact that Brexit voters are so hysterical about it all that they're unable to see the facts presented to them in that all of the bad things they were told would happen are happening (because being "sick of experts" means you're listening to people who don't know what the fuck they're talking bad.) Even a super-soft brexit is unlikely to be remotely positive at this stage, it's why most of my family are moving to Ireland and me and my girl are looking towards France with me transferring internally. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Most of us don't tbh.


I was thinking simpler. Re-invigorate your manufacturing and sell us things we want. Fill the quality void that exists between ultra cheap Chinese shit and mid-tier quality that's not over-priced. The good quality German shit is too expensive. 

Where is Britain's manufacturing headed these days anyways. I hear that it's one of the worst in the developing world ATM. What's wrong with it?


----------



## Art Vandaley

I too believe replacing Britain's financial services industry with a manufacturing industry in 2017 is a sensible economic move.


----------



## CamillePunk

hey guys this is the Trump thread not the Minor Powers Discussion Thread


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> hey guys this is the Trump thread not the Minor Powers Discussion Thread


Don't give the UK that much credit...


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/943050540472307712
:lmao


----------



## Reaper

He needs to be put on suicide watch.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Merry Reaper said:


> I was thinking simpler. Re-invigorate your manufacturing and sell us things we want. Fill the quality void that exists between ultra cheap Chinese shit and mid-tier quality that's not over-priced. The good quality German shit is too expensive.
> 
> Where is Britain's manufacturing headed these days anyways. I hear that it's one of the worst in the developing world ATM. What's wrong with it?


We just don't do it tbh. Thatcher pretty much started the cycle but we just don't' really "do" manufacturing all told. That's why exiting the EU and thinking American trade will save us is a horrific idea, our stuff would be worse quality than China and more expensive. We're a service industry nation, which is awesome inside the EU because we fill a very important role there (and we're one of the 3 most powerful nations.) Outside of the EU our major industries aren't really required by any potential trade partners - there's a reason that the majority of our politicians were pro-Remain, they're neither stupid nor deluded into thinking we had a chance in hell outside of the EU. Farage is one of the "well we're Great Britain they need us more than we need them" camp (laughable at best) and tbh there's a reason he's never been elected to UK Parliament as the guy really is a joke for the most part. Boris Johnson however is a little more dangerous, he represents the extreme right of the Conservative party who mainly want us out of the EU so they could rewrite our legal system as they see fit (thankfully they didn't manage to push through their plan of bypassing Parliament and making whatever changes they see fit as part of Brexit.) Whether you agree with what the EU do or not, it's almost impossible to advocate that we'd ever be better off outside of the EU if you know anything about the British economy. I personally think Vince Cable and David Cameron both had the better idea of a "reformed EU" over a broken one. :shrug


----------



## Draykorinee

We'd be okay at manufacturing but we're cutting off the Polish migrants so who is going to work in our factories?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> We'd be okay at manufacturing but we're cutting off the Polish migrants so who is going to work in our factories?


Nah, even with them we wouldn't be worth shit in manufacturing. We'd be trying to create an industry out of thin air whilst enticing companies to a country that's plunged itself into economic hell. Barnier pretty much confirmed everything I've been saying today in that our financial services will not be able to work in the EU anymore. Those Brexiteer dumbfucks should've listened to the experts, they've fucked the entire nation.


----------



## Draykorinee

RavishingRickRules said:


> Nah, even with them we wouldn't be worth shit in manufacturing. We'd be trying to create an industry out of thin air whilst enticing companies to a country that's plunged itself into economic hell. Barnier pretty much confirmed everything I've been saying today in that our financial services will not be able to work in the EU anymore. Those Brexiteer dumbfucks should've listened to the experts, they've fucked the entire nation.


Yeah, I was just being facetious.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Trump's approval rating sinks to record low for a president at this point in his first year at 35%. Guess he can't stop winning


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/943050540472307712
> :lmao


Honestly if Trump just ignored most of these people they'd just destroy themselves with their own stupidity. They want that attention so bad. There's been some good zingers from Trump tho many times was like, "Just ignore them, they'll drive themselves crazy."


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/943050540472307712
> :lmao


Eminem hasn't been mainstream relevant for a long time it seems, but ironically SM was also describing himself and his ilk of self appointed tube 'Political Commentators'.


----------



## CamillePunk

yeahbaby! said:


> Eminem hasn't been mainstream relevant for a long time it seems, but ironically SM was also describing himself and his ilk of self appointed tube 'Political Commentators'.


Actually they've been rising in popularity massively over the last couple of years.  It's something to see given that I've been following some of these people for several years. 

You're right about Eminem, though.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> Honestly if Trump just ignored most of these people they'd just destroy themselves with their own stupidity. T*hey want that attention so bad.* There's been some good zingers from Trump tho many times was like, "Just ignore them, they'll drive themselves crazy."


No one wants more attention so badly than Trump. And no one looks more stupid with their tweets than Trump. Trump is a national embarrassment. At least eminem isn't president.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Fucked up the tax bill so they'll have to re-vote tomorrow.

https://www.budget.senate.gov/ranking-member/newsroom/press/parliamentarian-determines-three-provisions-in-republican-tax-bill-are-impermissible



> *Parliamentarian Determines Three Provisions in Republican Tax Bill Are Impermissible*
> 
> WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 – The Senate parliamentarian advised Tuesday that three provisions in the Republican tax bill violate the Byrd rule, including a provision allowing for the use of 529 savings accounts for home-schooling expenses, the short title: “The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” and part of the criteria used to determine whether the endowments of private universities are subject to the legislation’s new excise tax. These provisions may be struck from the conference report absent 60 votes.
> 
> Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), ranking member of the Budget Committee, and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), ranking member of the Finance Committee, issued a joint statement in response to the decision:
> 
> “In the mad dash to provide tax breaks for their billionaire campaign contributors, our Republican colleagues forgot to comply with the rules of the Senate. We applaud the parliamentarian for determining that three provisions in this disastrous bill are in violation of the Byrd rule. It is our intention to raise a point of order to remove these provisions from the conference report and require the House to vote on this bill again. Instead of providing tax breaks to the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations, we need to rebuild the disappearing middle class.”


See this is what I was talking about last week. Stop rushing legislation for no good reason. Who knows what else is fucked up in it. Why does this need to get done before Christmas? They'll still have a majority in the new year even with Doug Jones being seated.


----------



## birthday_massacre

2 Ton 21 said:


> Fucked up the tax bill so they'll have to re-vote tomorrow.
> 
> https://www.budget.senate.gov/ranking-member/newsroom/press/parliamentarian-determines-three-provisions-in-republican-tax-bill-are-impermissible
> 
> 
> 
> See this is what I was talking about last week. Stop rushing legislation for no good reason. Who knows what else is fucked up in it. Why does this need to get done before Christmas? They'll still have a majority in the new year even with Doug Jones being seated.


Most Republicans admit they don't even read the bill or know whats in it. They should not even be allowed to vote if they haven't read the bill. It needs to get done before xmas because Trump and the GOP want a "win".

Plus with Mccain who may have to retire and the DNC gaining another seat, they want to pass it ASAP before the Dems can block it. Right now its razor thin.


----------



## CamillePunk

Bernie straight up lying about the tax bill not helping anyone but "billionaires and millionaires". Tax calculators hosted by publications that hate Trump show me standing to gain quite a bit from the new tax bill. I guess the socialist living it up in multiple vacation homes doesn't think I deserve that though.  I have no time for people who genuinely think Bernie is a "good guy" who just doesn't understand economics. He's actually quite vile as a person.

Meanwhile you have Democrats who cut themselves and yell "Genocide" every time a Republican doesn't want to increase funding for a social program suddenly acting like they give a shit about the national debt. The hypocrisy and phony grandstanding is enough to choke on.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Bernie straight up lying about the tax bill not helping anyone but "billionaires and millionaires". Tax calculators hosted by publications that hate Trump show me standing to gain quite a bit from the new tax bill. I guess the socialist living it up in multiple vacation homes doesn't think I deserve that though.  I have no time for people who genuinely think Bernie is a "good guy" who just doesn't understand economics. He's actually quite vile as a person.
> 
> Meanwhile you have Democrats who cut themselves and yell "Genocide" every time a Republican doesn't want to increase funding for a social program suddenly acting like they give a shit about the national debt. The hypocrisy and phony grandstanding is enough to choke on.


LOL calling Bernie a vile person but sucking Trumps dick all the time. You just keep proving why Trump supporters are a joke


----------



## Cabanarama

2 Ton 21 said:


> Fucked up the tax bill so they'll have to re-vote tomorrow.
> 
> https://www.budget.senate.gov/ranking-member/newsroom/press/parliamentarian-determines-three-provisions-in-republican-tax-bill-are-impermissible
> 
> 
> 
> See this is what I was talking about last week. Stop rushing legislation for no good reason. Who knows what else is fucked up in it. Why does this need to get done before Christmas? They'll still have a majority in the new year even with Doug Jones being seated.


Because they know the longer this drags out the more and more backlash it will receive and they're scared that someone will succumb to it. Att the very least, force them to gut certain aspects in order to get it passed.
Plus they want to get it done as quickly as possible because waiting until the new year will mean one month closer to the midterm elections which means an even bigger bloodbath.



birthday_massacre said:


> Most Republicans admit they don't even read the bill or know whats in it. They should not even be allowed to vote if they haven't read the bill. It needs to get done before xmas because Trump and the GOP want a "win".
> 
> Plus with Mccain who may have to retire and the DNC gaining another seat, they want to pass it ASAP before the Dems can block it. Right now its razor thin.


If McCain dies or retires soon, his temporary replacement will be a Republican who will vote for the bill, so the Dems won't have a chance to take his seat until they have a special election during the 2018 midterms.



CamillePunk said:


> Meanwhile you have Democrats who cut themselves and yell "Genocide" every time a Republican doesn't want to increase funding for a social program suddenly acting like they give a shit about the national debt. The hypocrisy and phony grandstanding is enough to choke on.


Except that since the 80's the Democrats have always worked to curb the debt while the Republicans have always exploded it. The phonygrandstanding on the issue comes from the Republicans. 
Reagan's policies put the country in such deep dept that Bush was forced to go against his promise of "no new taxes" that he was forced to do a tax hike. That cost him re-election, and in came Bill Clinton, who left this country with a decent surplus. Then Bush comes in and turns the surplus into the largest deficit in the nations history, then Obama came in and slashed the deficit by 2/3.


----------



## CamillePunk

Cabanarama said:


> Except that since the 80's the Democrats have always worked to curb the debt while the Republicans have always exploded it. The phonygrandstanding on the issue comes from the Republicans.
> Reagan's policies put the country in such deep dept that Bush was forced to go against his promise of "no new taxes" that he was forced to do a tax hike. That cost him re-election, and in came Bill Clinton, who left this country with a decent surplus. *Then Bush comes in and turns the surplus into the largest deficit in the nations history, then Obama came in and slashed the deficit by 2/3.*


Blowing up the national debt is a bipartisan endeavor, and hailing Obama for reducing deficits by 2/3rds while doubling the national debt is as disingenuous as it gets given that statistic is only correct when comparing his last year in office to his first. The problem with doing that is that he signed a spending bill that increased spending by 800 billion in his first year in office. So yes, Obama reduced the deficits by 2/3rds from a staggeringly high figure that he had a large responsibility for in the first place. All of this while doubling the national debt. 

Thanks Obama. 

Meanwhile if Hillary or Bernie had won they would've wanted to implement more socialized medicine and "free college" on top of everything else. Do you think Democrats would still be talking about the national debt then? :lol 

It is phony grandstanding. The fact that the Republicans do the same shit doesn't change that fact.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Blowing up the national debt is a bipartisan endeavor, and hailing Obama for reducing deficits by 2/3rds while doubling the national debt is as disingenuous as it gets given that statistic is only correct when comparing his last year in office to his first. The problem with doing that is that he signed a spending bill that increased spending by 800 billion in his first year in office. So yes, Obama reduced the deficits by 2/3rds from a staggeringly high figure that he had a large responsibility for in the first place. All of this while doubling the national debt.
> 
> Thanks Obama.
> 
> Meanwhile if Hillary or Bernie had won they would've wanted to implement more socialized medicine and "free college" on top of everything else. Do you think Democrats would still be talking about the national debt then? :lol
> 
> It is phony grandstanding. The fact that the Republicans do the same shit doesn't change that fact.


Single payer would save the US money. 17 trillion over 10 years. And it would cover EVERYONE. So how is that a bad thing? Only in a conseratives, warped mind is that a bad thing.

And there you go deflecting how Obama cut the deficits by 2/3rd, you ignore the fact why the national debt had to go up was because of all the shit Bush did before Obama took office.


----------



## Cabanarama

CamillePunk said:


> Blowing up the national debt is a bipartisan endeavor, and hailing Obama for reducing deficits by 2/3rds while doubling the national debt is as disingenuous as it gets given that statistic is only correct when comparing his last year in office to his first. The problem with doing that is that he signed a spending bill that increased spending by 800 billion in his first year in office. So yes, Obama reduced the deficits by 2/3rds from a staggeringly high figure that he had a large responsibility for in the first place. All of this while doubling the national debt.
> 
> Thanks Obama.
> 
> Meanwhile if Hillary or Bernie had won they would've wanted to implement more socialized medicine and "free college" on top of everything else. Do you think Democrats would still be talking about the national debt then? :lol
> 
> It is phony grandstanding. The fact that the Republicans do the same shit doesn't change that fact.


Do you even know how the debt/ deficit even works?
Obviously you don't.
The debt is a direct result of the deficit. 
Dubya inherited a 200 billion surplus and turned it into a $1.4 trillion deficit. The debt "doubling" (going from 11.9 to 19.5 isn't exactly doubling, but close enough) during Obama's presidency was caused by the deficit he inherited.

And imagine how much more he could have done had he not been sabotaged by the Republicans, who were pretty much doing anything they could to hurt the country/ prevent anything from being fixed just so they could point the blame on Obama. And of course it worked, because if you place the blame on the black guy and white America will eat it up hook line and sinker.

Also, Democrats are bringing up what this does to the debt is more about calling out the Republicans hypocrisy than anything else. The Republicans are the ones who have always blown up the deficit when they're in power, then start to cry about the debt (that they caused) once the Democrats take control.

Oh and by the way, the 800 spending bill in Obama's first year you cite help pull America off the fiscal cliff and saved the country from the worst financial crisis since the great depression after the Republicans crashed the economy.


----------



## FITZ

All this stuff is confusing. I just know the tax calculator I saw on Facebook says I’m gonna pay $1,900 less a year in taxes. So I’m good.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Cabanarama said:


> Do you even know how the debt/ deficit even works?
> Obviously you don't.
> The debt is a direct result of the deficit.
> Dubya inherited a 200 billion surplus and turned it into a $1.4 trillion deficit. The debt "doubling" (going from 11.9 to 19.5 isn't exactly doubling, but close enough) during Obama's presidency was caused by the deficit he inherited.
> 
> And imagine how much more he could have done had he not been sabotaged by the Republicans, who were pretty much doing anything they could to hurt the country/ prevent anything from being fixed just so they could point the blame on Obama. And of course it worked, because if you place the blame on the black guy and white America will eat it up hook line and sinker.
> 
> Also, Democrats are bringing up what this does to the debt is more about calling out the Republicans hypocrisy than anything else. The Republicans are the ones who have always blown up the deficit when they're in power, then start to cry about the debt (that they caused) once the Democrats take control.
> 
> Oh and by the way, the 800 spending bill in Obama's first year you cite help pull America off the fiscal cliff and saved the country from the worst financial crisis since the great depression after the Republicans crashed the economy.


He does not think the government should exist outside of the military and companies and corporations should pretty much not have to answer to anyone. One big reason he likes Trump is that he sold himself as an outsider that would get rid of a lot of government rules that are on the books right now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

FITZ said:


> All this stuff is confusing. I just know the tax calculator I saw on Facebook says I’m gonna pay $1,900 less a year in taxes. So I’m good.


So in other words you are saving about $36 a week LOL Oh yeah Trump really helping you out there and spoiler alert that "savings" is not even permanent.

Dollar tree here you come


----------



## Miss Sally

Pretty sure the surplus under Bill was due to the Dot-com bubble.


----------



## Cabanarama

Miss Sally said:


> Pretty sure the surplus under Bill was due to the Dot-com bubble.


Except that the budget had been balanced and the country was operating in the black prior to the dot com bubble. The 1999 stock market boom and 2000 crash was due to the dot com bubble, but it had little effect on the budget/ surplus. The gradual decline of the deficit and ultimately turning into a surplus was pretty consistent over the course of Clinton's entire presidency: 

He inherited a $290 billion deficit. If you look at it year by year:
1993: $255 billion deficit
1994: $203 billion deficit
1995: $163 billion deficit
1996: $107 billion deficit
1997: $22 billion deficit
1998: $69 billion surplus
1999: (the year the bubble formed) $126 billion surplus
2000: (the year the bubble popped) $236 billion surplus


----------



## Reaper

The Democrats in the 80-90's were not socialists but while espousing more government spending than the Republicans were closer to fiscal conservatives than today. Clinton was a hippie but both a cultural conservative and Classical Liberal ... His economics were fiscally conservative. Of course they at least worried a little bit about balancing budgets back then. 

Anyone with half a pulse on history knows this. It's the current Obama generation (which basically started with the full blown auto bail-out) that has fucked the democrats and their constituents over royally with their Keynesianomics and now even worse Bernienomics. Loyalty to party has led to a crazed evolution in democrat politics that will either ruin the party or ruin America - or both.

To try to paint Bill Clinton with the same brush as the current cancer that is the DNC is a complete bastardization of American history. By 2000 and Bush's election, there was barely any difference in the economic policies of the two parties.


----------



## Empress

This bill is a tax scam. If Republicans truly had any faith in it, they wouldn't have rammed it through the middle of the night. Paul Ryan can't even declare that these corporations that are getting lenient cuts will reinvest; some have already stated that doing so is not their intentions but campaigns don't fund themselves and Trump needs a legislative win. Thus, here we are.


----------



## Cabanarama

ReignDeer said:


> This bill is a tax scam. If Republicans truly had any faith in it, they wouldn't have rammed it through the middle of the night. Paul Ryan can't even declare that these corporations that are getting lenient cuts will reinvest; some have already stated that doing so is not their intentions but campaigns don't fund themselves and Trump needs a legislative win. Thus, here we are.


The fact that Republicans still push the trickle down economic theory decades after it was proven to be, as H.W. Bush called it, "voodoo economics", is embarrassing. 
What's even more embarrassing, is that people still buy into it.
But I guess as the GOP continues to cater to the racism and religious extremism of their base, their base will continue to be okay with them being fucked over economically in favor of the wealthy puppet masters of the GOP. 
Hopefully by the time the Democrats take back control it won't be too late to stop this from doing the same kind of damage that the Reagan and Bush tax cuts did...
At least we know that in the long term, as the Republican base continues to shrink, and as the more liberal demographics grow as a percentage of the population (millenials, gen y'ers, minorities, residents of larger metropolitan areas), while the more conservative demographics shrink as a percentage of the population (baby boomers, whites, religious nuts, small town rural hicks), that the Republican party will have to revert back to its new deal era Rockefeller Republicanism ways to stay alive.


----------



## Kabraxal

Hearing AT&T is handing out bonuses due to the cuts.... what’s the spin gonna be for that?


----------



## Cabanarama

Kabraxal said:


> Hearing AT&T is handing out bonuses due to the cuts.... what’s the spin gonna be for that?


It's a strategic political move, plain and simple. AT&T is trying to acquire Time Warner and the Feds are trying to block it from happening. They're helping PR for the tax scam in the hopes that the Feds will let the merger go through in return.


----------



## Kabraxal

Cabanarama said:


> It's a political move, plain and simple. AT&T is trying to acquire Time Warner and the Feds are trying to block it from happening. They're helping PR for the tax scam in hoping that in exchange the Feds will let the merger go through.


You dodn’t disappoint. Some people just can’t give credit to a good occurence....


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Great day.


----------



## Cabanarama

Kabraxal said:


> You dodn’t disappoint. Some people just can’t give credit to a good occurence....




How about the fact that, even though AT&T rakes in about $25 billion in profits annually, they already pay barely anything in taxes because they use more loopholes and have one of the lowest effective tax rates of any major corporation, so it's not like they suddenly have a lot more money freed up and are sharing the spoils with their employees. If they wanted to be generous and give all their employees an extra $1000, they could do it easily as it would be a drop in the bucket for them.

This is 100% to curry favor with the Trump administration to help their chances of the Time Warner merger happening. If wasn't for the attempted merger, they wouldn't be doing this.


----------



## virus21

Oh for fuck sakes. It just never stops.


----------



## Kabraxal

Cabanarama said:


> How about the fact that, even though AT&T rakes in about $25 billion in profits annually, they already pay barely anything in taxes because they use more loopholes and have one of the lowest effective tax rates of any major corporation, so it's not like they suddenly have a lot more money freed up and are sharing the spoils with their employees. If they wanted to be generous and give all their employees an extra $1000, they could do it easily as it would be a drop in the bucket for them.
> 
> This is 100% to curry favor with the Trump administration to help their chances of the Time Warner merger happening. If wasn't for the attempted merger, they wouldn't be doing this.


Your extreme bias is showing.


----------



## Reaper

Well apparently 200000 people getting extra money is now a bad thing [emoji38]


----------



## DesolationRow

Cabanarama said:


> The fact that Republicans still push the trickle down economic theory decades after it was proven to be, as H.W. Bush called it, "voodoo economics", is embarrassing.
> What's even more embarrassing, is that people still buy into it.
> But I guess as the GOP continues to cater to the racism and religious extremism of their base, their base will continue to be okay with them being fucked over economically in favor of the wealthy puppet masters of the GOP.
> Hopefully by the time the Democrats take back control it won't be too late to stop this from doing the same kind of damage that the Reagan and Bush tax cuts did...
> At least we know that in the long term, as the Republican base continues to shrink, and as the more liberal demographics grow as a percentage of the population (millenials, gen y'ers, minorities, residents of larger metropolitan areas), while the more conservative demographics shrink as a percentage of the population (baby boomers, whites, religious nuts, small town rural hicks), that the Republican party will have to revert back to its new deal era Rockefeller Republicanism ways to stay alive.


Curious how, when right-wingers or people who want small government, or libertarians, argue on behalf of immigration restrictions, they are categorically referred to as "racists" for merely wanting a government policy pertaining to immigration altered or discontinued in an effort to preserve the kind of government they either thought they knew or would like to know. Yet your ebullient celebration of the "shrinking" of certain demographics including "baby boomers, whites, religious nuts, small town rural hicks" is of course anything but racist and certainly not in any way whatsoever intolerant. And it certainly does not serve to reestablish the very concerns that these pitifully benighted groups of people have expressed in election after election and survey after survey on the issue of immigration for decades. In fact I'm sure you would argue that this sense of happiness with which you are coating yourself at the very thought of these demographic groups withering and dying out is in fact "anti-racist." What are your thoughts concerning this fascinating dichotomy?


----------



## Reaper

Fifth Third BanCorp and Wells Fargo bumped up their minimum wages to $15

Didn't need a fucking socialist piece of crap government to do it. And this is why Bernienomics needs to fucking DIE a HORRIBLE death.

For people who don't understand economics, the reason why these companies are boosting wages because they know that the job market will become competitive and they NEED to incentivize their employees to stay lest they lose them to companies offering higher pay. Many American companies and industries will start facing a situation of almost near perfect employment meaning that they have to compete with each other for human resources as much as natural resources.


----------



## Empress

Cabanarama said:


> It's a strategic political move, plain and simple. AT&T is trying to acquire Time Warner and the Feds are trying to block it from happening. They're helping PR for the tax scam in the hopes that the Feds will let the merger go through in return.


Agreed. Once the merger goes through, they will renege on the deal, just as Carrier did. Those layoffs have started. 

Regarding your previous post, the tax cut potentially causing harm to some Trump voters won't dissuade them. Far too many of them view the "other" as taking entitlements and credits they assume belong to only them alone. Once the stagnation and regression hits, a minority took your job will be all they need to hear to place blame on something than trickle down politics not coming to their aid.


----------



## CamillePunk

FITZ said:


> All this stuff is confusing. I just know the tax calculator I saw on Facebook says I’m gonna pay $1,900 less a year in taxes. So I’m good.


BUT THE MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES 



The Hardcore Show said:


> He does not think the government should exist outside of the military and companies and corporations should pretty much not have to answer to anyone. One big reason he likes Trump is that he sold himself as an outsider that would get rid of a lot of government rules that are on the books right now.


You're still doing this? :lmao Bruhhh



Cabanarama said:


> But I guess as the GOP continues to cater to the racism and religious extremism of their base, their base will continue to be okay with them being fucked over economically in favor of the wealthy puppet masters of the GOP.


Explain how I'm being fucked over by being allowed to keep more of my own money. Because rich people will get richer as well? And? Why would that bother me? 



> At least we know that in the long term, as the Republican base continues to shrink, and as the more liberal demographics grow as a percentage of the population (millenials, gen y'ers, minorities, residents of larger metropolitan areas), while the more conservative demographics shrink as a percentage of the population (baby boomers, whites, religious nuts, small town rural hicks), that the Republican party will have to revert back to its new deal era Rockefeller Republicanism ways to stay alive.


Ah yes, there it is. You liberals can't wait for white people to die out so you can implement your horrific, objectively bad collectivist policies. I've heard many self-styled moderate liberals (many of whom are white, such is the extent of their self-hatred and indoctrination) wish for the same thing. It's fine. I'll pretend I saw and heard nothing. Wouldn't want to be labeled a conspiracy theorist or a racist for not being super keen on people wanting my race to die out because it generally doesn't follow everyone else's political trends.


----------



## Goku

DesolationRow said:


> Curious how, when right-wingers or people who want small government, or libertarians, argue on behalf of immigration restrictions, they are categorically referred to as "racists" for merely wanting a government policy pertaining to immigration altered or discontinued in an effort to preserve the kind of government they either thought they knew or would like to know. Yet your ebullient celebration of the "shrinking" of certain demographics including "baby boomers, whites, religious nuts, small town rural hicks" is of course anything but racist and certainly not in any way whatsoever intolerant. And it certainly does not serve to reestablish the very concerns that these pitifully benighted groups of people have expressed in election after election and survey after survey on the issue of immigration for decades. In fact I'm sure you would argue that this sense of happiness with which you are coating yourself at the very thought of these demographic groups withering and dying out is in fact "anti-racist." What are your thoughts concerning this fascinating dichotomy?


deso has the politest burials ever :banderas


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/943559705888284672
(That's a 200 million dollar payout to 80% of its employees btw) 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/943542799726727169
Seeing the left fight so hard to distort reality and flood Americans' minds with pessimism during this great time in our economy really tells you they care more about obtaining political power than anything. I'm sure the typical left-wing elitism will rear its ugly head soon telling us how 15 dollars a week or a 1,000 dollar bonus is barely anything, and it's that kind of tone deafness that should keep the good times coming for Trumpism.


----------



## Reaper




----------



## yeahbaby!

^ Well that is good news for the everyday workers - bravo for Corporate generosity!


----------



## Art Vandaley

Nothing to do with Boeing competing for gov contracts I'm sure.


----------



## Empress

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/943624841894252547

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/943619556509134848

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/943633128589025281

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/943612515711377413

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/943623007469260800


----------



## CamillePunk

oh man can't believe I forgot about the vital issue of whether or not trans people can serve in the military

here I was counting all the extra money that's not gonna be stolen from me next year and I forgot about the issues that truly matter :sad:


----------



## FITZ

birthday_massacre said:


> So in other words you are saving about $36 a week LOL Oh yeah Trump really helping you out there and spoiler alert that "savings" is not even permanent.
> 
> Dollar tree here you come


I’m reading this post on my new Trump PC. 


In all seriousness $1,900 a year is more than I gross in a 2 week paycheck. The tax cut basically gives me an extra paycheck and and a few hundred bucks next year. I’m doing OK and don’t need it but I imagine that can go a long way for a lot of people.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Disappointed that BM got himself banned, since we're cool outside political topics. But when you do blatant asshattery like lump all supporters and fans of Trump together as being stupid, deluded, etc. and have a hard-on for the man that's so colossal that it borders on obsession, you're gonna have a bad time.

Kindly learn from this experience, BM. :trump3



CamillePunk said:


> oh man can't believe I forgot about the vital issue of whether or not trans people can serve in the military
> 
> here I was counting all the extra money that's not gonna be stolen from me next year and I forgot about the issues that truly matter :sad:


How very dare you, you filthy, white, cis male scum. :kappa


----------



## Goku

racist trees :done


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Goku said:


> racist trees :done


The wildfires now make perfect sense. :kobelol


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/943579419238641664


> WASHINGTON/UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - *U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday threatened to cut off financial aid to countries that vote in favour of a draft United Nations resolution calling for the United States to withdraw its decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
> 
> "They take hundreds of millions of dollars and even billions of dollars, and then they vote against us. Well, we're watching those votes. Let them vote against us. We'll save a lot. We don't care," Trump told reporters at the White House.
> 
> The 193-member U.N. General Assembly will hold a rare emergency special session on Thursday - at the request of Arab and Muslim countries - to vote on a draft resolution, which the United States vetoed on Monday in the 15-member U.N. Security Council.
> 
> The remaining 14 Security Council members voted in favour of the Egyptian-drafted resolution, which did not specifically mention the United States or Trump but which expressed "deep regret at recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem."
> 
> U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley, in a letter to dozens of U.N. states on Tuesday seen by Reuters, warned that Trump had asked her to "report back on those countries who voted against us."
> 
> She bluntly echoed that call in a Twitter post: "The U.S. will be taking names."*
> 
> Several senior diplomats said Haley's warning was unlikely to change many votes in the General Assembly, where such direct, public threats are rare. Some diplomats brushed off the warning as more likely aimed at impressing U.S. voters.
> 
> According to figures from the U.S. government's aid agency USAID, in 2016 the United States provided some $13 billion in economic and military assistance to countries in sub-Saharan Africa and $1.6 billion to states in East Asia and Oceania.
> 
> It provided some $13 billion to countries in the Middle East and North Africa, $6.7 billion to countries in South and Central Asia, $1.5 billion to states in Europe and Eurasia and $2.2 billion to Western Hemisphere countries, according to USAID.
> 
> Miroslav Lajcak, president of the General Assembly, declined to comment on Trump's remarks, but added: "It's the right and responsibility of member states to express their views."
> 
> A spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres also declined to comment on Trump's remarks on Wednesday.
> 
> "I like the message that Nikki sent yesterday at the United Nations, for all those nations that take our money and then they vote against us at the Security Council, or they vote against us potentially at the assembly," Trump said.
> 
> 
> 
> 'BULLYING'
> 
> Trump abruptly reversed decades of U.S. policy this month when he recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital, generating outrage from Palestinians and the Arab world and concern among Washington's Western allies.
> 
> He also plans to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. The draft U.N. resolution calls on all countries to refrain from establishing diplomatic missions in Jerusalem.
> 
> A senior diplomat from a Muslim country, speaking on condition of anonymity, said of Haley's letter: "States resort to such blatant bullying only when they know they do not have a moral or legal argument to convince others."
> 
> Responding directly to that comment on Twitter, Haley said: "Actually it is when a country is tired of being taken for granted."
> 
> A senior Western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, described Haley's letter as "poor tactics" at the United Nations "but pretty good for Haley 2020 or Haley 2024," referring to speculation that Haley might run for higher office.
> 
> "She's not going to win any votes in the General Assembly or the Security Council, but she is going to win some votes in the U.S. population," the Western diplomat said.
> 
> A senior European diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, agreed Haley was unlikely to sway many U.N. states.
> 
> "We are missing some leadership here from the U.S. and this type of letter is definitely not helping to establish U.S. leadership in the Middle East peace process," the diplomat said.
> 
> Israel considers Jerusalem its eternal and indivisible capital and wants all embassies based there. Palestinians want the capital of an independent Palestinian state to be in the city's eastern sector, which Israel captured in a 1967 war and annexed in a move never recognised internationally.
> 
> "The first name that she should write down is Bolivia," Bolivia's U.N. Ambassador Sacha Sergio Llorentty Solíz said of Haley's message. "We regret the arrogance and disrespect to the sovereign decision of member states and to multilateralism."


:banderas

America. Fuck yeah. Let's withdraw all foreign aid to countries that wanna talk shit. So nice to have an America First president instead of a cucked globalist puppet (sorry Canada).


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Drawing your flag in the sand over Jerusalem seems more he is putting Israel first not America.


----------



## Cabanarama

Kabraxal said:


> Your extreme bias is showing.


well, truth, facts, and logic do have a very strong liberal bias...



DesolationRow said:


> Curious how, when right-wingers or people who want small government, or libertarians, argue on behalf of immigration restrictions, they are categorically referred to as "racists" for merely wanting a government policy pertaining to immigration altered or discontinued in an effort to preserve the kind of government they either thought they knew or would like to know. Yet your ebullient celebration of the "shrinking" of certain demographics including "baby boomers, whites, religious nuts, small town rural hicks" is of course anything but racist and certainly not in any way whatsoever intolerant. And it certainly does not serve to reestablish the very concerns that these pitifully benighted groups of people have expressed in election after election and survey after survey on the issue of immigration for decades. In fact I'm sure you would argue that this sense of happiness with which you are coating yourself at the very thought of these demographic groups withering and dying out is in fact "anti-racist." What are your thoughts concerning this fascinating dichotomy?


Those that are Republicans because of libertarian and small government beliefs are few and far between, especially considering that the Republican platform directly contradict the core principals of libertarianism and don't really advocate for small government. 
Let's be honest, most Republicans aren't Republicans for their economic agenda. Not many people vote Republican do so because they want to see corporate socialism, tax relief for multi millionaires, and the removal of regulations that protect small businesses being trampled on by large corporations, consumers being fucked over by businesses, and employees from being denied basic rights.
Of course, there are wealthy Republicans who support their economic agenda because it suits their personal interests (and quite frankly, I don't fault them for that). And yes, there are some people that buy into it because they think it will trickle down to them, or they think they're going to strike it rich at some point. But these people make up the minority of the Republican base.
The overwhelming number of people who vote Republicans do so because of their social agenda, which is rooted entirely on two things: white supremacy and radical evangelicalism. Yes, they go along and will fully support the economic side of the agenda as long as they cater to their
As far as the immigration issue, being against immigration, and supporting things like stronger enforcement of the border and immigration laws does not make you a racist. Every president since Reagan has increased border security and has more strictly enforced border laws and increased immigration from their predecessor. And I wouldn't label any of them as racist as that.
It becomes racist, when someone in the south or midwest who can't find a job starts blaming Mexicans in a field in California picking fruits and veggies or some Salvadorian washing dishes at some diner in New Jersey. It becomes racist when people claim to be about immigration because illegals because they think they bring in more crime (when in fact they commit crimes at a lower rate than US citizens). And of course those that are anti-immigration because they're so deep into identity politics that they want to slow down the growth of the minority population.
Generally rule of thumb. If someone supports stronger borders, tougher immigration laws, more enforcement, etc., but they don't see it as one of the more important issues, they're probably not racist. If it's one of the key issues or the key issue for them, they probably are racist. 
And let's not act like immigration is the only race issue. The Republican party has built its whole base on creating identity politics and catering to white supremacists with an us vs them mentality. It started in the 60's when they enacted the southern strategy to entice white Democratics who had become disenfranchised with the party . It continued into the 80's, when they realized they couldn't roll back the civil rights laws and Reagan found more subtle ways to suppress minorities by using the war on drugs and the prison industrial complex, all the way through the Tea Party movement and the birtherism stuff and the political rise of Donald Trump which was all nothing more than a backlash to a black man becoming president.
Let's be real, without the racist vote, You'd have about the same percentage of white people who vote Republican as the non-white vote. 
Looking at how the modern Republican party has won elections over the past four decades, and knowing that pretty soon it will no longer be effective, does make me happy.

And somehow because I'm happy that this country will be saved by the impending demographic shift makes me "racist and intolerant"?

The minority population will continue to grow to the point where it will render the Republican "southern strategy" of utilizing the identity politics they created to milk the racist propensity of many white voters ineffective

The radical evangelical vote has maxed out bother their voter turnout and GOP loyalty and thus will no longer be able to offset their shrinking portion of the population

The younger generations are overwhelmingly liberal as a result of being fucked badly by the right-wing economic policies of the Reagan, Clinton, and Bush administrations, and will soon become the majority of voters.

The Republicans have turned to anti-intellectualism to win over small minded, small town rural voters. Now it's starting to backfire, as not only are the cities becoming more liberal as more Americans are living in urban areas compared to the suburbs, but they've also been losing their suburban and college educated white voters, who were once the backbone of the party. 

I guess I am intolerant to racists. I guess I am intolerant to small minded anti-intellectual rural Americans who have failed to keep up with the changes in society and want the rest of the country/ world to suffer with them. I guess I am intolerant to religious lunatics who want laws to be passed to tell everyone else how to live their life. I guess I am intolerant to those baby boomers that fucked over future generations for their own personal gain. So be it.



ReignDeer said:


> Agreed. Once the merger goes through, they will renege on the deal, just as Carrier did. Those layoffs have started.
> 
> Regarding your previous post, the tax cut potentially causing harm to some Trump voters won't dissuade them. Far too many of them view the "other" as taking entitlements and credits they assume belong to only them alone. Once the stagnation and regression hits, a minority took your job will be all they need to hear to place blame on something than trickle down politics not coming to their aid.


The sad truth is, most Republican voters would gladly fuck themselves over it meant hurting those they hated be it liberals, minorities, or whatever else... Hell, most right wingers in this country would let their own house burn down if it meant their liberal neighbor would suffer from smoke inhalation. 



CamillePunk said:


> Ah yes, there it is. You liberals can't wait for white people to die out so you can implement your horrific, objectively bad collectivist policies. I've heard many self-styled moderate liberals (many of whom are white, such is the extent of their self-hatred and indoctrination) wish for the same thing. It's fine. I'll pretend I saw and heard nothing. Wouldn't want to be labeled a conspiracy theorist or a racist for not being super keen on people wanting my race to die out because it generally doesn't follow everyone else's political trends.


Horrific, objectively bad collectivist policies? You mean like racial and gender equality? You mean economic policies that have proven to work rather than proven failures like trickle down and liassez-faire? You mean individual liberties rather than enforcing the morality from the eyes of evangelical extremists, basically rejecting Christian Sharia? You mean adjusting and adapting to the times rather than being stuck in the past? You mean policies on issues such as climate change, healthcare, and gun control that work to actually save people's lives instead of letting them die? Actually caring about the lives of those have actually been born into being human babies and are no longer a fetus? Such horrific policies, really....

And basically, if a white person doesn't buy into Republican identity politics, doesn't view other groups as the enemy, and aren't threatened or offended by the concept of racial equality, they suffer from self hatred and indoctrination?

And if liberal policies are so bad, why are blue states so much stronger economically than red states? Why are most conservative rural areas pretty much economically subsidized by the liberal big cities, and red states need to leech off blue states like California to get by? Why did the two periods of conservative economic policies result in the two biggest economic collapses in our nations history? 



Alkomesh2 said:


> Nothing to do with Boeing competing for gov contracts I'm sure.


It's only a coincidence that the companies that are supposedly doing this kind of stuff in response to the tax bill and are giving it good PR just so happen to have a vested interest in currying favor with the Federal government and the Trump administration....


----------



## Reaper

Why this thread is full of filthy big government tax bootlickers. Other than the fact that they just hate Trump. 

We lost the war when we decided that government schools are a good thing. Abolish government schools. See society prosper. 










Statism has done far more damage to society than anything I can think of.


----------



## Kabraxal

Cabanarama said:


> well, truth, facts, and logic do have a very strong liberal bias...
> 
> 
> Except libertarians, small government people are a very small portion within the Republican party (not to mention large parts of the Republican platform directly contradict core principals of libertarianism and small government).
> Let's be honest, most Republicans aren't Republicans for their economic agenda. Not many people vote Republican do so because they want to see corporate socialism, tax relief for multi millionaires, and the removal of regulations that protect small businesses being trampled on by large corporations, consumers being fucked over by businesses, and employees from being denied basic rights.
> Of course, there are wealthy Republicans who support their economic agenda because it suits their personal interests (and quite frankly, I don't fault them for that). And yes, there are some people that buy into it because they think it will trickle down to them, or they think they're going to strike it rich at some point. But these people make up the minority of the Republican base.
> The overwhelming number of people who vote Republicans do so because of their social agenda, which is rooted entirely on two things: white supremacy and radical evangelicalism. Yes, they go along and will fully support the economic side of the agenda as long as they cater to their
> As far as the immigration issue, being against immigration, and supporting things like stronger enforcement of the border and immigration laws does not make you a racist. Every president since Reagan has increased border security and has more strictly enforced border laws and increased immigration from their predecessor. And I wouldn't label any of them as racist as that.
> It becomes racist, when someone in the south or midwest who can't find a job starts blaming Mexicans in a field in California picking fruits and veggies or some Salvadorian washing dishes at some diner in New Jersey. It becomes racist when people claim to be about immigration because illegals because they think they bring in more crime (when in fact they commit crimes at a lower rate than US citizens). And of course those that are anti-immigration because they're so deep into identity politics that they want to slow down the growth of the minority population.
> Generally rule of thumb. If someone supports stronger borders, tougher immigration laws, more enforcement, etc., but they don't see it as one of the more important issues, they're probably not racist. If it's one of the key issues or the key issue for them, they probably are racist.
> And let's not act like immigration is the only race issue. The Republican party has built its whole base on creating identity politics and catering to white supremacists with an us vs them mentality. It started in the 60's when they enacted the southern strategy to entice white Democratics who had become disenfranchised with the party . It continued into the 80's, when they realized they couldn't roll back the civil rights laws and Reagan found more subtle ways to suppress minorities by using the war on drugs and the prison industrial complex, all the way through the Tea Party movement and the birtherism stuff and the political rise of Donald Trump which was all nothing more than a backlash to a black man becoming president.
> Let's be real, without the racist vote, You'd have about the same percentage of white people who vote Republican as the non-white vote.
> Looking at how the modern Republican party has won elections over the past four decades, and knowing that pretty soon it will no longer be effective, does make me happy.
> 
> And somehow because I'm happy that this country will be saved by the impending demographic shift makes me "racist and intolerant"?
> 
> The minority population will continue to grow to the point where it will render the Republican "southern strategy" of utilizing the identity politics they created to milk the racist propensity of many white voters ineffective
> 
> The radical evangelical vote has maxed out bother their voter turnout and GOP loyalty and thus will no longer be able to offset their shrinking portion of the population
> 
> The younger generations are overwhelmingly liberal as a result of being fucked badly by the right-wing economic policies of the Reagan, Clinton, and Bush administrations, and will soon become the majority of voters.
> 
> The Republicans have turned to anti-intellectualism to win over small minded, small town rural voters. Now it's starting to backfire, as not only are the cities becoming more liberal as more Americans are living in urban areas compared to the suburbs, but they've also been losing their suburban and college educated white voters, who were once the backbone of the party.
> 
> I guess I am intolerant to racists. I guess I am intolerant to small minded anti-intellectual rural Americans who have failed to keep up with the changes in society and want the rest of the country/ world to suffer with them. I guess I am intolerant to religious lunatics who want laws to be passed to tell everyone else how to live their life. I guess I am intolerant to those baby boomers that fucked over future generations for their own personal gain. So be it.
> 
> 
> The sad truth is, most Republican voters would gladly fuck themselves over it meant hurting those they hated be it liberals, minorities, or whatever else... Hell, most right wingers in this country would let their own house burn down if it meant their liberal neighbor would suffer from smoke inhalation.
> 
> 
> Horrific, objectively bad collectivist policies? You mean like racial and gender equality? You mean economic policies that have proven to work rather than proven failures like trickle down and liassez-faire? You mean individual liberties rather than enforcing the morality from the eyes of evangelical extremists, basically rejecting Christian Sharia? You mean adjusting and adapting to the times rather than being stuck in the past? You mean policies on issues such as climate change, healthcare, and gun control that work to actually save people's lives instead of letting them die? Actually caring about the lives of those have actually been born into being human babies and are no longer a fetus? Such horrific policies, really....
> 
> And basically, if a white person doesn't buy into Republican identity politics, doesn't view other groups as the enemy, and aren't threatened or offended by the concept of racial equality, they suffer from self hatred and indoctrination?
> 
> And if liberal policies are so bad, why are blue states so much stronger economically than red states? Why are most conservative rural areas pretty much economically subsidized by the liberal big cities, and red states need to leech off blue states like California to get by? Why did the two periods of conservative economic policies result in the two biggest economic collapses in our nations history?
> 
> 
> It's only a coincidence that the companies that are supposedly doing this kind of stuff in response to the tax bill and are giving it good PR just so happen to have a vested interest in currying favor with the Federal government and the Trump administration....


O boy... the golden bullshit of “reality has a liberal bias!”. One, you aten’t a real liberal, you’re a progressive (bet you lose your shit sat an actual reality). Two, that bullshit meme marks you as someone not worth listening to. Buh bye.


----------



## Reaper

I love how these DNC tools worship their Schumers and Pelosis and Clintons and Obamas who have ALL made their fortunes AFTER getting voted into power and not before. While the average American's wealth has declined and their debt sky-rocketed - all politicians including Bernie the Socialist has shown an increase in their fucking wealth. 

BUT THE TAXES ARE FOR THE POOR! 

Damn the illogical tax and spend crowd. It's the worst.


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> Curious how, when right-wingers or people who want small government, or libertarians, argue on behalf of immigration restrictions, they are categorically referred to as "racists" for merely wanting a government policy pertaining to immigration altered or discontinued in an effort to preserve the kind of government they either thought they knew or would like to know. Yet your ebullient celebration of the "shrinking" of certain demographics including "baby boomers, whites, religious nuts, small town rural hicks" is of course anything but racist and certainly not in any way whatsoever intolerant. And it certainly does not serve to reestablish the very concerns that these pitifully benighted groups of people have expressed in election after election and survey after survey on the issue of immigration for decades. In fact I'm sure you would argue that this sense of happiness with which you are coating yourself at the very thought of these demographic groups withering and dying out is in fact "anti-racist." What are your thoughts concerning this fascinating dichotomy?


Bravo for your post Deso but you're wasting your time. The poster in question was trying to imply criticism of Obama as mere racism. When others pointed out the scandals and even that it appears Obama increased spying on everyone, that too was dismissed as racism.

There's no point trying to have a debate or correct someone who will see racism in every critique or concern even with valid facts simply to try and dissuade the topic they don't approve of. You cannot wake someone who is pretending to be sleeping.



Kabraxal said:


> O boy... the golden bullshit of “reality has a liberal bias!”. One, you aten’t a real liberal, you’re a progressive (bet you lose your shit sat an actual reality). Two, that bullshit meme marks you as someone not worth listening to. Buh bye.


Considering the double downing on racist rhetoric with flimsy justifications was used I'd say the term "Progressive" is accurate. Imagine if someone had stated "When Black people start to die off well we'll have less crowded prisons and crime! It will be glorious when peoples less akin to committing crime take their place!", I do wonder how that would go over? Then when called out said person brings up crime statistics to "back up" their racist nonsense as if that makes it ok.

Also the part where states are leeching off Cali was funny, considering Cali siphons power, water and other resources from other states to keep itself running I had to laugh. One might point out the dam situation they had was due to laziness and inept Government officials, Cali's issues are it's own and it's not a Republican ran state. If it wasn't for the fact rich people, actors and Hollywood reside in Cali and that Northern Cali is actually nice, the Southern part of the state would give most third world countries a run for their money in terms of being an overpopulated slum.


----------



## virus21

Goku said:


> racist trees :done


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> the Southern part of the state would give most third world countries a run for their money in terms of being an overpopulated slum.


Dude. It already is. 

The crime-rates in SoCal are mirroring those of third world countries. The living conditions as bad. 

Even Bay Area Silicon Valley techs are living in communal housing and shitting in cans and out houses despite making more than a 100g. That's why there's such a huge push to get immigrants because those fuckers will live in holes in the ground and work for free. It's harder to keep Americans happier than it is Mexicans, Chinese and Indians. Of course, this takes away jobs from Black Americans as well since American blacks are closer to whites with respect to their workplace compensation demands, but nope. 

It's somehow "racist" to deny non-Americans jobs in America than it is to make the living conditions of locals better. 

MUH DREAMERS! 

California is the epitome of how not to run a state.

---


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/943611652238381056
If giving people rewards and not just politicians is "just" a PR move, I welcome it even if it's "just" a PR move .. but "just" a "PR move" is putting a lot of money in people's pockets not just politician's pockets. 

I mean, think about the baby-killing operation that is Planned Parenthood. They've been spending millions that they supposedly don't have on politicians for years now. And I haven't seen a SINGLE democrat or liberal on this site criticize them for it.


----------



## Miss Sally

Merry Reaper said:


> Dude. It already is.
> 
> The crime-rates in SoCal are mirroring those of third world countries. The living conditions as bad.
> 
> Even Bay Area Silicon Valley techs are living in communal housing and shitting in cans and out houses despite making more than a 100g. That's why there's such a huge push to get immigrants because those fuckers will live in holes in the ground and work for free. It's harder to keep Americans happier than it is Mexicans, Chinese and Indians. Of course, this takes away jobs from Black Americans as well since American blacks are closer to whites with respect to their workplace compensation demands, but nope.
> 
> It's somehow "racist" to deny non-Americans jobs in America than it is to make the living conditions of locals better.
> 
> MUH DREAMERS!
> 
> California is the epitome of how not to run a state.
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/943611652238381056
> If giving people rewards and not just politicians is "just" a PR move, I welcome it even if it's "just" a PR move .. but "just" a "PR move" is putting a lot of money in people's pockets not just politician's pockets.
> 
> I mean, think about the baby-killing operation that is Planned Parenthood. They've been spending millions that they supposedly don't have on politicians for years now. And I haven't seen a SINGLE democrat or liberal on this site criticize them for it.


I always laugh when people talk about "The People", what "People"? Obviously not Americans because then why do people who cry for cheap veggies and everything not complain about the slave labor that's needed for it? How about the sweat shops which produce their nice shoes, Apple products and clothing? Yet they talk about Universal HealthCare and a Minimum wage hike. Well not if they have to pay more for stuff!

How about the fact using illegal labor puts American blacks and hispanics out of work? Or the fact tech companies can underpay people on visas from China and India yet claim they support all these grand schemes for an American Utopia? The smartest move is not using American workers because they have politics, not so much with foreign labor, can push any agenda you want, anyone steps out of line? Bye bye visa!

Planned Parenthoods are popping up in mostly non-white places, got to make sure to keep them from spreading! I believe 55% of abortions that happen are to non-whites. Do they get a pizza party if they get it to 60%+?


----------



## DOPA

I haven't followed the tax bill super closely as I've been busy leading up to the Christmas period but there are certainly positives to be had. The corporate tax cut from 35% to 21% certainly is a huge move and one that should have come a long time ago. America having the highest corporate tax rate in the world has had a double negative effect, one that has had businesses especially small and medium size businesses having more of their money taken by the government and hindering their potential to grow, hire new employees and increase their payroll whilst due to the complexity of the tax code having big corporations being able to pay little to no tax through tax lawyers and accountants. So it's great to see the US finally join the rest of the 1st world in decreasing their corporate tax. It's one of the better things the Conservative government has done here in the UK by gradually decreasing our own corporate tax rate by about 10% to help our economy grow. Ireland have done the same to 12.5% and of course this was all started by the beloved Scandinavian countries. It's a model that's proven to work. I would have preferred the tax code itself to be simplified instead of just eliminating the deductions and closing loopholes when they can easily just be reopened and put back in place, but this is still a huge positive move. Kudos to Trump here, fantastic.

You would have thought the Bernie wing of the party who loves Denmark, Sweden and Norway would be cheering this on but alas, they typically only choose to support the social program part of the Scandinavian model whilst ignoring one of the key parts of their political apparatus which actually helps pay for those social programs by attracting growth in the private sector. Of course the Democrats and a lot of the left still do not understand that the corporate tax hits small and medium size businesses too and that cutting their business tax helps rather than hinders them but are still too focused on the evil big corporations who benefit from a high corporate tax rate/bureaucratic tax code which helps them create a barrier to entry for smaller competitors. The "eat the rich" mantra of the Democrats continues.

The news from AT&T, Boeing, Comcast and others about investing further in their employees including raising their wages is also great news. It seems as though the Trump tax plan is generating confidence in the private market and they are expecting more competition from these reforms and preparing accordingly. That is a big win for the average worker as companies are already making moves only days after the tax plan was passed to try and keep a hold of their employees. Time will tell what real effect the tax cuts will have in the long run but I am positively sure that the corporate tax cut will only be positive just like it has been here in Europe.

The Democrat position of this just being tax cuts for the rich and everyone else will be worse off is a *straight bold faced lie.* Virtually everyone will get a tax cut including the lower classes. The average household will receive a tax cut of $1,610 in 2018 which is great news. An average household earning $1 million or more would see a tax decrease of approximately $69,660, as compared with $870 for households making $50,000 to $75,000. Of course the giant tax cut for the rich according to the Democrats will be seen as a giant negative despite the fact that of course with more capital, the rich will not only of course save more money even in a progressive tax system but they also pay the bulk of the taxes. But the fact is how the Democrats are spinning it isn't true, everyone is getting a tax cut and no one is being left worse off.

I don't know enough about the tax bill to answer why for example the stock market has gone down but I do find it amusing that now anti-Trump supporters are using that as a negative against Trump in the same way Trump supporters have touted the dramatic rise in the stock market as a success. I will continue to remain consistent in the fact that the stock market never has and never will be the best indicator of how well an economy is doing. It is mostly based on the confidence that Wall Street and Big Businesses have in the economy both now, the short term and long term future and is often very erratic. We saw that the stock market crashed down after Trump's election win and bounce back up after there was more clarity and certainty over the future. We saw the stock market zoom upwards after the FED enacted stock buybacks to allow companies whose stock was held by the government to buy them back way below the market level causing their value to skyrocket. The key will be the amount of GDP growth, the amount of tax receipts and the employment levels. Stock Market value in all honesty is good to know the overall confidence in the economy and how well individual businesses especially big businesses are doing but not the overall economy. Trump has made that mistake too so it's pitiful the Democrats are holding on to this when the downfall wasn't big at all *(The DOW fell by 0.11 which isn't significant).*

The big concern is the deficits and the overall debt, which the Democrats don't care about as illustrated by Obama's presidency where he produced record levels of deficits in his administration but look for them to hit Trump with it as a talking point in these coming few years. Most Republicans don't care either and did the same with Obama. The fact is at best if spending was to the stay the same as it is now, we will see an increase of *$1.5 Trillion* in the debt and that is likely to be a low estimate if bills are continue to be riddled with pork spending buried under what the intent of those bills are supposed to push forward. The push for bigger child tax credits is obviously a political move to keep family orientated Republicans happy but economically it's horrendous considering how much spending there is still now. Am not too pleased with that being included but then the tax bill may have not passed without it. I know that slimeball Marco Rubio wouldn't have been a yes vote without it....

Republicans are notoriously horrible of doing the 2nd part of what should be done in terms of economic tax plans, that being actually cutting spending to make up for the lost revenue and in order shrink deficits. The tax cuts will obviously in some ways in terms of individual tax rates cut revenue, with the corporate tax rate that will not be known until a few years down the line because whilst in the UK we cut the corporate tax rate, the actual revenue increased due to an increased number of tax receipts. That may happen here in the US too, but the cut itself in one go is higher than any cut the Conservatives have made here, who chose to go a gradual route. So we may see a deficit here too.

Will the Republicans actually have the balls to put forward meaningful spending cuts and *GASP* shrink the size of the state further? Probably not. Even if you are a Trump supporter who is flippant about the debt because it "will never be paid back", you should still be pushing for spending cuts if you consider yourself a small/limited government Conservative or Libertarian. Spending cuts are key to encouraging state departments to cut back or for even the Federal government to close certain departments (though that is wishful thinking on my part). So we should be pushing for it.

The first part as usual has been completed in cutting off revenue from the federal government, it's time the Republicans had some balls to do what is also needed to be done. As Rand Paul has echoed time and time again: *It's time to cut their damn credit card.*

I have zero faith this is going to happen :lol.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Planned Parenthoods are popping up in mostly non-white places, got to make sure to keep them from spreading! I believe 55% of abortions that happen are to non-whites. Do they get a pizza party if they get it to 60%+?


Bringing up Planned Parenthood ... You're DEFLECTIONING! ... The fact that no one other than black nationalists (democrat blacks don't do this as much) include Planned Parenthood as part of institutional racism is a suicidal political position. 

No, seriously though ... @Christmas DOPAmine is spot on that while Republicans bring in the tax cuts, their mistake is in not cutting the bloat and that's true. 

Supporting a tax cut needs to come with curtailed spending and that's not going to happen. 

The solution here is multifold. Tax cuts are only a small part of the overall gambit of economic policies that need to be changed - but that's what's not going to happen.



> You would have thought the Bernie wing of the party who loves Denmark, Sweden and Norway would be cheering this on but alas, they typically only choose to support the social program part of the Scandinavian model whilst ignoring one of the key parts of their political apparatus which actually helps pay for those social programs by attracting growth in the private sector. Of course the Democrats and a lot of the left still do not understand that the corporate tax hits small and medium size businesses too and that cutting their business tax helps rather than hinders them but are still too focused on the evil big corporations who benefit from a high corporate tax rate/bureaucratic tax code which helps them create a barrier to entry for smaller competitors. The "eat the rich" mantra of the Democrats continues.


Population matters significantly too. You need less money to feed, clothe and provide education for less mouths. Those countries make more money (through capitalism) than they have people dependent on their social welfare programs. We can't follow the same social welfare model. The country will go bankrupt before it can provide everyone with the kind of services those countries can given the number of people we have.

The funny thing is that socialists continue to ignore failed welfare states that don't have a strong work ethic or capitalist model in their comparisons. It's incredibly disingenuous.


----------



## DOPA

Merry Reaper said:


> Population matters significantly too. You need less money to feed, clothe and provide education for less mouths. Those countries make more money (through capitalism) than they have people dependent on their social welfare programs. We can't follow the same social welfare model. The country will go bankrupt before it can provide everyone with the kind of services those countries can given the number of people we have.



That is also true, I was thinking about including that in my original post but I would have gone too off topic by then :lol. My main point was really to hit on the corporate tax cut and reform which I personally think is the biggest positive by far from what I have seen from Trump's plan.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Justin Trudeau was found guilty of an ethics violation, apparently the first prime minister in history :lol






:lol can barely answer the question


----------



## Reaper

Ow. Wow. Yeah, I've been following the story for a while. 

But he has dreamy eyes, great hair, loves to cosplay as minorities tho. 

Most chicks, gays and browns have already stopped paying attention to the lack of words coming out of his mouth.


----------



## Empress

Cabanarama said:


> Of course, there are wealthy Republicans who support their economic agenda because it suits their personal interests (and quite frankly, I don't fault them for that). And yes, there are some people that buy into it because they think it will trickle down to them, or they think they're going to strike it rich at some point. But these people make up the minority of the Republican base.
> The overwhelming number of people who vote Republicans do so because of their social agenda, which is rooted entirely on two things: white supremacy and radical evangelicalism.


This was on display during the recent election in Alabama. "Liberal Democrat" was a slur but a suspected pedophile was just a shrug. I wish those that identified as evangelicals had the same fervor in speaking out against unjust murders, CHIP program losing funding, etc as they did in vouching for a suspected child molester. 








Cabanarama said:


> And let's not act like immigration is the only race issue. The Republican party has built its whole base on creating identity politics and catering to white supremacists with an us vs them mentality. It started in the 60's when they enacted the southern strategy to entice white Democratics who had become disenfranchised with the party . It continued into the 80's, when they realized they couldn't roll back the civil rights laws and Reagan found more subtle ways to suppress minorities by using the war on drugs and the prison industrial complex, all the way through the Tea Party movement and the birtherism stuff and the political rise of Donald Trump which was all nothing more than a backlash to a black man becoming president.
> Let's be real, without the racist vote, You'd have about the same percentage of white people who vote Republican as the non-white vote.
> Looking at how the modern Republican party has won elections over the past four decades, and knowing that pretty soon it will no longer be effective, does make me happy.


Co-sign. 




Cabanarama said:


> The sad truth is, most Republican voters would gladly fuck themselves over it meant hurting those they hated be it liberals, minorities, or whatever else... Hell, most right wingers in this country would let their own house burn down if it meant their liberal neighbor would suffer from smoke inhalation.


Rupert Murdoch indulged in this a few weeks ago. He took a cheap shot at those who believed in global warming as his house burned down. Priorities. 



Merry Reaper said:


> I love how these DNC tools worship their Schumers and Pelosis and Clintons and Obamas who have ALL made their fortunes AFTER getting voted into power and not before. While the average American's wealth has declined and their debt sky-rocketed - all politicians including Bernie the Socialist has shown an increase in their fucking wealth.
> 
> BUT THE TAXES ARE FOR THE POOR!
> 
> Damn the illogical tax and spend crowd. It's the worst.


Speaking for myself, I have no issue with capitalism and the free market. I'm all for it. I'm of the notion that people can make as much money as legally permitted. My only qualms are illegal activities and a system in place that stifles those that want to do for themselves. Obama making money after leaving office is no issue for me and I wish people would just stay out of his pockets. It's so performative to ask these people pledge poverty to prove a point. I'd rather that money be used to be invested in communities which is happening. 

I don't support Bernie Sanders and one of the reasons is for why you stated. You can argue the merits of income inequality without demonizing those who make money. He has three houses and has received his own book deals but yet it's an issue when others follow suit. 



Miss Sally said:


> Bravo for your post Deso but you're wasting your time. The poster in question was trying to imply criticism of Obama as mere racism. When others pointed out the scandals and even that it appears Obama increased spying on everyone, that too was dismissed as racism.
> 
> There's no point trying to have a debate or correct someone who will see racism in every critique or concern even with valid facts simply to try and dissuade the topic they don't approve of. You cannot wake someone who is pretending to be sleeping.
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the double downing on racist rhetoric with flimsy justifications was used I'd say the term "Progressive" is accurate. Imagine if someone had stated "When Black people start to die off well we'll have less crowded prisons and crime! It will be glorious when peoples less akin to committing crime take their place!", I do wonder how that would go over? Then when called out said person brings up crime statistics to "back up" their racist nonsense as if that makes it ok.
> 
> Also the part where states are leeching off Cali was funny, considering Cali siphons power, water and other resources from other states to keep itself running I had to laugh. One might point out the dam situation they had was due to laziness and inept Government officials, Cali's issues are it's own and it's not a Republican ran state. If it wasn't for the fact rich people, actors and Hollywood reside in Cali and that Northern Cali is actually nice, the Southern part of the state would give most third world countries a run for their money in terms of being an overpopulated slum.


I can't speak for @Cabanarama but I did like his/her post and I'll explain why. There used to be a time when I believed that a certain generation of bigots just needed to die off and harmony would be closer. As I grew older, it became apparent that bodies may take their last breaths but noxious philosophies are passed on. There are those in their 20's who parrot bigoted views. This was on full display at Charlottesville. 

As for the notion that it would be wrong if someone said, "Blacks should die off" etc, that message is sent through the highest levels of society. It's disturbing that Trayvon Martin and Tamir Rice were killed and it's immediately declared that there is one less thug; that they were no angels. I can't overstate how infuriating it is that Trump can declare Mexicans are rapists, Muslims are all terrorists , turns a blind eye to violence inflicted on Black and Brown bodies & declares that there are fine Nazi's but then to be told that racism plays no part in his appeal to many of his supporters. 

In regards to Obama, I don't think he was perfect. I'm proud of his presidency but there were legitimate criticisms. However, racism did play a part in some of the opposition against him. 

*Johnstown Never Believed Trump Would Help. They Still Love Him Anyway.*

*Obama Effigy Hung by Florida Pastor*


*When Obama Was Elected President Vs. When Trump Was Elected President*

There is also the matter of Mitch McConnell and other Republicans *organizing* on the night of Obama's first election to make him a one term president; Joe Wilson *shouted* "You lie" at Obama during a joint session of Congress . 

It may be aggravating that everything is ascribed to racism but on the other side of the pendulum, I find "economic anxiety" too much of a blanket to cover the malignancy of a segment of Trump supporters.


----------



## Reaper

ReignDeer said:


> Speaking for myself, I have no issue with capitalism and the free market. I'm all for it. I'm of the notion that people can make as much money as legally permitted. My only qualms are illegal activities and a system in place that stifles those that want to do for themselves. Obama making money after leaving office is no issue for me and I wish people would just stay out of his pockets. It's so performative to ask these people pledge poverty to prove a point. I'd rather that money be used to be invested in communities which is happening.
> 
> I don't support Bernie Sanders and one of the reasons is for why you stated. You can argue the merits of income inequality without demonizing those who make money. He has three houses and has received his own book deals but yet it's an issue when others follow suit.


Funny thing is that the Democrats are ALSO the party of the rich. Everybody actually already does know this and yet you have a HUGE percent of their voter base pretending that they're some charitable bunch looking out for the small guy when it's obvious that they're not. Income inequality in America persists and will persist. It's the nature of things. Interesting thing is and I bring in Islam here as an example where the divine FAITH of Muslims itself says that income inequality will always exist - BUT - it takes a libertarian ideal in that in saying that it is up to each individual to help another individual in need. It is not up to the government or the leaders to do so. It is not up to the society to create a national treasury to help the poor. 

The ideal is if you employ a person, it is your responsibility to make sure that the person you employed has a good standard of life. Something of that also exists within capitalism, but my view is that taxation and collective national treasuries have shifted the burden of personal/individual responsibility onto a group of leaders - actually who pay themselves first and then give the scraps to everyone else. 

Income inequality has persisted during Democrat reigns and it will do so during Republican reigns. It's one of those natural outcomes of life in a world of scarce resources that continues to exist everywhere and can never be stopped. The only thing that can really be changed is how RICH the POOR people are - and Americans are some of the richest people in the world --- even our poor are richer than most of the world's rich. 

You look at the list of top Democrats, there's nothing but multi-millionaires on the list. They're ALSO benefiting massively from the tax cuts and their businesses will ALSO be making more money. So all I see is wolves in sheep's clothing whining about the tax cuts. They have specifically engaged in a campaign of misinformation about the tax cuts and that misinformation is downright dangerous at this point. 

There are people who are going to receive more money falsely believing that they won't and even the extremely partisan press is now trying to reign back on the misinformation campaign, but it feels like it's too late. 

Ultimately, as I pointed out in my previous post is that Republicans fail when they don't reign in the spending after making tax cuts. This goes back to all their promised subsidies, foreign aid, military spending, infrastructure spending --- all mixed in with a healthy dose of government bloat and corruption and lack of transparency. 

In the end, I trust those people LESS that claim that taxes help the poor (when they take a bigger chunk of those taxes for themselves) than those who admit that taxation does not help the poor.

--- @ReignDeer 

As far as "racism" claims are concerned, if anything I'd prefer if non-whites became racists too as far as immigration is concerned. Here's a bit of a rational hypothetical. 

Jobs available: 20

Number of people: 30
Whites: 15
Blacks: 10
Hispanics: 5

According to the institutional racism model (assuming that it's true), all whites are employed. 5 blacks are unemployed and 5 hispanics are unemployed. 

Now we bring in immigrants. We know that immigrants will work for less. So the demographics are:

Number of Jobs: 20

Number of people: 40
Whites: 15
Blacks: 10
Hispanics: 15

The new hispanics are ok with less money. So the outcome is: 

15 whites are employed
5 of the new hispanics are employed. 

None of the blacks are employed. None of the existing hispanics are employed. 

As a non-white person, you should be supporting "racism" and ending mass immigration.


----------



## Empress

@Merry Reaper

I agree with most of your post in regards to the financial standing of elected officials. Democrats are also millionaires and most will benefit from this tax bill. I don't believe their average voter will. I can at least credit them for championing on the behalf of their constituents. Thus far, the GOP has more fealty to large corporations and are beholden to them. This will benefit them first and extra $75 (hyperbole) to John Q isn't really something I'd brag about. 

As for the amended part of your post, I don't begrudge anyone making a living wage. I want all to have an equal opportunity but that's not how it works. Many employers are hiring immigrants that will do the work for cheap and push out those with college degrees and a set standard (wage, health insurance, benefits, etc). Ultimately, it's not a sustaining model since those working for cheaper don't have much protection and are often afraid to rock the boat because it's the only source of income they have. I don't fault immigrants who just want to put food on their table or necessarily hate those who resent that their jobs are being unfairly taken. It's just a messy collision course.


----------



## EdgeheadStingerfan

With Nearly 14 Times The Population Of Baltimore, NYC Has Less Homicides

From - New York (AP)

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2017/12/21/new-york-city-homicides/

I won't be cynical about this article and will take it for what it's worth.


----------



## Reaper




----------



## virus21

> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the orders of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Justice Department prosecutors have begun asking FBI agents to explain the evidence they found in a now dormant criminal investigation into a controversial uranium deal that critics have linked to Bill and Hillary Clinton, multiple law enforcement officials told NBC News.
> The interviews with FBI agents are part of the Justice Department's effort to fulfill a promise an assistant attorney general made to Congress last month to examine whether a special counsel was warranted to look into what has become known as the Uranium One deal, a senior Justice Department official said.
> At issue is a 2010 transaction in which the Obama Administration allowed the sale of U.S. uranium mining facilities to Russia's state atomic energy company. Hillary Clinton was secretary of state at the time, and the State Department was one of nine agencies that agreed to approve the deal after finding no threat to U.S. national security.
> Image: Former U.S. Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Clinton speaks during the LA Promise Fund's Girls Build Leadership summit in Los Angeles
> Hillary Clinton speaks in Los Angeles on Dec. 15. Mario Anzuoni / Reuters
> A senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the initial FBI investigation told NBC News there were allegations of corruption surrounding the process under which the U.S. government approved the sale. But no charges were filed.
> As the New York Times reported in April 2015, some of the people associated with the deal contributed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. And Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for a Moscow speech by a Russian investment bank with links to the transaction.
> Hillary Clinton has denied playing any role in the decision by the State Department to approve the sale, and the State Department official who approved it has said Clinton did not intervene in the matter. That hasn't stopped some Republicans, including President Trump, from calling the arrangement corrupt — and urging that Clinton be investigated.
> In a letter to Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Stephen Boyd said Justice Department lawyers would make recommendations to Sessions about whether an investigation should be opened or expanded, or whether a special counsel should be appointed to probe a number of issues of concern to Republicans.
> Play Is President Trump right about Russia, Uranium and Clinton?
> Facebook Twitter Embed
>  Is President Trump right about Russia, Uranium and Clinton? 2:54
> In recent weeks, FBI agents who investigated the case have been asked by Justice Department prosecutors to describe the results of their probe. The agents also have been asked if there was any improper effort to squash a prosecution, the law enforcement sources say.
> The senior Justice Department official said the questions were part of an effort by the Sessions team to get up to speed on the controversial case, in the face of allegations from Congressional Republicans that it was mishandled.
> An FBI spokesman declined to comment.
> On June 8, 2010, Uranium One announced it had signed an agreement to sell a majority stake to the mining arm of Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency.
> At the time, Uranium One's two licensed mining operations in Wyoming amounted to about 20 percent of all uranium mining production capacity in the U.S, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (That figure has since decreased.)
> Because enriched uranium is a component of nuclear weapons, the deal required a national security review by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States.
> Play Uranium One Controversy Explained
> Facebook Twitter Embed
>  Uranium One Controversy Explained 4:14
> As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, The New York Times reported, Uranium One's Canadian chairman, Ian Telfer, used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the foundation, the Times reported, despite a promise to publicly identify all donors. The foundation later said it made a mistake.
> Others associated with Uranium One also donated to the Clinton Foundation, according to the Times.
> Sen John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, raised objections to the sale, saying it would "give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America's uranium production capacity."
> The U.S. ambassador to Kazakhstan also raised concerns in cables to Clinton's State Department that Rosatom was acting on behalf of Russia's military intelligence agency, the GRU, to gobble up uranium mines after Russia felt "squeezed" by having their uranium imports limited by other countries.
> Nonetheless, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, known as CFIUS, approved the deal by a unanimous vote, according to public reports. Clinton was just one member of the nine member CFIUS by virtue of her role as Secretary of State. The other eight members of CFIUS came from Treasury, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, Energy, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Office of Science & Technology, and the Justice Department.
> Goldcorp Chairman Ian Telfer Interview
> Ian Telfer, chairman of Goldcorp Inc., speaks during an interview in Toronto in 2014. Galit Rodan / Bloomberg via Getty Images
> Defenders of the deal point out that the Russians don't have a license to export the uranium out of the U.S., and that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found no risk to national security.
> Clinton has said she was not involved in the deliberations and played no role in the decision.
> Jose Fernandez, a former assistant secretary of state, told the Times that he represented the department on the committee, and that "Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter." He did not respond to a request for comment by NBC News.
> A spokesman for Hillary Clinton did not answer whether she was ever briefed on the Uranium One deal.
> "At every turn this storyline has been debunked on the merits," said the spokesman, Nick Merrill. "This latest iteration is simply more of the right doing Trump's bidding for him to distract from his own Russia problems, which are real and a grave threat to our national security."
> 
> Donald J. Trump ✔
> @realDonaldTrump
> Uranium deal to Russia, with Clinton help and Obama Administration knowledge, is the biggest story that Fake Media doesn't want to follow!
> 11:17 AM - Oct 19, 2017
> 27,064 27,064 Replies 40,617 40,617 Retweets 119,434 119,434 likes
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> Stewart Baker, a former top lawyer in the George W. Bush administration and an expert in the CFIUS process, said he doubted that the Uranium One decision ever reached Clinton's desk.
> About the donations, he said, "Is it possible that the Russians thought they needed to do this and that it would help them? Yeah, but that doesn't mean that it actually did."
> Baker said it was disquieting that the Sessions Justice Department was re-examining a case that career officials already concluded warranted no charges.
> "You'd like to think that that wouldn't happen often in a mature democracy," he said.
> However, he pointed out that Eric Holder, President Obama's attorney general, ordered a new investigation into brutal CIA interrogations after career prosecutors had looked but filed no charges in the Bush administration. In the end, Holder's department didn't file charges, either.
> Frank Giustra and Uranium One
> Uranium One became a much bigger player in the uranium market after it absorbed a company run and co-owned by Frank Giustra, a Canadian businessman and Bill Clinton associate, in February 2007.
> Giustra was the chairman of UrAsia, a company bidding for uranium rights in Kazakhstan. In 2005, after he had begun negotiating for the rights, he and Bill Clinton traveled to Kazakhstan on separate planes and attended a dinner with the country's president.
> Frank Giustra speaks with former President Bill Clinton announces new initiative for Latin America in New York
> Frank Giustra speaks as former President Bill Clinton looks on during a news conference announcing that the Clinton foundation is launching a new sustainable development initiative in Latin America in New York in 2007. Shannon Stapleton / Reuters file
> UrAsia had soon closed deals for uranium mining rights in Kazakhstan. In 2006, Giustra donated $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.
> The value of UrAsia shares increased seventyfold between 2005 and 2007. Uranium One merged with UrAsia in 2007, after which, says Giustra, he sold his shares and left the company — three years before the controversial sale of U.S. uranium mining facilities.
> Giustra has donated more than $100 million to the Clinton Foundation and currently sits on the foundation's board.
> In a statement, Giustra said that he had been working on the purchase of mining stakes from a private Kazakh company in early 2005, and the purchase was concluded in late 2005.
> "In late 2005, I went to Kazakhstan to finish the negotiations of the sale," said Giustra. "Bill Clinton flew to Almaty a few days after I arrived in the country on another person's plane … Bill Clinton had nothing to do with the purchase of private mining stakes by a Canadian company."


http://archive.is/buaoZ#selection-1356.0-2758.0


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Wait, does that mean they're finally putting crooked Hillary in jail?


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Wait, does that mean they're finally putting crooked Hillary in jail?


I wouldn't waste too much of my time on this.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Merry Reaper said:


> I wouldn't waste too much of my time on this.


Shame, I'd love to see one of these fucks actually pay for being a corrupt, warped individual. Gets my goat knowing if you or I pulled the shit these people pulled they'd have thrown away the key but these people can do what they like.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/943960590082560003

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/944061133991923712
Agree with Ann's hot take.


----------



## DOPA

https://www.mediaite.com/online/new...s-far-from-certain-to-win-reelection-in-2018/



> With the democratic party in search of new leaders, many pundits have mentioned *Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)* as a possible standard bearer for the party going forward. But some *new polling suggests she may have difficulty hanging on to her seat in 2018.*
> 
> According to a new survey from Boston NPR affiliate WBUR, Warren’s approval in the state currently stands at 51 percent, compared with 37 percent who do not approve of her job performance. Though down 11 percent from April 2015, the approval ratings may not, in itself, represent any cause for alarm. But several other numbers from the poll may stoke concern among democrats, who already face a daunting Senate map in 2018.
> 
> Survey participants were asked: “As of now, do you think Elizabeth Warren
> deserves reelection or is it time to give someone else a chance?”* Forty-six percent answered “give someone else a chance,” compared with 44 percent who responded “deserves reelection.”*
> 
> Further, the man prominently mentioned as a prospective opponent enjoys significantly higher ratings. Fifty-nine percent of respondents approve of the job Republican Governor Charlie Baker is doing. Only 18 percent disapprove. And when the same question was posed about Baker, whether he deserves reelection or someone else should get a chance, reelection won out by a 51-29 margin.
> 
> Democrats are on the defensive big-time in 2018, having to defend 23 seats (plus two independents who caucus with the democrats), compared to just eight for the republicans. Reclaiming control of the chamber is probably out of the question for the democrats during the midterms, but hanging on to Warren’s seat could be crucial in making sure republicans don’t reach a filibuster-proof majority. And, of course, there’s the fact that Warren has become one of the party’s most prominent voices.
> 
> The good news for Warren is that Baker has not committed to running against her. It’s possible that, instead, her general election challenge could come from former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling — who hosts a show on Breitbart, and declared his candidacy in October.



I'll take the polling with a grain of salt but it would certainly be one of the better pieces of news next year if that fraud ends up losing her seat. Could be a hard race, Republicans should certainly prioritize taking it.


----------



## CamillePunk

Please make Elizabeth Warren the face of the Democratic Party. :lol Give her the nomination in 2020. Please.


----------



## Goku

CamillePunk said:


> Please make Elizabeth Warren the face of the Democratic Party. :lol Give her the nomination in 2020. Please.


I'm ready to live Election Night 2016 all over again in 2020 :banderas


----------



## Stinger Fan

:lol , I'll give them this they didn't get angry at least


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/944187730564714497
:banderas Awesome first year.


----------



## DesoloutionRow

So what happens to the deficit if taxes are cut, but government spending isn't?


----------



## Reaper

Big Lou's Christmas said:


> So what happens to the deficit if taxes are cut, but government spending isn't?




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/943980506588295169


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

CamillePunk said:


> Please make Elizabeth Warren the face of the Democratic Party. :lol Give her the nomination in 2020. Please.


I'd be very surprised if she were the nominee,she has detractors both from Hilary and Bernie stan's for how she handled herself in the 2016 primaries. And she is not savvy enough to pivot away if a reporter asks her a question where she would have to say anything bad about either.


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> Awesome first year.


So you're not at all concerned about Senate Re-Elections coming up soon?


----------



## Miss Sally

BlueSanta said:


> So you're not at all concerned about Senate Re-Elections coming up soon?


I expect places that are blue to go blue and a few red places to change. After all Obama had great, mostly positive coverage outside of Fox News and a few smaller places as well as decent approval ratings yet it didn't stop blue places from going red after Obama and crew didn't do much with their power.

So in the same manner I don't expect red places to suddenly turn blue because Trump's coverage is mostly negative and his approval rating being subject to debate. In the end these have little to do with who'll vote for what.

Tho nothing would surprise me either way.


----------



## Empress

There was a pro-Trump rally in front of Fox News today. I saw about 10-15 people holding signs that read "Jail Hillary" and "Fire Mueller".


----------



## Reaper




----------



## Stinger Fan

BlueSanta said:


> So you're not at all concerned about Senate Re-Elections coming up soon?


People are making things seem worse than it actually appears to be. While yes the Republicans have to defend 10 seats, The Democrats also have to defend 23 seats and 10 of those are running in states that Trump won with 5 of those coming from states he won by 20 or more points. There are 2 of the Republican seats up for re-election in states that Clinton within 5 points of winning. Does that mean either side will roll over the other? That's unknown, but its not as simple as people are trying to make it out to be. Still though, anything can happen


----------



## AlternateDemise

Miss Sally said:


> I expect places that are blue to go blue and a few red places to change. After all Obama had great, mostly positive coverage outside of Fox News and a few smaller places as well as decent approval ratings yet it didn't stop blue places from going red after Obama and crew didn't do much with their power.





Stinger Fan said:


> People are making things seem worse than it actually appears to be. While yes the Republicans have to defend 10 seats, The Democrats also have to defend 23 seats and 10 of those are running in states that Trump won with 5 of those coming from states he won by 20 or more points. There are 2 of the Republican seats up for re-election in states that Clinton within 5 points of winning. Does that mean either side will roll over the other? That's unknown, but its not as simple as people are trying to make it out to be. Still though, anything can happen


That isn't the issue at hand here.

One thing Trump has shown through out this first year of presidency (as well as his entire life) is his inability to work with others who don't agree with his views. That's a problem if the Democrats take control of the Senate, because now he will practically be at their mercy. And the Democrats don't necessarily need to have a large majority. They just need enough to the point where what they have outnumbers the Republicans. Even if it's barely more (lets say 51% to 49%), that's more than enough to practically render Trump useless unless he shows a willingness to work with others.


----------



## Beatles123

BlueSanta said:


> That isn't the issue at hand here.
> 
> One thing Trump has shown through out this first year of presidency (as well as his entire life) is his inability to work with others who don't agree with his views. That's a problem if the Democrats take control of the Senate, because now he will practically be at their mercy. And the Democrats don't necessarily need to have a large majority. They just need enough to the point where what they have outnumbers the Republicans. Even if it's barely more (lets say 51% to 49%), that's more than enough to practically render Trump useless unless he shows a willingness to work with others.


He can't work with people who will not work with HIM. If he made a declaration that people must wear pants. there would be people walking around naked in DC purely because it was he who demanded it. Common sense be damned. That isn't his fault. Washington wants one direction and refuses any other.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Beatles123 said:


> He can't work with people who will not work with HIM.


No, he literally can't work with other people. This was something he was known for before he was President and it's been a reoccurring problem now. If a guy is literally carrying the attitude of "only my way will work, we need to do this" like Trump has been doing so far, then it's pretty obvious he's not a guy you can work with.

And it's not surprising. He spent his whole life being in charge and not having to worry about what other people think. This is the first time he's been in a position of power where what other people think is actually important.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/944630129522864128


----------



## Art Vandaley

I'd be suprised if the Dems got control of the Senate this mid terms but they're certain to get control of Congress and that's enough to get them an absolute right of veto over anything Trump wants to do that can't be done through executive action. Also enough to launch impeachment proceedings but not enough to get a conviction as I think they need the Senate for that.

Also I'm pretty the promise of Obamacare was "healthcare" not "lower taxes".


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

BlueSanta said:


> *No, he literally can't work with other people. * This was something he was known for before he was President and it's been a reoccurring problem now. If a guy is literally carrying the attitude of "only my way will work, we need to do this" like Trump has been doing so far, then it's pretty obvious he's not a guy you can work with.
> 
> And it's not surprising. He spent his whole life being in charge and not having to worry about what other people think. This is the first time he's been in a position of power where what other people think is actually important.












https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/us/trump-schumer-pelosi-daca.html

http://time.com/4960391/donald-trump-health-care-bill-democrats/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t...d-be-a-perfect-place-to-start/article/2644232


----------



## AlternateDemise

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/us/trump-schumer-pelosi-daca.html
> 
> http://time.com/4960391/donald-trump-health-care-bill-democrats/
> 
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t...d-be-a-perfect-place-to-start/article/2644232


Congrats, you've given me two instances where Trump stated he'll work with Democrats, and still has yet to do it. 

Meanwhile, I strongly suggest you read the first one you posted, because I seriously doubt you did. 

Don't waste my time with this nonsense. Show me legitimate results, not him saying he'll do it.



Alkomesh2 said:


> I'd be suprised if the Dems got control of the Senate this mid terms but they're certain to get control of Congress and that's enough to get them an absolute right of veto over anything Trump wants to do that can't be done through executive action. Also enough to launch impeachment proceedings but not enough to get a conviction as I think they need the Senate for that.
> 
> Also I'm pretty the promise of Obamacare was "healthcare" not "lower taxes".


I'm already 100% certain that the Democrats will get control of Congress, that of which alone will ultimately screw over Trump. But he can still make some progress if the Republicans control the Senate.


----------



## Stephen90

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...aitians-aids-nigerians-huts-article-1.3717535

Enraged President Trump reportedly said all Haitians have AIDS, Nigerians own huts at immigration meeting
DENIS SLATTERY DEC 23, 2017 1:46 PM
President Trump exploded with vitriolic and racist comments — saying all Haitians have AIDS and mocking Nigerians — during a heated White House meeting about immigration, according to a report on Saturday.

Trump grumbled as he entered the Oval Office, dressing down his national security team and railing against the number of immigrants who had entered the country since he took office.


He said he looked like a fool as the number climbed and he failed to make good on his promise to curtail the number of foreigners coming to America, sources told The New York Times.

Trump fumed at his top security team, reading from a list and complaining that 15,000 immigrants arrived from Haiti.

Court rules against President Trump's travel ban

They “all have AIDS,” he said.


He read on, complaining that 40,000 people had come from Nigeria.

They would never “go back to their huts” in Africa, the President griped, a pair of officials told The Times.

Not Released (NR) 
President Trump boiled over with anger and made the racist comments while reading a list at an immigration meet, according to a report.
IMAGE BY: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Trump exploded at staff and cabinet members, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson as John Kelly, then the secretary of homeland security, cleared the room of underlings and tried to assert order, sources told the newspaper.

Trump backer Joy Villa says Corey Lewandowski spanked her 'hard'

The White House did not deny the heated nature of the meeting, but insisted Trump never used the words “AIDS” or “huts.”

Several participants in the meeting told The Times they did not recall Trump using those words and did not think he had.

Frank Sharry, the executive director of America’s Voice, a pro-immigration group, said he wouldn’t be surprised if the comments came from the President’s mouth, arguing that his immigration agenda is motivated by racism.

“He’s basically saying, ‘You people of color coming to America seeking the American dream are a threat to the white people,’” Sharry told The Times.

Alex Jones, Roger Stone hit gun range to prepare for civil war

Since the beginning of his term, Trump has pushed to curb the number of refugees and immigrants accepted into the U.S.

Not Released (NR) 
Sherider Anilus, 28, and her daughter, 9-month-old Monica, sit on the spot where her home collapsed during an earthquake in Haiti. Trump reportedly said all Haitians have AIDS.
IMAGE BY: CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY IMAGES
He has recently railed against chain migration and the diversity visa lottery program — pointing to the deadly lower Manhattan truck attack carried out by Sayfullo Saipov, who came to the U.S. through the lottery program as an example.

He has also used Akayed Ullah, a Bangladeshi national who attempted to detonate a bomb in the subway near the Port Authority Bus Terminal, who came to the U.S. through chain migration after his aunt was selected through the lottery program.

Chain migration is a term often misused by anti-immigration hardliners. It is essentially the same process that families of immigrants have used to enter the U.S. for generations.

Ex-Trump campaign official Rick Gates may have violated gag order

Trump’s presidential campaign offered a clear picture of what his White House policies would look like.

Anti-immigration rhetoric and the demonizing of foreigners as a group of people bringing crime or radicalization into the country has permeated the President’s speeches and public comments following tragedies and terror attacks.

The nationalist approach to immigration is in part thanks to senior policy adviser Stephen Miller.

Trump has used Akayed Ullah, a Bangladeshi national who attempted to detonate a bomb in the subway near the Port Authority Bus Terminal, to rail against chain migration.
Trump has used Akayed Ullah, a Bangladeshi national who attempted to detonate a bomb in the subway near the Port Authority Bus Terminal, to rail against chain migration.
IMAGE BY: OBTAINED BY DAILY NEWS
The 33-year-old staffer has made restricting the flow of immigrants and refugees to the U.S. his main priority since joining the Trump team.

Miller drew heat in January for the botched roll-out of the Trump administration’s initial travel ban that targeted Muslim immigrants.

On Friday, a U.S. appeals court said the most recent version of the ban targeting people from six Muslim-majority countries should not be applied to people with strong U.S. ties.

“We conclude that the President’s issuance of the Proclamation once again exceeds the scope of his delegated authority,” the panel said.

In June, the same month that tempers flared in the Oval Office meeting, Miller was warring with State Department staffers over reports about the costs of resettling refugees.

When department specialists proposed including refugees’ economic contributions in the studies to produce a more balanced assessment, Miller rebuffed the idea, one current and one former U.S. official told Reuters.

The nationalist approach to immigration is in part thanks to Stephen Miller, who has made restricting the flow of immigrants and refugees to the U.S. his main priority since joining the Trump team.
The nationalist approach to immigration is in part thanks to Stephen Miller, who has made restricting the flow of immigrants and refugees to the U.S. his main priority since joining the Trump team.
IMAGE BY: WIN MCNAMEE/GETTY IMAGES
Miller’s anti-immigration leanings were on full display according to officials who said Miller and the administration wanted to make a case to restrict refugee flows by creating a skewed analysis.

“It’s a policy outcome in search of a rationale,” a former U.S. official told Reuters.

Miller reportedly targeted Tillerson at the June meeting, according to The Times, blaming him for the high number of foreigners entering the country.

The young adviser has relished his role in combating bureaucracy and overturning decades of immigration policy.

“We have taken a giant steamliner barreling full speed,” Mr. Miller said in a recent interview. “Slowed it, stopped it, begun to turn it around and started sailing in the other direction.”


----------



## virus21




----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

BlueSanta said:


> Congrats, you've given me two instances where Trump stated he'll work with Democrats, and still has yet to do it.
> 
> Meanwhile, I strongly suggest you read the first one you posted, because I seriously doubt you did.
> 
> Don't waste my time with this nonsense. Show me legitimate results, not him saying he'll do it.


You're welcome. :trump3

It's a two-way street, by the way: The democrats need to acknowledge that bipartisanship is a very worthwhile endgame, which Trump has acknowledged in the links I posted.

Until they're willing to stop doing obvious wastes of time like impeachment proposals, shedding crocodile tears over illegal immigrants and the ever-infamous MUH RUSSIA, they'll continue to deserve being pointed at and laughed at for being just as cancerous as the republicans were during Obama's tenure.

Also, try not to embarrass yourself with hyperbole again like you did with your "literal" post. You ought to know that shit doesn't work, considering it resulted in BM getting banned.


----------



## Reaper

Resorting to tabloids to find anti-Trump news :mj4 

Merry Christmas my fellow Trumpians :trump


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Merry Reaper said:


> Resorting to tabloids to find anti-Trump news :mj4
> 
> Merry Christmas my fellow Trumpians :trump


Merry Christmas, brah.










And to prove that Trump supporters / fans truly respeck wamen, here's a suitably seasonal gif that objectifies a filthy, white cis male scumbag:










:trump


----------



## Reaper

Sharing beautiful butts that have been voluntarily exposed to be shared is the ultimate show of respect.


----------



## 2pacallypz85

*Rashid Khalidi Speaking the Truth on Israel Democracy Now*

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/12/22/rashid_khalidi_us_recognition_of_jerusalem

Very good points made. Lol, at trump's deal of the century or whatever he wants to call it. How nice for US to vote against almost the whole world on the Jerusalem issue. In addition, there is zero experience on his negotiating team lead by Jared Kushner, it is a quacking joke. To say that he will do anything to solve the issue is putting your head in the sand. The only deal I see on the table from the American/Israeli side is of complete capitulation to the Israeli position where there will be Palestinian demilitarized Bantustans effectively controlled by Israel with more territory to be acquired in the future, specifically large portion of section C of the West Bank (to appease the Zionists out there or the bible thumpers Judea and Samaria) and a total annexation of Jerusalem. Well maybe Israel will be nice and will throw in a couple neighborhoods of Jerusalem that are basically almost all Palestinian at this point anyways and say that they made all the compromises.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/939006911629869056


----------



## Tater

Aloha all and mele kalikimaka!

I have not contributed to this thread for awhile, so I would like to share some thoughts.

First up, shout-outs to my conservative friends @BruiserKC, @DesolationRow, @Christmas DOPAmine and @Miss Sally. I even got love for @Beatles123 and @CamillePunk, no matter how retarded their views might be at times.

This is from a post I made on Medium about the election of Doug Jones:



> *Electing Jones in Alabama is nothing to celebrate.*
> 
> I did some scanning through Twitter around the time the election results were announced. What I saw left me feeling disgusted and a little bit sad. It was Clinton vs Trump all over again, only this time, the center-right corporatist neoliberal whore defeated the big bad boogeyman.
> 
> The glee from the Clintonites was as expected but what was really so disappointing was the joy from the people on the left who seemingly understood the Clinton/Trump narrative for what it truly was and yet they still fell for it hook, line and sinker when it came to Moore.
> 
> Jones’ win was a huge step in the wrong direction for a multitude of reasons. It will never stop blowing my mind how otherwise sane people start running around like headless chickens when the GOP belches up a vile creature like Moore. If defeating the swamp monster means electing the farmer of swamp monsters, then you have done exactly nothing to stop the rise of future swamp monsters.
> 
> If the progressive left understood tactics and the long game even in the slightest, they would have been able to see that Moore winning, like Trump winning, is far better for their causes in the long run. Even that bastion of journalistic integrity Bloomberg seemed to gather this point:
> 
> Moore’s Defeat in Alabama Deals Trump a Rebuke Ahead of 2018 Races
> 
> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it also may bring some measure of relief to GOP lawmakers running for re-election who feared the sexual misconduct claims against Moore would taint the party for years to come.
> 
> With Moore out of the picture, Republicans may have dodged a bullet. They now won’t have to answer uncomfortable questions about why they tolerate a colleague accused of initiating a sexual encounter with a 14-year-old girl and assaulting a 16-year-old.
> 
> McConnell’s allies were so worried about Moore that they spent millions trying to defeat him in the primary. Now the majority leader can point to Moore’s defeat as another in a string of disastrous candidates pushed by the party’s right wing
> 
> Dealing with Moore would have been a daily challenge for a Republican Party already struggling to unite behind its agenda. Moore said he was running so God could save the country, and he vilified McConnell and other leaders as establishment sellouts.
> 
> 
> 
> Even the other Republican senator from Alabama didn’t vote for Moore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strikingly, Republican Richard Shelby, Alabama’s senior senator, said he didn’t vote for Moore and instead wrote in the name of a “distinguished Republican.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this straight, both the establishment Democrats are happy AND the establishment Republicans are happy about this result? Tell me again how this is a victory worth celebrating.
> 
> It seems like to me that people need to be reminded often who their real enemy is.
> 
> *Know Your Enemy*
> 
> There’s a very easy way to know if you have done something worthy of celebration. Judge the reaction of the establishment. The GOP are certainly happy to not have Moore in the Senate because his one seat is not worth the damage his election would have done to the GOP everywhere else around the country. The Clinton criminal organization is certainly happy because they elected another one of their neoliberal cronies into office.
> 
> If those two groups are happy, you should not be celebrating jack shit. A more appropriate reaction would be smacking yourself on the forehead because ya got played for a sucker again.
> 
> The bottom line is this… if the thing that replaces Trumpism is the very same neoliberalism that facilitated the rise of the Great Orange Buffoon in the first place, then the next Trump who rises to power will be even worse. We got lucky this time because Trump is such an incompetent moron. You don’t want to see what a Ted Cruz or a Mike Pence would do.
> 
> Stop fearing the GOP boogeymen. Your true enemies are the ones who opened the door and let them in.
> 
> SOURCE
Click to expand...

My thoughts on the GOP tax bill...



> *Celebrate the GOP’s economic agenda!*
> 
> No, I ain’t kidding.
> 
> Here’s what I believe people do not seem to understand. There ain’t no way, no how, our current economic model is sustainable in the long run. Now ask yourself, who would you rather be captaining the Titanic when it hits the iceberg? Would you rather it be the pathetic lame ass corporate Dems? Or would you rather it be the GOP GOP goppity GOP?
> 
> Now, I am no more a fan of the establishment Dems than the next rational person but the fact remains, regardless of how much blame is actually deserved, the bulk of that blame lands on the party in control of the WH when the aforementioned unsinkable ship shits the bed.
> 
> We dodged a huge bullet when Clinton failed in her attempt to be installed into the WH. The Kock Bros were salivating at the prospect. With Hillary in the big seat, regardless of the fact that Republicans would have been in control of literally every other level of government, when the ship went down, the dumbass masses of sheep would have blamed “the left”.
> 
> You think things are bad now? Had things went according to the establishment’s plans, post-2020 would have seen the masses permanently enshrined into corporate slavery.
> 
> What we should be doing is thanking our lucky stars that Trump came along and fucked up their plans. The Great Orange Buffoon happened before the Kocks and their ilk had enough control of enough states to call for a constitutional convention. Now when the economy collapses, which was inevitable, regardless of who won the most recent election, and again, regardless of how much blame deservedly goes to the WH, the vast majority of that blame will now land on the GOP.
> 
> What that means is that we now have a slim chance of turning the tide back towards a direction of sanity; a sanity that benefits all instead of those at the very top. The oligarchs were very close to writing their rule into law. Trump completely fucked that up for them.
> 
> What we have to do now is make sure the people who replace Trump aren’t the same neoliberal Obama/Clinton failures who led to this fuckery in the first place. Trump and the GOP presiding over the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression is the best gift the left could have ever received.
> 
> If we waste this opportunity, then whatever happens next is on us. Blaming the GOP and the establishment Dems for being horrible is like being mad at shit for stinking in a clogged toilet. If we don’t flush the toilet when we have the chance, that’s our fault.
> 
> SOURCE


And now, just for fun, my Know Your Enemy post in it's entirety:



> *Know Your Enemy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle. -Sun Tzu*
> 
> If you believe this person is your enemy…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> …but you do not realize this person is your enemy…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> …then you are a part of the problem.
> 
> If you believe these people are your enemy…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> …but you do not realize these people are your enemy…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> …then you are a part of the problem.
> 
> If you believe this is your enemy…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> …but you do not realize these are also your enemy…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> …then you are a part of the problem.
> 
> This…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> …is a sheep.
> 
> Don’t be a sheep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s important to remember in the game of good cop vs bad cop, they’re both still cops and they will both lock you up.
> 
> Stop allowing the Establishment to play you against one another. It’s a wicked game designed to keep the commoners bickering amongst themselves and never questioning the power structure of the elite. As long as the people remain divided, their rule is never threatened. May you be Christian or Muslim or gay or straight or white or black or man or woman or whatever other bullshit identity politics they use to divide you, your enemy is not your neighbor… your enemy is the ruling elite who is impoverishing you for their benefit. There is one thing and one thing only that they fear and that’s a united populace against them.
> 
> Until the time comes that the people unite against the Establishment, their rule will reign unchecked. If the people never unite, their rule will never be threatened. You cannot win a battle if you do not know who your enemy is. Conservatives, liberals, leftists and righties, you don’t have to like each other, but you do need to come to the realization of who your true enemy is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Tater said:


> Aloha all and mele kalikimaka!
> 
> I have not contributed to this thread for awhile, so I would like to share some thoughts.
> 
> First up, shout-outs to my conservative friends @BruiserKC, @DesolationRow, @Christmas DOPAmine and @Miss Sally. I even got love for @Beatles123 and @CamillePunk, no matter how retarded their views might be at times.
> 
> This is from a post I made on Medium about the election of Doug Jones:
> 
> 
> 
> My thoughts on the GOP tax bill...
> 
> 
> 
> And now, just for fun, my Know Your Enemy post in it's entirety:


What you want is impossible to achieve in the US unless you had some sort of uprising like a lot of the Arab countries had in 2011-2012 before it all fell a part and started ISIS.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Until they're willing to stop doing obvious wastes of time like impeachment proposals, shedding crocodile tears over illegal immigrants and the ever-infamous MUH RUSSIA, they'll continue to deserve being pointed at and laughed at for being just as cancerous as the republicans were during Obama's tenure.


I do agree that the Democrats aren't doing themselves any favors with all this impeachment and Russian investigation nonsense. 



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Also, try not to embarrass yourself with hyperbole again like you did with your "literal" post. You ought to know that shit doesn't work, considering it resulted in BM getting banned.


And you ought to know that someone saying they'll do something doesn't mean shit when they have yet to do it. It's a two way street you see?

And I'm pretty sure BM got banned for baiting.


----------



## Empress

Political differences aside, I wish you all a Merry Christmas. I hope today is being spent with loved ones. 

There's always tomorrow and the New Year to debate. 

bama4


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

BlueSanta said:


> I do agree that the Democrats aren't doing themselves any favors with all this impeachment and Russian investigation nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> And you ought to know that someone saying they'll do something doesn't mean shit when they have yet to do it. It's a two way street you see?
> 
> And I'm pretty sure BM got banned for baiting.


The Never Trump republicans / RINOs should also get fucked, to be honest. The less cancer, the better.

And in regard to actually working together, Schumer and Pelosi said that a deal was indeed struck between dems and Trump in regard to DACA. Although Trump denied it and thus resulted in it being a case of "he said, she said", the fact that they *and* Trump himself actually talked about it over dinner means that, at the very least, Trump *has* actually looked across the aisle for bipartisanship. Better luck next time. :trump3

As for BM, his bait was consistently hyperbolic. Take from that what you will.



ReignDeer said:


> Political differences aside, I wish you all a Merry Christmas. I hope today is being spent with loved ones.
> 
> There's always tomorrow and the New Year to debate.
> 
> bama4


Well said. Merry Christmas, brah. :trump2


----------



## Tater

The Hardcore Show said:


> What you want is impossible to achieve in the US unless you had some sort of uprising like a lot of the Arab countries had in 2011-2012 before it all fell a part and started ISIS.


Shit's gonna get crazy up in here when the entire global capitalist economy collapses and the ruling elite have no answers to fix it. My advice? Invest in pitchforks and guillotines.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Tater said:


> Shit's gonna get crazy up in here when the entire global capitalist economy collapses and the ruling elite have no answers to fix it. My advice? Invest in pitchforks and guillotines.


What you want is still many years away from happening even though I believe the US collapsing and the world completely turning on us might be the only thing to wake people up unless that is what they want the United States of America to be permanently.


----------



## Tater

The Hardcore Show said:


> What you want is still many years away from happening even though I believe the US collapsing and the world completely turning on us might be the only thing to wake people up unless that is what they want the United States of America to be permanently.


That's twice now you've said this is what I want. I don't *want* any of this. You just have to be a fucking retard to not see the economic collapse coming. We're repeating the Roaring 20s all over again and the next crash will be happening a lot sooner than most people realize.


----------



## Reaper

ReignDeer said:


> Political differences aside, I wish you all a Merry Christmas. I hope today is being spent with loved ones.
> 
> There's always tomorrow and the New Year to debate.
> 
> bama4


Christmas is a bipartisan issue. Merry Christmas.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> And in regard to actually working together, Schumer and Pelosi said that a deal was indeed struck between dems and Trump in regard to DACA. Although Trump denied it and thus resulted in it being a case of "he said, she said", the fact that they *and* Trump himself actually talked about it over dinner means that, at the very least, Trump *has* actually looked across the aisle for bipartisanship. Better luck next time. :trump3


Dude, you just said yourself that Trump denied it. That alone proves I'm correct. 



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> As for BM, his bait was consistently hyperbolic. Take from that what you will.


Oh. Well then in that case you're probably right.



Tater said:


> We dodged a huge bullet when Clinton failed in her attempt to be installed into the WH. The Kock Bros were salivating at the prospect. With Hillary in the big seat, regardless of the fact that Republicans would have been in control of literally every other level of government, when the ship went down, the dumbass masses of sheep would have blamed “the left”.


People are still trying to push this idiotic agenda?

At this point, people have a very good reason to believe that Clinton in the White House would have produced better results than what we got now. Trying to act like Clinton would have been in charge would have led to the doomsday scenarios you're trying to suggest here is nonsense.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

BlueSanta said:


> Dude, you just said yourself that Trump denied it. That alone proves I'm correct.


Trump denied the deal being made. He and Sarah Huckabee Sanders *did not* deny that he, Schumer and Pelosi actually talked about a compromise regarding DACA, however. Even though said deal may or may not come to pass, simply talking about it with opposing party members nevertheless proved that Trump is indeed open to bipartisanship.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/943559705888284672
> (That's a 200 million dollar payout to 80% of its employees btw)
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/943542799726727169
> Seeing the left fight so hard to distort reality and flood Americans' minds with pessimism during this great time in our economy really tells you they care more about obtaining political power than anything. I'm sure the typical left-wing elitism will rear its ugly head soon telling us how 15 dollars a week or a 1,000 dollar bonus is barely anything, and it's that kind of tone deafness that should keep the good times coming for Trumpism.


This was already in motion way before Trump passed his tax plan only reason why ATT wants to give Trump credit is because the GOVT is thinking about blocking their merger with time warner and ATT think by giving Trump credit, he may convince the GOVT to let it go through.

Also ATT talking about huge layoffs, so much for Trumps tax cuts creating jobs. They already laid off 600 right before xmas.


----------



## Warlock

birthday_massacre said:


> This was already in motion way before Trump passed his tax plan only reason why ATT wants to give Trump credit is because the GOVT is thinking about blocking their merger with time warner and ATT think by giving Trump credit, he may convince the GOVT to let it go through.
> 
> Also ATT talking about huge layoffs, so much for Trumps tax cuts creating jobs. They already laid off 600 right before xmas.


"Already in motion" means 20,000 employees were already getting those bonuses. Now 200,000 are, so 10 times as many people and 10 times as much paid out.

The cut jobs were to a declining part of their business(landlines), that likely would have happened anyway. But if the jobs are at a net negative(thats all jobs, not just att... let's not play the anecdotal game), then you would be right. A bit too early to tell tho, especially considering those cuts were signed in just last week.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## AlternateDemise

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Trump denied the deal being made. He and Sarah Huckabee Sanders *did not* deny that he, Schumer and Pelosi actually talked about a compromise regarding DACA, however. Even though said deal may or may not come to pass, simply talking about it with opposing party members nevertheless proved that Trump is indeed open to bipartisanship.


He walked away from the deal with no compromise being reached. For all we know, during the meeting he simply said "this is what we're doing to do. I want this done this way, no exceptions" and the Democrats told him to fuck off. Again, this just proves my point unless we get proper context here regarding what happened in the meeting. 

And yes, I know what I just said is reaching. However, this is the only instance you've given to me of him sitting down with Democrats trying to work out a deal, and unless I'm just a retard and missed it, we're not given any details of what happened apart from what it is they tried to discuss.


----------



## birthday_massacre

The Parumpapapum said:


> "Already in motion" means 20,000 employees were already getting those bonuses. Now 200,000 are, so 10 times as many people and 10 times as much paid out.
> 
> The cut jobs were to a declining part of their business(landlines), that likely would have happened anyway. But if the jobs are at a net negative(thats all jobs, not just att... let's not play the anecdotal game), then you would be right. A bit too early to tell tho, especially considering those cuts were signed in just last week.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


It's not an anecdotal game. You are just making excuses. And shouldn't this tax cut save all jobs for all companies? So if its al businesses cutting jobs that is even worse. ATT giving Trump credit is just yet another bribe to distract from what is really going on. 

Take Carrier for example, did Trump save those Carrier jobs like he claimed? Carrier still outsourced jobs even though they claimed they wouldn't after Trump gave them tax breaks.

We have seen what happens when corp's get huge tax breaks in the past, it never creates more jobs, companies pocket the money and never reinvest and they still layoff employees.

Brace yourself for another huge crash like in the 20s or like the crash under Bush.


----------



## Beatles123

Tater said:


> @Beatles123 retarded


 Ableist. :trump4













































































troll)


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

BlueSanta said:


> He walked away from the deal with no compromise being reached. For all we know, during the meeting he simply said "this is what we're doing to do. I want this done this way, no exceptions" and the Democrats told him to fuck off. Again, this just proves my point unless we get proper context here regarding what happened in the meeting.
> 
> And yes, I know what I just said is reaching. However, this is the only instance you've given to me of him sitting down with Democrats trying to work out a deal, and unless I'm just a retard and missed it, we're not given any details of what happened apart from what it is they tried to discuss.


By at least sitting down to hear them out, Trump did in fact show that he's willing to work toward a bipartisan effort. However, more details of the meeting would've definitely been ideal, since they would've shed more light on whether a compromise could've been reached, or was even feasible.

Ultimately, I'm glad that Trump didn't settle for a deal that came from Schumer and Pelosi, because fuck those two decrepit sacks of shit. If anything, I'd much prefer to see him work with the likes of reasonable dems like Tulsi Gabbard and Doug Jones.


----------



## CamillePunk

The Democrats won't work with Trump no matter what. You don't slander a guy with fascist and racist and sexual predator and then start making deals with him.

The amateur psychologist/deluded precog analysis of Trump is fun to read though. :lol Everyone thinks they know what's going on his head.


----------



## Warlock

birthday_massacre said:


> It's not an anecdotal game. You are just making excuses. And shouldn't this tax cut save all jobs for all companies? So if its al businesses cutting jobs that is even worse. ATT giving Trump credit is just yet another bribe to distract from what is really going on.
> 
> Take Carrier for example, did Trump save those Carrier jobs like he claimed? Carrier still outsourced jobs even though they claimed they wouldn't after Trump gave them tax breaks.
> 
> We have seen what happens when corp's get huge tax breaks in the past, it never creates more jobs, companies pocket the money and never reinvest and they still layoff employees.
> 
> Brace yourself for another huge crash like in the 20s or like the crash under Bush.


What are you even talking about? 

Jobs are lost when they no longer provide benefit for the cost. That's true at every level from a startup to a multi billion dollar company. Microsoft cuts jobs in droves at times, but I guess since they are rich they should continue paying for those windows xp tech jobs.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Tater

BlueSanta said:


> People are still trying to push this idiotic agenda?
> 
> At this point, people have a very good reason to believe that Clinton in the White House would have produced better results than what we got now. Trying to act like Clinton would have been in charge would have led to the doomsday scenarios you're trying to suggest here is nonsense.


fpalm

_Of course_ Clinton is the lesser of two evils but only in the short term. The entire reason the GOP holds all the levers of power now is precisely because of the center right wing neoliberal Clintonites who have taken over the DNC. Had Hillary eked out a victory, things wouldn't be quite as bad as they are now but they'd be much worse in the future. She'd have been a one term president, Democrats would have continued getting their asses kicked nationally and in 2020 you'd have president Mike Pence or Ted Cruz with super majorities in both houses of Congress and control of enough states to call for a constitutional convention so their masters, the Kock Bros, can rewrite the Constitution and permanently enshrine the USA into corporate slavery. Now with Trump in the WH and Republicans controlling everything else, we'll see the GOP swept out of power when they tank the economy. The most important thing we should be doing now is making sure the people who replace Trumpism aren't the very same people who are such pathetic failures that they facilitated it's rise in the first place. If the Establishment Dems are who gains power after the GOP inevitably implodes, they'll fail again like they did the last time and we'll end up with an even worse Trump in the future.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> fpalm
> 
> _Of course_ Clinton is the lesser of two evils but only in the short term. The entire reason the GOP holds all the levers of power now is precisely because of the center right wing neoliberal Clintonites who have taken over the DNC. Had Hillary eked out a victory, things wouldn't be quite as bad as they are now but they'd be much worse in the future. She'd have been a one term president, Democrats would have continued getting their asses kicked nationally and in 2020 you'd have president Mike Pence or Ted Cruz with super majorities in both houses of Congress and control of enough states to call for a constitutional convention so their masters, the Kock Bros, can rewrite the Constitution and permanently enshrine the USA into corporate slavery. Now with Trump in the WH and Republicans controlling everything else, we'll see the GOP swept out of power when they tank the economy. The most important thing we should be doing now is making sure the people who replace Trumpism aren't the very same people who are such pathetic failures that they facilitated it's rise in the first place. If the Establishment Dems are who gains power after the GOP inevitably implodes, they'll fail again like they did the last time and we'll end up with an even worse Trump in the future.


I disagree with everything you said. Because of Trump we may never be able to recover especially on things like the environment, and maybe even net neutrality, as well as other things like Union/worker rights, and letting Christians push their religion onto the country. Trump and the GOP may get to put in 3 justices, depending on what happens with Kennedy and Ruth, that will be a disaster and set the US back for the next 40-50 years.

The loss in 2016 was the worst possible time to lose an election for the Democrats.


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> I disagree with everything you said. Because of Trump we may never be able to recover especially on things like the environment, and maybe even net neutrality, as well as other things like Union/worker rights, and letting Christians push their religion onto the country. Trump and the GOP may get to put in 3 justices, depending on what happens with Kennedy and Ruth, that will be a disaster and set the US back for the next 40-50 years.
> 
> The loss in 2016 was the worst possible time to lose an election for the Democrats.


Democrats lost a thousand state seats, a majority of governorships and both houses of Congress during Obama's tenure because of their neoliberal bullshit. That's a trend that would have continued with Clinton in the WH. Don't let Trump Derangement Syndrome blind you to the big picture. This is about more than one election. Republicans wouldn't be in the position of doing all the damage you're concerned about if the Establishment Democrats weren't such epic failures. Regardless of what you think about the Clinton vs Trump election, you should be looking to the future and making sure the people who replace Republicans aren't the ones who just lost to them. 

Blaming Republicans for all of this is like blaming shit for stinking. Shit stinks. That's what it does. The people you need to be mad at are the ones who didn't flush the toilet when they had the chance.


----------



## DesolationRow

> Illegal immigration across the Southwest border has surged back to Obama-era levels, according to the latest data released last week that suggests the gains President Trump made early in his tenure have worn off.
> 
> Nearly 40,000 illegal immigrants were nabbed attempting to jump the border in November, which was up about 12 percent compared to October, and more than twice the monthly numbers from March and April, when Mr. Trump touted his early accomplishments.
> 
> Perhaps just as worrisome for officials is the rise in families traveling together, which surged 65 percent last month, and unaccompanied minors traveling without parents, which rose 26 percent in November, according to the latest numbers.
> 
> Homeland Security said those numbers are still an improvement over the worst years of President Obama.
> 
> Just as if not more problematic in the long term are new polls conducted in Mexico.
> 
> A June 2002 Zogby poll of Mexicans found that a substantial majority of Mexican citizens believe that southwestern America is rightfully the territory of Mexico and that Mexicans do not need the permission of the U.S. to enter. The poll found that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, "The territory of the United States' southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico." Zogby said 28 percent disagreed, while another 14 percent said they weren't sure.
> 
> However polling from November 2017 demonstrates that Mexican revanchism has only swelled in the last fifteen and a half years, as now latest internal polling from Mexico finds that 73 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, "The territory of the United States' southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico." 16 percent disagree, and 11 percent said they weren't sure.


----------



## CamillePunk

Time to pull the military out of the middle east and put them at our southern border. This is an invasion.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> Democrats lost a thousand state seats, a majority of governorships and both houses of Congress during Obama's tenure because of their neoliberal bullshit. That's a trend that would have continued with Clinton in the WH. Don't let Trump Derangement Syndrome blind you to the big picture. This is about more than one election. Republicans wouldn't be in the position of doing all the damage you're concerned about if the Establishment Democrats weren't such epic failures. Regardless of what you think about the Clinton vs Trump election, you should be looking to the future and making sure the people who replace Republicans aren't the ones who just lost to them.
> 
> Blaming Republicans for all of this is like blaming shit for stinking. Shit stinks. That's what it does. The people you need to be mad at are the ones who didn't flush the toilet when they had the chance.


Like I already pointed out, you are the one ignoring the big picture, not me.

The SCOTUS could go super conservative under Trump because he may well get to pick three-justice. That is the huge picture here. You think that Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be able to make it 4 more years? Kennedy may also retire, and they already stole one seat. Like I said that is going to fuck up the US for the next 40-50 years, you can't get much bigger picture than that.

Also Trump regulating everything especially from the EPA ignoring climate change, and letting huge companies pollute again, it's going to cause irreparable damage by him ignoring it for 4 years.

Trump already ruined the internet by letting internet companies sell our info we put into websites and by putting in someone to repeal net neutrality. And now the FCC wants to make it so it won't be able to be regulated again once a Democrat gets back as president. Is that not big picture enough for you?

Trump's tax bill is going to put us into another depression, how is that not big picture?

But sure its better to let Trump and the GOP destroy the environment, the internet, and the economy. 

Hillary never would have done any of those things, and the real progressives still could have taken over like they rae trying to do in 2018 and 2020

Your whole logic is biting off your nose to spite your face by destroying the US. There won't be anything to put back together by the time Trump and the GOP are done in 4 years.


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> Like I already pointed out, you are the one ignoring the big picture, not me.
> 
> The SCOTUS could go super conservative under Trump because he may well get to pick three-justice. That is the huge picture here. You think that Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be able to make it 4 more years? Kennedy may also retire, and they already stole one seat. Like I said that is going to fuck up the US for the next 40-50 years, you can't get much bigger picture than that.
> 
> Also Trump regulating everything especially from the EPA ignoring climate change, and letting huge companies pollute again, it's going to cause irreparable damage by him ignoring it for 4 years.
> 
> Trump already ruined the internet by letting internet companies sell our info we put into websites and by putting in someone to repeal net neutrality. And now the FCC wants to make it so it won't be able to be regulated again once a Democrat gets back as president. Is that not big picture enough for you?
> 
> Trump's tax bill is going to put us into another depression, how is that not big picture?
> 
> But sure its better to let Trump and the GOP destroy the environment, the internet, and the economy.
> 
> Hillary never would have done any of those things, and the real progressives still could have taken over like they rae trying to do in 2018 and 2020
> 
> Your whole logic is biting off your nose to spite your face by destroying the US. There won't be anything to put back together by the time Trump and the GOP are done in 4 years.


What about losing a thousand state seats, a majority of governorships and both houses of Congress are you failing to comprehend? That's what Obama-Clinton neoliberalism has given us. And yet, you are so terrified of Trump that you believe doing more of the same thing that gave us GOP rule will somehow fix it. Congratulations, ya got played for a chump. The reaction you're having right now is exactly the reaction the Clintonites want you to have. They want you so terrified of the big bad GOP boogieman that you willingly sell yourself into neoliberal corporate slavery.

The economic collapse was already inevitable. The only difference would be a slower crash under Establishment Dems or a sped up crash under the GOP. If the crash is inevitable, we're much better off with the GOP driving us off the cliff because it gives us the opportunity to replace them with people who will actually fix the system. That's the real fight now. It's what we should have gotten when Obama and Dems were swept into office after the Dubya disaster. At a time after a massive crash and when the country was ready for a real change, all we got was more right wing bullshit. Instead of passing single payer and rescuing homeowners from the banks, they instead gave us Romneycare and handed over trillions to the banks while millions lost their homes. They also took Bush's 2 wars and ramped them up to 7. Because of shit like that is why the Democrats have been wiped out nationally. 

Now here you sit, arguing that we should have elected Hillary, who is even further to the right than Obama, because we're supposed to be afraid of Trump. And you can't see how fucking stupid that sounds?

You show concern for the environment. Did you forget that Standing Rock happened on Obama's watch? Did you forget that he opened up the Arctic for drilling? Did you forget that Hillary is a big proponent of fracking? The idea that electing neoliberals will save us from climate disaster is flat out retarded. All they are good for is a little lip service but they won't make the fundamental changes needed to tackle this problem. Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement and Hillary wouldn't have. So? It was a fucking joke to begin with and didn't go nearly far enough. When you need a 100% change to avoid being fucked and all you get is a 10% change, you're still 90% fucked.

Hillary Clinton SCOTUS picks would not have saved us. We'd have gotten picks that are socially liberal but would have protected the ruling elite on every single other issue. Sorry, not good enough. That doesn't make us any less fucked in the future. Even if by some miracle she would have nominated a justice that would have looked after the little guy, the Republicans in the Senate would have never let the pick get through. They have a majority, in case you forgot.

The net neutrality fight is not over yet and it's one of the few issues I am actually optimistic about. I'm not overly concerned about it in the long run. This is a fight I believe the people have a good chance at winning.

This needs to be repeated until you finally understand it. *The center right neoliberal Establishment Dems are why we have Trump in the WH and the GOP running nearly the entire country.* The environment was already being destroyed under the rule of neolib Dems. The economy was already designed to funnel most of the wealth to the top under the rule of neolib Dems. Obama was the one who appointed Ajit Pai to the FCC. Obama's FCC head wanted to end NN and would have if the people didn't fight back. We were already bombing 7 countries and spending more than like the next 10 countries combined under Obama. Most of the shit you are worried about happening under GOP rule was already happening under neolib Dem rule. 

As long as our only choices are center right neoliberal Dems and far right extremist Republicans, we're fucked either way. The only question is how quickly the destruction happens. If we cannot find a way to break the hold the Establishment duopoly has over our government, then we'll remain fucked.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> Democrats lost a thousand state seats, a majority of governorships and both houses of Congress during Obama's tenure because of their neoliberal bullshit. That's a trend that would have continued with Clinton in the WH. Don't let Trump Derangement Syndrome blind you to the big picture. This is about more than one election. Republicans wouldn't be in the position of doing all the damage you're concerned about if the Establishment Democrats weren't such epic failures. Regardless of what you think about the Clinton vs Trump election, you should be looking to the future and making sure the people who replace Republicans aren't the ones who just lost to them.
> 
> Blaming Republicans for all of this is like blaming shit for stinking. Shit stinks. That's what it does. The people you need to be mad at are the ones who didn't flush the toilet when they had the chance.


People like to play off that Obama and the Dems had full power for a few years and didn't do much with it which is why those Democrats got voted out. Tho I'm sure some of our revisionaries here will blame it on racism or some such nonsense. Blue areas went Red, it was nuts!

What makes it even more funny is you had guys like Anthony Weiner who were saying such gems like "If we didn't have Republicans, we'd have everything we wanted right now." I believe it was on the Mahr show and Mahr has scoffed at how people could clap in agreement for a statement that's basically calling for a one party system. 

If anyone thinks Net Neutrality etc would have been safe under Clinton people are wrong, Ajit Pai was a careful and calculated selection and I applaud the Government being a little more extra sneaky about what they're doing.

Eventually I fear we will move to a near one party system and when we do will the people that clamored for it own up to this horrendous event? Probably not because it's all about outrage and virtue signaling, not results or owning up to mistakes and just simply following your party instructions.



DesolationRow said:


>


I spoke about this about a year ago, my Uncle is involved with that sort of nonsense, this mentality has been growing since La Raza and their idiotic cohorts of enabling black clad hipsters started pushing this nonsense. The very constitution of Mexico is xenophobic and uncompromising, not sure why more people didn't see this coming. Anyone breaking laws within Mexico is severally punished, even if Anglo, they don't care. Yet many of the people that cross over make no bones about breaking US laws or making their intentions known. I don't see how anyone could not call it what it actually is considering the people themselves don't hide what they're doing.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Tater said:


> fpalm
> 
> _Of course_ Clinton is the lesser of two evils but only in the short term. The entire reason the GOP holds all the levers of power now is precisely because of the center right wing neoliberal Clintonites who have taken over the DNC. Had Hillary eked out a victory, things wouldn't be quite as bad as they are now but they'd be much worse in the future. She'd have been a one term president, Democrats would have continued getting their asses kicked nationally and in 2020 you'd have president Mike Pence or Ted Cruz with super majorities in both houses of Congress and control of enough states to call for a constitutional convention so their masters, the Kock Bros, can rewrite the Constitution and permanently enshrine the USA into corporate slavery.


I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this post. So far all you've done is given me baseless speculation. We have no idea how any of this is possible and quite frankly I have a hard time buying it. Corporate Slavery? Do you understand how asinine this all sounds?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> What about losing a thousand state seats, a majority of governorships and both houses of Congress are you failing to comprehend? That's what Obama-Clinton neoliberalism has given us. And yet, you are so terrified of Trump that you believe doing more of the same thing that gave us GOP rule will somehow fix it. Congratulations, ya got played for a chump. The reaction you're having right now is exactly the reaction the Clintonites want you to have. They want you so terrified of the big bad GOP boogieman that you willingly sell yourself into neoliberal* corporate slavery*.
> 
> 
> 
> .


What does that even mean? 

we are just going in circles with the rest of your post. Yeah, I get it, you want Trump to destroy the US to the point it may never recover and you think that is better than more of the same of Obama with Hillary.

And you still could have had Hillary as president doing being the disaster that Trump is, and still have the dems take back seats in the house and senate with real progressives.


----------



## virus21

> TV personality Rosie O’Donnell offered $2 million to two Republican Senators to vote against the new tax bill – potentially opening herself up to federal bribery charges.
> O’Donnell specifically targeted Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jeff Flake (R-Arizona), who were both slow to say they would support the legislation.
> 
> “2 million dollars to Senator Susan Collins and 2 million to Senator Jeff Flake if they vote NO. NO I WILL NOT KILL AMERICANS FOR THE SUOER [sic] RICH. DM (Direct message) me Susan. DM me Jeff. No s**t. $2 million cash each,” she said.
> 
> 
> The tweet sparked a huge reaction online, with many wondering if it would work while others applauded or lambasted O’Donnell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several people, including conspiracy blogger Louise Mensch, reminded O’Donnell that it’s illegal to bribe government officials. Mensch suggested she fund their opponents instead.
> 
> Indeed, an examination of the US code shows that O’Donnell clearly violated bribery laws by making the offer. The offense is punishable with a fine of up to three times the value of the bribe and/or 15 years in prison.
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses reads:
> 
> © Legal Information Institute
> However O’Donnell was not to be deterred. “I disagree. It is obvious there is a price,” she replied. “Corker had one, Collins too. Flake, almost brave, he crawled out backwards. $2 million to any GOP senator who votes no on KILLING AMERICANS.”
> 
> The senate passed the tax bill with a 51-48 vote in the early hours of Wednesday morning. However, because of a procedural issue, it had to be approved in the House again before President Trump could sign it into law.


https://www.rt.com/usa/413782-rosie-odonnell-bribe-senators/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
What fucking planet does this woman live one that she thinks its alright to do this?


----------



## birthday_massacre

virus21 said:


> https://www.rt.com/usa/413782-rosie-odonnell-bribe-senators/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
> What fucking planet does this woman live one that she thinks its alright to do this?


You missed the point she was trying to make. 

So its ok when Goldman Sachs or any huge donor lobbyists bribes politicians to vote how they want them to vote on policies, but when Rosie does it, everyone freaks out.


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> You missed the point she was trying to make.
> 
> So its ok when Goldman Sachs or any huge donor lobbyists bribes politicians to vote how they want them to vote on policies, but when Rosie does it, everyone freaks out.


I've been saying this for years, if I cannot bribe an officer out of giving me a ticket using cash or sexual favors why is it legal for lobbiests to do the same with Politicians and actually change policy?

Lobbying needs to be made illegal. Now I'm not against a business making a case why a regulation is hurting them but offering loads of cash, hookers and other goods to simply bypass things instead of making a case is wrong.


----------



## CamillePunk

https://www.rt.com/news/414269-haley-un-us-budget/



> The UN saves millions of lives and is responsible for global peace and security; by cutting its funding, the US made a big step in the wrong direction, Kaveh Afrasiabi, a former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team, told RT.
> The US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has said Washington is to reduce its contributions to the UN. The organization is facing a $285 million cut over the next two years.
> 
> It is “a big step in the right direction,” Haley said on Sunday.
> 
> The US makes the largest contribution to the UN owing to the size of its economy. It's been responsible for 22 percent of the central budget, contributing more than a billion dollars over the last two years.
> 
> The funding cuts come just days after the UN overwhelmingly voted to reject President Donald Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Only nine members, including the US, voted against the resolution, while 128 others supported it.
> 
> Kaveh Afrasiabi, the former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team and author of the book UN Management Reform, says there’s no doubt the move is directly linked to the vote.
> 
> “Based on the statement read by Ambassador Haley, there is no doubt that there is a direct connection between that vote, which was a total embarrassment to the US, and the retaliation that has followed in a form of a big financial stab at the UN,” he told RT.
> 
> However, he pointed out, the cuts could have been even more significant.
> 
> “There was a fear that this could be twice as bad, and on the bright side it’s not even close to what candidate Trump promised in terms of a 50 percent slash in the US’ contribution to the UN,” Afrasiabi said.
> 
> “Nevertheless, I suppose the White House’s perverse Christmas gift to the world community and a premier world organization that saves millions of lives and is responsible for global peace and security definitely is a big step in a wrong direction, contrary to what Ambassador Haley said,” he noted.
> 
> Explaining the decision, Ambassador Haley also said that "the inefficiency and overspending of the United Nations are well known. We will no longer let the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of or remain unchecked."
> 
> Commenting on the matter, Afrasiabi said “the UN has been grappling with the issue of reform…for a long time.”
> 
> In his opinion, the US’ move is “a wrong way of approaching the problem.”
> 
> “Just about everything that Ambassador Haley has done since assuming her post has been contrary to the spirit of the UN Charter, has been quite undiplomatic, foreign to the very notion of world diplomacy, complete tactfulness and without any sense of nuance,” he said. “This kind of crude language of threat and punishment used against sovereign nations and so forth hurts the US’ image and credibility worldwide. The US is not helping itself by having someone represented at the UN, who is so undiplomatic and foreign to the spirit of the UN.”
> 
> ‘Part & parcel of punishment’
> Haley’s announcement to cut the US contribution to the UN budget “is foremost a nod to President Donald Trump’s political base,” says Colin Cavell, associate professor, Bluefield State College, author of Exporting 'Made in America' Democracy.
> 
> “Particularly, his anti-internationalist, very pro-American, America First political base - that is very skeptical about anybody who wants to bring the world together united under international law and seek peace,” he told RT. “Trump is giving them a nod just as he did a couple of weeks ago when he decided to announce the US will move its embassy to the contested city of Jerusalem in Israel.”
> 
> Last week, ahead of the UN General Assembly emergency session, the US president had threatened to cut aid to UN member states who vote against the US on its Jerusalem decision.
> 
> According to Cavell, Haley’s announcement is “part and parcel of the punishment” that Trump said he would inflict on any nation that does not go along with the US directives.
> 
> The US has been the largest contributor to the UN budget, but, according to Cavell, “Trump’s base believes that nothing has been gotten from that.”
> 
> “They believe that cooperating with other nations, supporting international law has only worked against the interests of the US. That is why Trump is catering to their interest because his political base formed approximately a third of the US citizenry. As long as he can keep that base together and the opposition is divided, which they are very much, then he believes that he can rule in that fashion,” he said.


:trump2 

Hopefully the "right direction" is complete withdrawal from the UN.  It's not, but a man can dream.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> https://www.rt.com/news/414269-haley-un-us-budget/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UN saves millions of lives and is responsible for global peace and security; by cutting its funding, the US made a big step in the wrong direction, Kaveh Afrasiabi, a former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team, told RT.
> The US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has said Washington is to reduce its contributions to the UN. The organization is facing a $285 million cut over the next two years.
> 
> It is “a big step in the right direction,” Haley said on Sunday.
> 
> The US makes the largest contribution to the UN owing to the size of its economy. It's been responsible for 22 percent of the central budget, contributing more than a billion dollars over the last two years.
> 
> The funding cuts come just days after the UN overwhelmingly voted to reject President Donald Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Only nine members, including the US, voted against the resolution, while 128 others supported it.
> 
> Kaveh Afrasiabi, the former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team and author of the book UN Management Reform, says there’s no doubt the move is directly linked to the vote.
> 
> “Based on the statement read by Ambassador Haley, there is no doubt that there is a direct connection between that vote, which was a total embarrassment to the US, and the retaliation that has followed in a form of a big financial stab at the UN,” he told RT.
> 
> However, he pointed out, the cuts could have been even more significant.
> 
> “There was a fear that this could be twice as bad, and on the bright side it’s not even close to what candidate Trump promised in terms of a 50 percent slash in the US’ contribution to the UN,” Afrasiabi said.
> 
> “Nevertheless, I suppose the White House’s perverse Christmas gift to the world community and a premier world organization that saves millions of lives and is responsible for global peace and security definitely is a big step in a wrong direction, contrary to what Ambassador Haley said,” he noted.
> 
> Explaining the decision, Ambassador Haley also said that "the inefficiency and overspending of the United Nations are well known. We will no longer let the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of or remain unchecked."
> 
> Commenting on the matter, Afrasiabi said “the UN has been grappling with the issue of reform…for a long time.”
> 
> In his opinion, the US’ move is “a wrong way of approaching the problem.”
> 
> “Just about everything that Ambassador Haley has done since assuming her post has been contrary to the spirit of the UN Charter, has been quite undiplomatic, foreign to the very notion of world diplomacy, complete tactfulness and without any sense of nuance,” he said. “This kind of crude language of threat and punishment used against sovereign nations and so forth hurts the US’ image and credibility worldwide. The US is not helping itself by having someone represented at the UN, who is so undiplomatic and foreign to the spirit of the UN.”
> 
> ‘Part & parcel of punishment’
> Haley’s announcement to cut the US contribution to the UN budget “is foremost a nod to President Donald Trump’s political base,” says Colin Cavell, associate professor, Bluefield State College, author of Exporting 'Made in America' Democracy.
> 
> “Particularly, his anti-internationalist, very pro-American, America First political base - that is very skeptical about anybody who wants to bring the world together united under international law and seek peace,” he told RT. “Trump is giving them a nod just as he did a couple of weeks ago when he decided to announce the US will move its embassy to the contested city of Jerusalem in Israel.”
> 
> Last week, ahead of the UN General Assembly emergency session, the US president had threatened to cut aid to UN member states who vote against the US on its Jerusalem decision.
> 
> According to Cavell, Haley’s announcement is “part and parcel of the punishment” *that Trump said he would inflict on any nation that does not go along with the US directives.*
> 
> The US has been the largest contributor to the UN budget, but, according to Cavell, “Trump’s base believes that nothing has been gotten from that.”
> 
> “They believe that cooperating with other nations, supporting international law has only worked against the interests of the US. That is why Trump is catering to their interest because his political base formed approximately a third of the US citizenry. As long as he can keep that base together and the opposition is divided, which they are very much, then he believes that he can rule in that fashion,” he said.
> 
> 
> :trump2
> 
> Hopefully the "right direction" is complete withdrawal from the UN.  It's not, but a man can dream.



Yet people still claim Trump isn't a dictator, not sure how much more proof people need.


----------



## DesolationRow

Miss Sally said:


> I spoke about this about a year ago, my Uncle is involved with that sort of nonsense, this mentality has been growing since La Raza and their idiotic cohorts of enabling black clad hipsters started pushing this nonsense. The very constitution of Mexico is xenophobic and uncompromising, not sure why more people didn't see this coming. Anyone breaking laws within Mexico is severally punished, even if Anglo, they don't care. Yet many of the people that cross over make no bones about breaking US laws or making their intentions known. I don't see how anyone could not call it what it actually is considering the people themselves don't hide what they're doing.


Fascinating, quite fascinating indeed, *Miss Sally*. Thank you for once again providing some enlightening commentary while analyzing this issue!


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

CamillePunk said:


> Time to pull the military out of the middle east and put them at our southern border. This is an invasion.


http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/

Except for peak Mexico migration to the Us was when Bush Jr/Clinton were President. However the best solution to curtail drug smuggling and violence on the border is to decriminalize all drugs and tax everything. Of course will never happen because the Pharmaceutical companies have politicians from both parties in their pocket,even though most Americans supported legalazation of at least pot.


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> What does that even mean?
> 
> we are just going in circles with the rest of your post. Yeah, I get it, you want Trump to destroy the US to the point it may never recover and you think that is better than more of the same of Obama with Hillary.
> 
> And you still could have had Hillary as president doing being the disaster that Trump is, and still have the dems take back seats in the house and senate with real progressives.


BM, I know your heart is in the right place. You just don't seem to realize just how royally fucked we are right now. If you think what I want is for Trump to destroy the US, you have not been listening to a word I've been saying. I'd rather not have to deal with another Great Depression. Yet, that is the path we're on. Electing Hillary would not have changed that outcome. 

At no point have I argued against Trump being a complete disaster. What you don't seem to understand is that we'd be no less fucked with Hillary in office. Sure, she might have delayed the inevitable somewhat but the end result would have been the same. 

You're lying to yourself if you think there would have been a progressive takeover of government with Hillary in office. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that outcome. Her entire campaign was based on _America is already great_ and protecting the status quo. Do I need to say it again? I'll say it again. *A thousand state seats, a majority of governorships and both houses of Congress were lost under Hillary Clinton style neoliberalism.* Losing the WH to a cartoon con man villain was just the cherry on top of that shit pie. _Even after_ being wiped out at all levels of government, Establishment Dems are still doubling down on all the failed policies that put us under GOP rule in the first place. That's why I keep telling you that our fight isn't with the GOP. Our fight is with the people who are going to replace the GOP when everything comes crashing down around them. 

We're nearing the end of capitalism and when the next great crash happens, the person sitting in the Oval Office will receive the bulk of the blame. Most people don't pay attention to the minutiae of policy. They'll blame who's in the WH, regardless of how much blame is actually deserved. It wouldn't have mattered to the masses that Republicans are running most of the government. It wouldn't have mattered to the masses that Hillary is a pretty far right Republican herself. She's got a D next to her name and since the masses are clueless of what left and right politics actually means, which you can attribute to decades of right wing corporatist MSM propaganda, "the left" would have been blamed for the upcoming crash and we'd have just ended up with an even worse Trump in 2020. And ya know what's worse than Republicans nominating right wing judges? The Kock Bros literally rewriting the Constitution.

It's evolve or die time for humanity. If we are to survive what comes next, the status quo must be broken at all costs. Because as long as the current power structure remains in control, they'll take us all down with them. And I don't think you want that any more than I do.


----------



## Reaper

This is what optimism for the future looks like :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao. People are SO EXCITED about their future tax deduction that they want to pay their taxes one year in advance. The economy should reflect a boom throughout 2018 and at least till 2020. There is no chance of a recession or depression anywhere in the foreseeable future. We'll see normal booms and normal recessions after that. Stuff that's cyclical. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/946060828029128704
Meanwhile we have doomsayers predicting yet another end of the world scenario. I love it when atheists reject religion and rapture stories to cook up their own. It's basically removing themselves from one doomsday cult to embrace another because most brains are, I believe, hot-wired to envision disaster, not progress.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> This is what optimism for the future looks like :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao. People are SO EXCITED about their future tax deduction that they want to pay their taxes one year in advance. The economy should reflect a boom throughout 2018 and at least till 2020. There is no chance of a recession or depression anywhere in the foreseeable future. We'll see normal booms and normal recessions after that. Stuff that's cyclical.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/946060828029128704
> Meanwhile we have doomsayers predicting yet another end of the world scenario. I love it when atheists reject religion and rapture stories to cook up their own. It's basically removing themselves from one doomsday cult to embrace another because most brains are, I believe, hot-wired to envision disaster, not progress.


Yet history has shown every time there are huge tax breaks like Trump is doing, we always get a recession/depression. But sure this time will be different. You know what the definition is insanity is ......

But of course once the recession hits, you will have all your excuses lined up how the tax cuts were not the reason, and the recession was bound to happen anyway because we have not had one in a while


----------



## Reaper

You're part of just another a doomsday cult BM.
----


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/945778579769643009
You know you've sunk to new lows when even the second lowest pile of reporting trash (CNN) gets an opportunity to take a swipe at your integrity

:mj4

---










FB learning the hard way what Delores Umbridge felt like :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> You're part of a doomsday cult BM. I'm sorry you can't see the positive in anything and live in fear of your life and the future of humanity. It must be exhausting to live with this much hate.
> 
> ----
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/945778579769643009
> You know you've sunk to new lows when even the second lowest pile of reporting trash (CNN) gets an opportunity to take a swipe at your integrity
> 
> :mj4



Nice deflection, nothing positive happens to the economy when the rich get huge tax cuts, we always go into a recession. Trickle down economics never works. That is the reality of things, its not living with hate, it's living in reality/

But keep deflecting its what you do best.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Nice deflection, nothing positive happens to the economy when the rich get huge tax cuts, we always go into a recession. Trickle down economics never works. That is the reality of things, its not living with hate, it's living in reality/
> 
> But keep deflecting its what you do best.


Yes. Recessions happen. It's cyclical. They'll never not happen.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> Yes. Recessions happen. It's cyclical. They'll never not happen.


And they tend to happen right after huge tax cuts for the rich. But keep pretending that is not the reason for the recessions.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> And they tend to happen right after huge tax cuts for the rich. But keep pretending that is not the reason for the recessions.


Show the economics as to how tax cuts _directly __cause _recessions.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> Show the economics as to how tax cuts _directly __cause _recessions.


We have been over this a million times, I am not going over it again. You can ignore history all you want. You are already lining up your excuses when it happens again because of these huge tax cuts for the rich.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> We have been over this a million times, I am not going over it again. You can ignore history all you want. You are already lining up your excuses when it happens again because of these huge tax cuts for the rich.


Show me the economics of how tax cuts directly cause a recession. You made the claim. Back it up. Should be easy since you believe it so vehemently, almost like it's divine doctrine.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> Show me the economics of how tax cuts directly cause a recession. You made the claim. Back it up. Should be easy since you believe it so vehemently, almost like it's divine doctrine.


Actually, the positive claim is these tax cuts will help and surge the economy, and my point is it does the opposite based on history because every time the rich gets huge tax cuts we go into a recession, which is a fact. But sure, the tax cuts are not the reason. 

You are acting like a creationist once again when claiming god exists, and an atheist says there is no evidence for a god and you come back with you are making a positive claim prove god does not exist

You made the claim "There is no chance of a recession or depression anywhere in the foreseeable future"

You need to prove that, I refuted it with every time we have huge tax cuts we get a recession. So now the ball is back in your court. You need to show how huge tax cuts won't cause another recession since that was your claim.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Actually, the positive claim is these tax cuts will help and surge the economy, and my point is it does the opposite based on history because every time the rich gets huge tax cuts we go into a recession, which is a fact. But sure, the tax cuts are not the reason.
> 
> You are acting like a creationist once again when claiming god exists, and an atheist says there is no evidence for a god and you come back with you are making a positive claim prove god does not exist
> 
> You made the claim "There is no chance of a recession or depression anywhere in the foreseeable future"
> 
> You need to prove that, I refuted it with every time we have huge tax cuts we get a recession. So now the ball is back in your court. You need to show how huge tax cuts won't cause another recession since that was your claim.


Got it. You don't understand economics. Didn't expect anything more from you. Moving on.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> Got it. You don't understand economics.


That is what I thought. And yeah I don't know economics when you are the guy who loves to tout trickle-down economics, something that has never worked.

You can ignore history all you want and keep deflecting instead of trying to prove your point, this won't cause a recession.

Can't wait to hear your excuses once it does.


----------



## Reaper

I've actually repeatedly said that Trickle-Down economics isn't even a legit theory. Anyone who claims it is is an idiot. What people refer to is supply-side economics combined with Keynesian theories with regards to the government acting as a stimulant in the economy and actual economists claim that the government cannot regulate or stimulate the economy - only producers can. The reason why our economies grow and shrink while the government debt balloons is because while the governments pass tax cuts, they don't curtail spending and they need to borrow to keep up with that spending. Ultimately, it is that borrowing that leads to poor fiscal policies and contributes to recessions. If you reduce taxes, in order to minimize the damage in a recessionary phase, the government needs to curtail its own spending in order to reduce the financial burden on the overall society. 

Capitalism has no "trickle-down" effect. It's not a thing - at all in a free market economy. In the production and sale of goods and services, it's *always *a *bottom up *effect because you need to invest into those who produce *first* before the capitalist can even make money. Without investment at the bottom level, there is no goods or services being produced and therefore no one is making money. 

Like I said, you don't understand economics.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> I've actually repeatedly said that Trickle-Down economics isn't even a legit theory. Anyone who claims it is is an idiot. What people refer to is supply-side economics combined with Keynesian theories with regards to the government acting as a stimulant in the economy and actual economists claim that the government cannot regulate or stimulate the economy - only producers can. The reason why our economies grow and shrink while the government debt balloons is because while the governments pass tax cuts, they don't curtail spending and they need to borrow to keep up with that spending. Ultimately, it is that borrowing that leads to poor fiscal policies and contributes to recessions. If you reduce taxes, in order to minimize the damage in a recessionary phase, the government needs to curtail its own spending in order to reduce the financial burden on the overall society.
> 
> Capitalism has no "trickle-down" effect. It's not a thing - at all in a free market economy. In the production and sale of goods and services, it's *always *a *bottom up *effect because you need to invest into those who produce *first* before the capitalist can even make money. Without investment at the bottom level, there is no goods or services being produced and therefore no one is making money.
> 
> Like I said, you don't understand economics.


You keep saying that yet you are the one who doesn't understand economics. But stay in your little bubble. I am done since you deny the facts and history of economics.


----------



## Reaper

:lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> BM, I know your heart is in the right place. You just don't seem to realize just how royally fucked we are right now. If you think what I want is for Trump to destroy the US, you have not been listening to a word I've been saying. I'd rather not have to deal with another Great Depression. Yet, that is the path we're on. Electing Hillary would not have changed that outcome.
> 
> At no point have I argued against Trump being a complete disaster. What you don't seem to understand is that we'd be no less fucked with Hillary in office. Sure, she might have delayed the inevitable somewhat but the end result would have been the same.



We are way more fucked now with Trump than we would be with Hillary. Even if you want to claim we would be on the same path with Hillary as far as the economy going into another depression which I disagree with, it would not be nearly as bad, she still would not have been fucking with the internet like Trump did, and wouldn't be killing the EPA and education like Trump is doing, and she wouldn't be doing the shit Trump is doing with fucking over LBGT and dreamers that Trump is doing.

We would be way less fucked with Hillary in office in most areas.



Tater said:


> you're lying to yourself if you think there would have been a progressive takeover of government with Hillary in office. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that outcome. Her entire campaign was based on America is already great and protecting the status quo. Do I need to say it again? I'll say it again. A thousand state seats, a majority of governorships and both houses of Congress were lost under Hillary Clinton style neoliberalism. Losing the WH to a cartoon con man villain was just the cherry on top of that shit pie. Even after being wiped out at all levels of government, Establishment Dems are still doubling down on all the failed policies that put us under GOP rule in the first place. That's why I keep telling you that our fight isn't with the GOP. Our fight is with the people who are going to replace the GOP when everything comes crashing down around them.


There still would have been a progressive take over she second she started doing center-right policies, not to mention there is still the issue of how the DNC and Hillary fucked over Bernie. That still would have gotten the progressives moving.

I know our fight isn't with the GOP it's with all fo the establishment, GOP and DNC and that is what the progressives were against all the way back in the primaries and it would have carried over like it is now. If Hillary won it would be even stronger when progressives see Hillary not doing true progressive politicys.



Tater said:


> We're nearing the end of capitalism and when the next great crash happens, the person sitting in the Oval Office will receive the bulk of the blame. Most people don't pay attention to the minutiae of policy. They'll blame who's in the WH, regardless of how much blame is actually deserved. It wouldn't have mattered to the masses that Republicans are running most of the government. It wouldn't have mattered to the masses that Hillary is a pretty far right Republican herself. She's got a D next to her name and since the masses are clueless of what left and right politics actually means, which you can attribute to decades of right wing corporatist MSM propaganda, "the left" would have been blamed for the upcoming crash and we'd have just ended up with an even worse Trump in 2020. And ya know what's worse than Republicans nominating right wing judges? The Kock Bros literally rewriting the Constitution.
> 
> It's evolve or die time for humanity. If we are to survive what comes next, the status quo must be broken at all costs. Because as long as the current power structure remains in control, they'll take us all down with them. And I don't think you want that any more than I do.


All you are doing is looking at the economic impact but ignoring everything else that is way more important. All the regulations Trump is undoing is going to cause irreparable damage especially when it comes to the environment, as well as the other things I mentioned at the beginning of my post like with the internet, and rights of LGBT etc.


----------



## Reaper

Trump keeps one of his bigger campaign promises:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/h...as-lost-since-trump-took-over/article/2644137



> *Here's how much ground ISIS has lost since Trump took over
> *
> The defeat of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria rapidly accelerated during President Trump’s first year in office, beginning with the fall of East Mosul on Jan. 25, and continuing with a cascading series of defeats for the brutal terrorist group over the next 11 months.
> 
> The campaign liberated twice as many people and 18 percent more territory as in the previous 28 months under President Barack Obama, according to Defense Department figures.
> 
> On Jan. 20 — the day Trump was inaugurated — an estimated 35,000 ISIS fighters held approximately 17,500 square miles of territory in both Iraq and Syria.
> 
> As of Dec. 21, the U.S. military estimates the remaining 1,000 or so fighters occupy roughly 1,900 squares miles of mostly barren desert primarily in Syria, where few people live, and where they will be forced to surrender or die.
> 
> Between September 2014 when the counter-ISIS campaign began, and January 2017, U.S.-backed forces in Iraq and Syria liberated 13,200 square miles of territory and 2.4 million people from Islamic State rule.
> 
> In the 11 months since Trump took office, an additional 15,570 square miles have been reclaimed and 5.3 million people have been liberated.
> 
> The tipping point in the more than three-year war was the defeat of ISIS in its self-proclaimed capital in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, which followed eight months of what the top U.S. commander called “the most significant urban combat to take place since World War II.”
> 
> When the western part of the city fell in June, thousands of civilians had died, but Iraqi forces prevailed and the will of ISIS had been broken.
> 
> “It just snowballed, and it turned into where we are right now, with a full liberation of Iraq, and in Syria, continuing to chase down ISIS elements, the remnants of ISIS elements, in Syria,” said Col. Ryan Dillon, the chief U.S. spokesman for the U.S. led coalition, known as Operation Inherent Resolve.
> 
> The liberation of Mosul was followed quickly with victories in Tal Afar, Hawija, and Al Qaim in Iraq in late summer and fall, and then a crushing blow as the Islamic State’s other capital, Raqqa, fell to U.S.-backed Syrian fighters.
> 
> It’s not unusual for the most dramatic battlefield gains to come at the end of a conflict when the enemy has been routed, and cities fall like dominos.
> 
> And while the destruction of the ISIS caliphate was a validation of the Obama strategy of working “by, with, and through” partner forces, U.S. commanders gave Trump and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis credit for ending what was largely perceived as micromanagement and overly restrictive rules of engagement under Obama.
> 
> “We don't get second-guessed a lot. Our judgment here on the battlefield in the forward areas is trusted. And we don't get 20 questions with every action that happens on the battlefield and every action that we take,” said Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend when he turned over command of the coalition in September.
> 
> “Commanders now don't, aren't constantly calling back to higher headquarters asking for permission,” he said. “They're free to act.”
> 
> White House special envoy Brett McGurk, who also served in the same post under Obama, agrees the Trump adjustments accelerated the pace of defeat.
> 
> “These delegations of tactical authorities from the president has really made a difference on the ground,” McGurk said in August, “I've seen that with my own eyes.”
> 
> Critics of the shifted strategy point out that looser rules of engagement bring higher levels of civilian casualties.
> 
> As of Nov. 30, the U.S. says 801 civilians were killed by coalition strikes since August 2014, and 695 reports are still under review.
> 
> The analysis released by U.S. Central Command concluded that of 56,976 separate engagements between August 2014 and October 2017, the percent of strikes that resulted in a credible report of civilian casualties was 0.35 percent.
> 
> Press investigations and outside groups put the tally of civilian casualties much higher, and say the casualty rate has drastically increased since Trump changed the rules. A New York Times investigation has shown the air war has been less precise under Trump. An investigation by the Associated Press said the nine-month battle for Mosul claimed 9,000 to 11,000 innocent civilians, and said the coalition, Iraqi forces and ISIS all share in the blame.
> 
> Yet military officials take great pains to point out how accurate their targeting systems are, and say ISIS is responsible for the bulk of civilian deaths.
> 
> “I say this with full conviction: The responsibility for civilian casualties in Iraq and Syria lies with ISIS, who have brought misery and death to this region,” Townsend said.
> 
> As the year closes out, ISIS has lost 98 percent of the territory it once held across Iraq and Syria, more than 40,000 square miles. “And they have not regained a single meter of those territories,” said Dillon, the chief military spokesman in Iraq.
> 
> But don't expect a "Mission Accomplished" banner like the one that infamously served as President George W. Bush's backdrop on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln after the Iraq invasion in 2003. The Pentagon is well aware that the diminished number of ISIS fighters in the Middle East is still a threat, and can still use online propaganda tools to inspire lone-wolf attacks in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere.
> 
> "So right now, clearly ISIS is getting broken," Mattis told reporters on Dec. 15. "I think there's still problems, the fight is not over with them, don't believe it when somebody says that ISIS is completely down. We're continuing to fight them, they're on the run, they can't hold against our alliance at all."


----------



## birthday_massacre

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...p/trump-takes-full-credit-gains-against-isis/

*Trump said his administration had done more against ISIS in the last eight months than the Obama administration had done in many years. Trump is correct in the sense that the Islamic State has suffered its largest territorial losses since he took office, but that confuses the timing with the cause.

Between two-thirds and three-fourths of the firepower unleashed against ISIS hit before Trump became president. The terrorist group’s hold on territory had started to crumble a year before he took command. While Trump ordered some changes in the military operation, the experts we reached said those didn’t transform the strategy so much as continue the one he inherited from Obama.*


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> We are way more fucked now with Trump than we would be with Hillary.





> December 27, 2017
> *If Hillary Clinton Had Won, We’d Be Even Worse*
> by Ted Rall
> 
> What if Hillary Clinton had won 114,000 more votes in four key states? Or, what if she’d picked up the two to three percent of the vote she lost because Bernie Sanders’ supporters sat on their hands on election day? She’d be “Clinton 2” or “Clinton 45” or “the second President Clinton” — and the world would look very different.
> 
> In terms of personnel and therefore policy, a Clinton Administration II would look and feel like a mash-up of Obama’s third term and a throwback to figures who populated her husband’s White House during the 1990s. Having moved to the right since Bill’s first term, progressive figures like then-Labor Secretary Robert Reich would be out in the cold. Rahm Emanuel and Timothy Geithner could expect cabinet offers. So could some Bush-era neo-cons like Robert Kagan.
> 
> Hillary didn’t promise much change to domestic policy during her campaign. Her biggest proposal was to spend $275 billion on infrastructure, which would have left us $1.3 trillion short of what’s needed. Not that she could have gotten it through the Republican Congress.
> 
> The alternate presidential history of 2017 differs most significantly in two respects: foreign policy, and tone.
> 
> Clinton’s liberal supporters always glossed over her long history of hawkish, arguably far-right, approaches to military matters. Those who mourn her loss to Trump today have completely forgotten that she convinced Obama to back military coups against the democratically-elected leaders of Honduras and Egypt. She also successfully advised Obama to arm and fund radical Islamist militias in Syria and Libya, plunging two modern Muslim countries into civil wars that have reduced them to failed states. Clinton’s famous cackle after a U.S. drone blew up Libyan ruler Moammar Khaddafi’s convoy, leading to his being sodomized by bayonet on video, is terrifying.
> 
> “It’s impossible to know which national security crises she would be forced to confront, of course,” Micah Zenko speculated in Foreign Policy in July 2016. “But those who vote for her should know that she will approach such crises with a long track record of being generally supportive of initiating U.S. military interventions and expanding them.”
> 
> Two months later, another FP writer penned an astonishing look behind the Kremlin walls at the thinking of top Russian officials worried about the U.S. election: “Moscow perceives the former secretary of state as an existential threat… That fear was heightened when Clinton surrogate Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, recently accused Putin of attempting to rig the U.S. election through cyberattacks. That is a grave allegation — the very kind of thing a President Clinton might repeat to justify war with Russia,” wrote Clinton Ehrlich.
> 
> Would Hillary’s tough talk have triggered World War III with Russia by now? Probably not. But it’s not impossible — which shows us how far right she stands politically on the use of the force.
> 
> More likely and thus more worrisome, Hillary might have leveraged the current U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan into attacks against neighboring Iran. “I want the Iranians to know, if I am the president, we will attack Iran” if Iran were to attack Israel — even if there were no Congressional authorization or a clear and present danger to the U.S., Clinton said in 2008. “And I want them to understand that… we would be able to totally obliterate them [to retaliate for an attack on Israel].” Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran has a real military and thus a real ability to defend itself — which would mean a long, costly and possibly unwinnable war.
> 
> Like Trump, Hillary would almost certainly be authorizing the construction, deployment and use of more assassination drone planes.
> 
> The one arena where most people agree that President Clinton would have been better than President Trump is presidential tone. Yes, “she does yell into microphones and speak in an overly enunciated voice—two factors that may make her seem abrasive.” But this is a woman whose campaign assigned 12 staffers to compose a tweet; they went through 10 drafts over 10 hours. There wouldn’t be any Trump-style 3 a.m. Twitter diarrhea coming out of a Clinton White House.
> 
> When George W. Bush was president, there wasn’t one morning I didn’t regret that Al Gore wasn’t there instead. Gore wouldn’t have invaded Iraq. He might not have gone into Afghanistan either. Unlike pretty much every other president, he cared about the environment.
> 
> There isn’t a single moment I miss President Hillary Clinton, though. Trump is a disaster, a real piece of crap. But everyone knows it. Because Trump is so loud and stupid and cruel and greedy and corrupt, all liberals and not a few conservatives clearly discern the true nature of his administration, and of the system itself.
> 
> If Hillary Clinton were president, the left would still be just as asleep as it was between 2008 and 2016. First woman president! Aren’t we just the best.
> 
> Meanwhile, the drones fire their missiles and U.S. troops and spooks prop up tyrants, and the filthy rich rake in their loot.
> 
> Trump gives us clarity. That is no small thing.
> 
> SOURCE


"If Hillary Clinton were president, the left would still be just as asleep as it was between 2008 and 2016. First woman president! Aren’t we just the best."

I have one disagreement with Ted Rall. It's not the left that would still be asleep. It's the idiot liberal sheep who would still be asleep. The SJW crowd would be so busy patting themselves for electing a woman that they'd ignore all the horrific shit Clinton was doing and call you a sexist if you dared criticize her from the left, just like they did with Obama and calling his critics racist. That's neoliberal identity politics for ya.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> "If Hillary Clinton were president, the left would still be just as asleep as it was between 2008 and 2016. First woman president! Aren’t we just the best."
> 
> I have one disagreement with Ted Rall. It's not the left that would still be asleep. It's the idiot liberal sheep who would still be asleep. The SJW crowd would be so busy patting themselves for electing a woman that they'd ignore all the horrific shit Clinton was doing and call you a sexist if you dared criticize her from the left, just like they did with Obama and calling his critics racist. That's neoliberal identity politics for ya.


Like I said Hillary would not have destroyed Internet privacy laws, net neutrality wouldn’t be gone, the EPA wouldn’t be destroyed like Trump is doing now, education wouldn’t be in dire straights like it is now under Davos, Hillary also wouldn’t be putting all these incompetent right wing judges in place either, and Trumps SCOTUS picks will all be way worse than Hillary’s. Not to mention how Trump is alienating the US from the rest of the world. Hillary never would have done that. I could go on and on how Hillary wouldn’t be nearly as bad as Trump. But those are some of the biggies. Trump is way more dangerous and worse than HIllary because all Trump cares about is undoing everything Obama did regardless of who it hurts.

And again no the real progressive left would not be asleep at the wheel if Hillary were president. The real liberals would not be asleep just he fake ones who are not really liberals. The second Hillary started doing center right polices the liberals and progressives would be against her

the progressives and libs are already going to primary a lot of the Dems in 2018 and 2020, that has nothing to do with Trump being president, that would have happened under Hillary as well. It would probably be even stronger if Hillary was president since a democrat would be president and the establishment dems would still be pushing nonprogressive polices


----------



## Stephen90

Merry Reaper said:


> Trump keeps one of his bigger campaign promises:
> 
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/h...as-lost-since-trump-took-over/article/2644137


Yet he continues to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia. Typical Trump hypocrisy.


----------



## krtgolfing

birthday_massacre said:


> Like I said Hillary would not have destroyed Internet privacy laws, net neutrality wouldn’t be gone, the EPA wouldn’t be destroyed like Trump is doing now, education wouldn’t be in dire straights like it is now under Davos, Hillary also wouldn’t be putting all these incompetent right wing judges in place either, and Trumps SCOTUS picks will all be way worse than Hillary’s. Not to mention how Trump is alienating the US from the rest of the world. Hillary never would have done that. I could go on and on how Hillary wouldn’t be nearly as bad as Trump. But those are some of the biggies. Trump is way more dangerous and worse than HIllary because all Trump cares about is undoing everything Obama did regardless of who it hurts.
> 
> And again no the real progressive left would not be asleep at the wheel if Hillary were president. The real liberals would not be asleep just he fake ones who are not really liberals. The second Hillary started doing center right polices the liberals and progressives would be against her
> 
> the progressives and libs are already going to primary a lot of the Dems in 2018 and 2020, that has nothing to do with Trump being president, that would have happened under Hillary as well. It would probably be even stronger if Hillary was president since a democrat would be president and the establishment dems would still be pushing nonprogressive polices


Making a lot of assumptions I see!


----------



## birthday_massacre

krtgolfing said:


> Making a lot of assumptions I see!


As was the post and article I was replying to that Hillary would be worse.


----------



## Stinger Fan

It's December 28th, there's still 3 days for the predictions of Trumps impeachment to come true....:lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> It's December 28th, there's still 3 days for the predictions of Trumps impeachment to come true....:lol


Still misquoting me I see even though I have corrected you a number of times. I said Trump won't make it to 2020 and he would be lucky to make to at the end of the year.

The guarantee was not making it to 2020 not the end of the year. But keep touting your fake news. it's even worse because you have been correct at least 4 or 5 times now


----------



## virus21




----------



## MikeTO

Something for lightening the mood:


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Still misquoting me I see even though I have corrected you a number of times. I said Trump won't make it to 2020 and he would be lucky to make to at the end of the year.
> 
> The guarantee was not making it to 2020 not the end of the year. But keep touting your fake news. it's even worse because you have been correct at least 4 or 5 times now


Isn't it quite hypocritical to be annoyed at people "misquoting" you when you're the one who purposely misquotes people? Even when you respond to a video you purposely misquote what's in the video :lol .... Oh and here are some posts of you suggesting Trump will get impeached by the end of the year

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/69833545-post7044.html
"*And Trump is getting impeached or will resign, he will be lucky to last the year.*"

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/69667169-post6708.html
"*2017 will probably end with Trump getting impeached*"

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/67850050-post3074.html
"*Hes on his way to being impeached or he will end up resigning. He will be lucky to make it to the end of the year*."

^This last one you're directly responding to me :lol *Facts don't care about your feelings*


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> Isn't it quite hypocritical to be annoyed at people "misquoting" you when you're the one who purposely misquotes people? Even when you respond to a video you purposely misquote what's in the video :lol .... Oh and here are some posts of you suggesting Trump will get impeached by the end of the year
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/69833545-post7044.html
> "*And Trump is getting impeached or will resign, he will be lucky to last the year.*"
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/69667169-post6708.html
> "*2017 will probably end with Trump getting impeached*"
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/67850050-post3074.html
> "*Hes on his way to being impeached or he will end up resigning. He will be lucky to make it to the end of the year*."
> 
> ^This last one you're directly responding to me :lol *Facts don't care about your feelings*


How am I being hypocritical? So which of those quotes are me guaranteeing he won't last 2017? 

Did you even bother to read what you quoted me on? You claim I made a guarantee that Trump won't last til 2017 and I told you I never said I guarantee I have said, I say he will be lucky to make it to the end of 2017 then you quote me saying he will be lucky to make it to the end of 2017 and you think that is a gotcha moment LOL


You still have not quoted me where I said I guarantee he won't. Since when do the words be lucky or probably mean guarantee. All you did is prove you keep misquoting me.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> How am I being hypocritical? So which of those quotes are me guaranteeing he won't last 2017?
> 
> Did you even bother to read what you quoted me on? You claim I made a guarantee that Trump won't last til 2017 and I told you I never said I guarantee I have said, I say he will be lucky to make it to the end of 2017 then you quote me saying he will be lucky to make it to the end of 2017 and you think that is a gotcha moment LOL
> 
> 
> You still have not quoted me where I said I guarantee he won't. Since when do the words be lucky or probably mean guarantee. All you did is prove you keep misquoting me.


Quote me saying that you made the "guarantee" because I didn't :lol You're only embarrassing yourself to the point that you've again gone to your go to tactic of purposely misquoting the people you don't like. I was mocking the *idea* that you've brought up multiple times of Trumps impeachment coming by the end of the year. The fact that you're arguing that you never said anything of the sort is hysterical. Even in the face of clear evidence of what you said, you still can't admit to being wrong :lol

Trump's gotten so under your skin, you're lying about what you've said :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> Quote me saying that you made the "guarantee" because I didn't :lol You're only embarrassing yourself to the point that you've again gone to your go to tactic of purposely misquoting the people you don't like. I was mocking the *idea* that you've brought up multiple times of Trumps impeachment coming by the end of the year. The fact that you're arguing that you never said anything of the sort is hysterical. Even in the face of clear evidence of what you said, you still can't admit to being wrong :lol
> 
> Trump's gotten so under your skin, you're lying about what you've said :lol


How am I lying about what I said?

I said stop misquoting me, and told you and I quote



birthday_massacre said:


> Still misquoting me I see even though I have corrected you a number of times. I said Trump won't make it to 2020 and *he would be lucky to make to at the end of the year.
> *
> The guarantee was not making it to 2020 not the end of the year. But keep touting your fake news. it's even worse because you have been correct at least 4 or 5 times now


Then you claim I am lying by posting my past posts and I quote



Stinger Fan said:


> Isn't it quite hypocritical to be annoyed at people "misquoting" you when you're the one who purposely misquotes people? Even when you respond to a video you purposely misquote what's in the video :lol .... Oh and here are some posts of you suggesting Trump will get impeached by the end of the year
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/69833545-post7044.html
> "And Trump is getting impeached or will resign,* he will be lucky to last the year.*"
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/69667169-post6708.html
> "2017 will probably end with Trump getting impeached"
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/67850050-post3074.html
> "Hes on his way to being impeached or he will end up resigning. *He will be lucky to make it to the end of the year.*"
> 
> ^This last one you're directly responding to me :lol Facts don't care about your feelings


So you are going to claim that saying, "he would be lucky to make to the end of the year" and "he will be lucky to last the year." or "He will be lucky to make it to the end of the year" are different?

Yeah I am the one who is embarrassing myself lol


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Don't think he will get impeached unless some yet to be known info comes out,however he is an overweight/borderline obese man in his 70's who doesn't believe in exercise and eat's mostly fast food like a fat 12 year old with shitty parents. Him dropping dead from a heart attack or falling gravely ill in the next 5 years is a given barring change of lifestyle and diet.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-28/trump-rolls-back-offshore-safety-rules-born-from-bp-oil-spill



> *Trump Rolls Back Offshore Safety Rules Born From BP Oil Spill*
> 
> The Trump administration is rolling back offshore drilling rules put in place after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster killed 11 workers and spewed millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
> 
> President Donald Trump in April ordered Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to review a raft of Obama-era safety rules that sought to curb accidents and pollution by oil and gas drillers operating in U.S. waters. The agency on Thursday proposed several changes to those regulations, including scrapping a requirement that operators certify through a third party that their safety devices are functioning properly.
> 
> The changes will save companies at least $288 million over 10 years, according to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.
> 
> “By reducing the regulatory burden on industry, we are encouraging increased domestic oil and gas production while maintaining a high bar for safety and environmental sustainability,” agency Director Scott A. Angelle said in a statement.
> 
> President Obama put the safety rules in place late last year, after six years of analysis following the 2010 BP Plc oil spill, in which a well blew out in the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed changes include revisions to safety system design requirements and equipment failure reporting requirements.
> 
> Environmentalists blasted the move, saying it put oceans and wildlife at risk.
> 
> "By tossing aside the lessons from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Trump is putting our coasts and wildlife at risk of more deadly oil spills," Miyoko Sakashita, director of the oceans program at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. "Reversing offshore safety rules isn’t just deregulation, it’s willful ignorance.”


----------



## Vic Capri

The Presidency is not a popularity contest. Its about getting things done.

- Vic


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> How am I lying about what I said?
> 
> I said stop misquoting me, and told you and I quote
> 
> 
> 
> Then you claim I am lying by posting my past posts and I quote
> 
> 
> 
> So you are going to claim that saying, "he would be lucky to make to the end of the year" and "he will be lucky to last the year." or "He will be lucky to make it to the end of the year" are different?
> 
> Yeah I am the one who is embarrassing myself lol


Do you even read what *you* write? :lol 

"*You claim I made a guarantee that Trump won't last til 2017*"

^You're lying, for someone so against "misquoting", you sure like doing it yourself. I never once made any claim of you making any "guarantees" of an impeachment by the years end. I already explained to you why I bring this up and that's to mock the idea of it. You wanted direct quotes and I gave you direct quotes of you clearly suggesting Trump won't last the year, I posted the link to those quotes so everyone can see that it wasn't a made up quote. That's not "misquoting" you :lol that's just showing you how you're trying to lie your way out of this 



http://www.wrestlingforum.com/69833545-post7044.html
"*And Trump is getting impeached or will resign, he will be lucky to last the year.*"

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/69667169-post6708.html
"*2017 will probably end with Trump getting impeached*"

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/67850050-post3074.html
"*Hes on his way to being impeached or he will end up resigning. He will be lucky to make it to the end of the year*."


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> Do you even read what *you* write? :lol
> 
> "*You claim I made a guarantee that Trump won't last til 2017*"
> 
> ^You're lying, for someone so against "misquoting", you sure like doing it yourself. I never once made any claim of you making any "guarantees" of an impeachment by the years end. I already explained to you why I bring this up and that's to mock the idea of it. You wanted direct quotes and I gave you direct quotes of you clearly suggesting Trump won't last the year, I posted the link to those quotes so everyone can see that it wasn't a made up quote. That's not "misquoting" you :lol that's just showing you how you're trying to lie your way out of this
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/69833545-post7044.html
> "*And Trump is getting impeached or will resign, he will be lucky to last the year.*"
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/69667169-post6708.html
> "*2017 will probably end with Trump getting impeached*"
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/67850050-post3074.html
> "*Hes on his way to being impeached or he will end up resigning. He will be lucky to make it to the end of the year*."


Stop embarrassing yourself. You exposed yourself that you were misquoting me. 

How am I trying to lie my way out of this, when I keep telling you what I said was Trump will be lucky to last the year, then you claiming that is not what I said and quoting me saying Trump will be lucky to last the year with two different quotes.

The more you post those old quotes the more you keep verifying I am right lol



birthday_massacre said:


> Still misquoting me I see even though I have corrected you a number of times. I said Trump won't make it to 2020 *and he would be lucky to make to at the end of the year.*
> 
> The guarantee was not making it to 2020 not the end of the year. But keep touting your fake news. it's even worse because you have been correct at least 4 or 5 times now


You seem really confused here or you are just trolling at this point. 

We are done here.


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> The Presidency is not a popularity contest. Its about getting things done.
> 
> - Vic


Yes like getting rid of net neutrality.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Yay more environmental regulations rolled back! Who needs them anyway - they cost so much damn money and what do they give us! Protection against some hoodoo environmental dangers that will never happen again!

If something were to happen - it's all in Gods plan and the earth will take care of itself, plus the free market will get rid of the company(s) that made the mistake(s) and a greater competitor will take its place. It's fool proof! #MAGA


----------



## virus21




----------



## Art Vandaley

lol Alexander Downer, imagine finding out your administration got taken out thanks to Alexander Downer...


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Stop embarrassing yourself. You exposed yourself that you were misquoting me.
> 
> How am I trying to lie my way out of this, when I keep telling you what I said was Trump will be lucky to last the year, then you claiming that is not what I said and quoting me saying Trump will be lucky to last the year with two different quotes.
> 
> The more you post those old quotes the more you keep verifying I am right lol
> 
> 
> 
> You seem really confused here or you are just trolling at this point.
> 
> We are done here.


:lol You're not making any sense. I was "misquoting" you now I'm proving you right by....quoting you using the same quotes? :lol Stop, you're really losing it now. I showed you where you're lying, you got caught trying to pretend you're smarter than everyone. Directly quoting you 3 times is not "misquoting" . You got caught lying about what you've said and *what I said*, which is why you've completely *ignored* my calling you out to prove I used the words "guarantee"

Take your L and move on :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

@Stinger Fan stop going in circles. All you quotes did is verify what I said was Trump will be lucky to last the year. Not sure why you keep denying that, when you quoted me saying it in old posts

Just admit what I really said was Trump will be lucky to last the year like I keep telling you is what I have been saying when you keep trying to misquote me.


In other news

http://www.businessinsider.com/whit...new-york-times-interview-embarrassing-2017-12

White House aides reportedly blindsided by 'embarrassing' Trump interview

White House aides were mortified by President Donald Trump's wide-ranging interview with The New York Times, which one staffer called "embarrassing."
Trump was alone with a Times reporter for the interview Thursday at his golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida.
The president's comments in that 30-minute sit-down — hitting on the Russia investigation, his legislative achievements, plus domestic and world affairs — dominated headlines Friday, to the chagrin of his staff back in Washington.

White House aides were mortified by President Donald Trump's 30-minute interview with The New York Times, the contents of which dominated headlines all day Friday.

The interview published on Thursday hit on some familiar topics for Trump: the ongoing Russia investigation, his legislative achievements, and some domestic and world affairs.

The president was largely unfiltered in the one-on-one with The Times, to the chagrin of his staffers back in Washington who were reportedly caught off-guard by both the interview itself, and Trump's musings with a reporter who was invited to speak with the president by one of Trump's close confidants, Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy.

According to The Washington Post, the encounter rattled Trump's White House aides, who were not present for the interview; a lapse known to cause ripple-effects due to Trump's tendency to speak off-the-cuff in a way that invariably captures headlines worldwide.

By all accounts, White House chief of staff John Kelly has put in considerable effort to moderate access to Trump and filter the information he consumes, which is why Trump's interview with The Times reportedly sent some Oval Office staff scrambling.


The Post's Ashley Parker and Josh Dawsey reported that Hope Hicks, the White House communications director, got on the phone once she received word of the president's sit-down with The Times to "check in on the interview from afar." Another aide The Post described as "frustrated" called the interview "embarrassing."

Trump frequently mingles with guests when visiting his private properties like Mar-a-Lago in Florida. And after a year in office, that is still a thorn in the side of those charged with monitoring the interactions of a president who is easily influenced by outside feedback.

An unnamed former White House staffer told The Post: "At Mar-a-Lago, anyone who can get within eyesight changes the game.



Full interview here I belive, I have no more free views of the NYT webiste for this month so cant post the article

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/us/politics/trump-interview-mueller-russia-china-north-korea.html


----------



## AlternateDemise

Vic Capri said:


> The Presidency is not a popularity contest. Its about getting things done.
> 
> - Vic


Get back to me when the wall is built, tensions with North Korea are subdued and we aren't completely fucked from war and Obamacare is gotten rid of. 

Then we'll talk. Until then, don't try to sit here and act like Trump's gotten shit done when he hasn't.



birthday_massacre said:


> Actually, the positive claim is these tax cuts will help and surge the economy, and my point is it does the opposite based on history because every time the rich gets huge tax cuts we go into a recession, which is a fact.


I think the tax cuts Trump's gonna have in place are as idiotic as most sensible people are claiming, but speaking on behalf of the most recent recession we had, I'd put the blame on the botched housing policy more than anything.


----------



## DOPA

If this means no more aid to Pakistan who are at best Frenemies with the west then I see this as a very very positive development. Cut their damn aid.


----------



## DOPA

BUT MUH RUSSIA COLLUSION!


----------



## birthday_massacre

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-claims-over-298-days/?utm_term=.1c02504481cb

*President Trump has made 1,628 false or misleading claims over 298 days*

For some reason, our year-long project analyzing, categorizing and tracking every false or misleading claim by President Trump had seemed like quite a burden in the past month. Well, the numbers are in and now we know why: In the past 35 days, Trump has averaged an astonishing nine claims a day.

The total now stands at 1,628 claims in 298 days, or an average of 5.5 claims a day. That puts the president on track to reach 1,999 claims by the end of his first year in office, though he obviously would easily exceed 2,000 if he maintained the pace of the past month. (Our full interactive graphic can be found here.)

As regular readers know, the president has a tendency to repeat himself — often. There are now at least 50 claims that he has repeated three or more times.

Trump’s most repeated claim, uttered 60 times, was some variation of the statement that the Affordable Care Act is dying and “essentially dead.” The Congressional Budget Office has said that the Obamacare exchanges, despite well-documented issues, are not imploding and are expected to remain stable for the foreseeable future. Indeed, healthy enrollment for the coming year has surprised health-care experts.

Trump also repeatedly takes credit for events or business decisions that happened before he took the oath of office — or had even been elected. Fifty-five times, he has touted that he secured business investments and job announcements that had been previously announced and could easily be found with a Google search.

But with the push in Congress to pass a tax plan, two of Trump’s favorite talking points about taxes — that the tax plan will be the biggest tax cut in U.S. history and that the United States is one of the highest-taxed nations — have been moving up the list.

Trump repeated the falsehood about having the biggest tax cut 40 times, even though Treasury Department data shows it would only rank eighth. And 50 times Trump has claimed that the United States pays the highest corporate taxes (19 times) or that it is one of the highest-taxed nations (31 times). The latter is false; the former is misleading, as the effective U.S. corporate tax rate (what companies end up paying after deductions and benefits) ends up being lower than the statutory tax rate.

We also track the president’s flip-flops on our list, as they are so glaring. He spent the 2016 campaign telling supporters that the unemployment rate was really 42 percent and the official statistics were phony; now, on 33 occasions he has hailed the lowest unemployment rate in 17 years. It was already very low when he was elected — 4.6 percent, the lowest in a decade — so his failure to acknowledge that is misleading.

Fifty-seven times, Trump has celebrated a rise in the stock market — even though in the campaign he repeatedly said it was a “bubble” that was ready to crash as soon as the Federal Reserve started raising interest rates. Well, the Fed did raise rates three times since the election — and yet it has not plunged as Trump predicted. It has continued a rise in stock prices that began under Barack Obama in 2009.

Again, the president has never explained his shift in position on the stock market. But he couldn’t stop talking about it during his trip to Asia.

We maintain the database by closely reading or watching Trump’s myriad public appearances and television and radio interviews. The interviews are especially hard to keep up with, in part because the White House does not routinely post on them on its website. Moreover, Trump tends to seek out right-leaning interviewers who rarely challenge him or question him when he repeats false claims that have already been fact-checked. The interviews thus often contain a torrent of misleading claims, and we despair that supposed journalists are not confronting the president about his rhetoric.

So we were amused to see a foreign leader fact-check the president on his Asian trip. On Nov. 13, Trump met with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe when he started to repeat one of his favorite false claims that the United States has “deficits with almost everybody.”

“Except us,” interjected Turnbull.

“Except with you,” Trump agreed, adding: “You’re the only one.” He then suggested he should check the figures, but Turnbull assured him, “It’s real.”

Indeed, the United States has a goods trade surplus of $13 billion and services trade surpluses of $15 billion with Australia, largely because of a Free Trade Agreement, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

We assume Trump was joking when he said Australia was the “only one.” But for the record, the United States also has trade surpluses with the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Belgium, Singapore, Hong Kong, Chile, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, among other countries, according to the International Trade Commission.


----------



## FriedTofu

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/948355557022420992
:aries2


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/948355557022420992
> :aries2


It's clearly a hearty mix of the cold, hard truth (NK being a dire shithole) and alpha male braggadocio (button size and efficiency).

:trump3


----------



## FriedTofu

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> It's clearly a hearty mix of the cold, hard truth (NK being a dire shithole) and alpha male braggadocio (button size and efficiency).
> 
> :trump3


Sounds more like overcompensating for a size issue to me. bama3


----------



## DesolationRow

Be careful, :trump, don't want to let Kim Jong Un make the obvious comeback that _of course_ Trump's button is bigger, made for an old person and all. :lol


----------



## FriedTofu

Smaller hands = bigger buttons would be funnier.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

FriedTofu said:


> Sounds more like overcompensating for a size issue to me. bama3


Don't be so mean to Little Rocket Man. He can't help that Asian men are stereotypically unimpressive downstairs. 8*D


----------



## FriedTofu

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Don't be so mean to Little Rocket Man. He can't help that Asian men are stereotypically unimpressive downstairs. 8*D


I guess I have to be less mean to Trump too for always attempting to compare with a black man downstairs. 8*D


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

FriedTofu said:


> I guess I have to be less mean to Trump too for always attempting to compare with a black man downstairs. 8*D


Which black man? Certainly you don't mean Obeezy, considering he's actually biracial, you filthy racist.

:trump4


----------



## Mister Abigail

Hey can you guys stop your dickhead leader from taunting an insane person over launching nuclear missiles please?


----------



## FriedTofu

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Which black man? Certainly you don't mean Obeezy, considering he's actually biracial, you filthy racist.
> 
> :trump4


:ghost



Mistletoe Abigail said:


> Hey can you guys stop your dickhead leader from taunting an insane person over launching nuclear missiles please?


I don't think anyone is from North Korea here.


----------



## CamillePunk

Scott Adams' take on the latest Trump tweet, featuring a hilarious...impression. :lol

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1nAKEWZpzeaJL


----------



## Reaper

Why worry about a nuclear war when Tax Cuts and Net Neutrality and sexism and misogyny and environmental deregulation and rich people and golfing and Russian bots and Trump's racist gulags have already killed us?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Steve Bannon going off in interview from new book.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/03/book-steve-bannon-calls-kushner-manafort-don-jr-trump-tower-meeting-russians-treasonous/



> *Book: Steve Bannon Calls Kushner, Manafort, Don Jr. Trump Tower Meeting with Russians ‘Treasonous’*
> 
> Former Trump Chief Strategist Steve Bannon describes Don Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort’s infamous Trump Tower meeting with Russians during the 2016 campaign as “unpatriotic” and “treasonous,” according to a new book by Michael Wolff called Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.
> 
> David Smith reports in the Guardian:
> 
> 
> 
> [Bannon] is particularly scathing about a June 2016 meeting involving Trump’s son Donald Jr, son-in-law Jared Kushner, then campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at Trump Tower in New York. A trusted intermediary had promised documents that would “incriminate” rival Hillary Clinton but instead of alerting the FBI to a potential assault on American democracy by a foreign power, Trump Jr replied in an email: “I love it.”
> 
> The meeting was revealed by the New York Times in July last year, prompting Trump Jr to say no consequential material was produced. Soon after, Wolff writes, Bannon remarked mockingly: “The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor – with no lawyers. They didn’t have any lawyers.
> 
> “Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”
> 
> Bannon went on, Wolff writes, to say that if any such meeting had to take place, it should have been set up “in a Holiday Inn in Manchester, New Hampshire, with your lawyers who meet with these people”. Any information, he said, could then be “dump[ed] … down to Breitbart or something like that, or maybe some other more legitimate publication”.
> 
> Bannon added: “You never see it, you never know it, because you don’t need to … But that’s the brain trust that they had.”
> 
> 
> 
> Read the rest here.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/03/donald-trump-russia-steve-bannon-michael-wolff



> ...Bannon has criticised Trump’s decision to fire Comey. In Wolff’s book, obtained by the Guardian ahead of publication from a bookseller in New England, he suggests White House hopes for a quick end to the Mueller investigation are gravely misplaced.
> 
> “You realise where this is going,” he is quoted as saying. “This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner … It’s as plain as a hair on your face.”
> 
> Last month it was reported that federal prosecutors had subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank, the German financial institution that has lent hundreds of millions of dollars to the Kushner property empire. Bannon continues: “It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They’re going to go right through that. They’re going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me.”
> 
> Scorning apparent White House insouciance, Bannon reaches for a hurricane metaphor: “They’re sitting on a beach trying to stop a Category Five.”...


----------



## Empress

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/948620881609285632


----------



## wkdsoul

and he's smells funny and his mum dresses him weird. ffs :done


----------



## Reaper

That is obviously not real. Lol.

Where did he release this statement? How did ABC and the other media get it? When was this statement made?


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Merry Reaper said:


> That is obviously not real. Lol.
> 
> Where did he release this statement? How did ABC and the other media get it? When was this statement made?


No Trump really made this statement. Everyone is reporting it.


----------



## Reaper

The Hardcore Show said:


> No Trump really made this statement. Everyone is reporting it.


Where. Is there audio, video? An official source? 

The fake media isn't a good source - we all know that.










This was Trump's activity planned for the day. So he gave this "statement" during this event? Before? After?


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Merry Reaper said:


> Where. Is there audio, video? An official source?
> 
> The fake media isn't a good source - we all know that.


The guy tends to lose his mind for a few days before coming back to some forum of reality then again you feel like almost everything ever said about Trump is the biggest bunch of bullshit ever said about a president.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Breitbart is reporting it.

*Donald Trump Furious: Steve Bannon ‘Not Only Lost His Job, He Lost His Mind’*

Fox News as well.

*Trump slams Bannon after criticism, says ex-chief strategist 'lost his mind'*


----------



## Reaper

The Hardcore Show said:


> The guy tends to lose his mind for a few days before coming back to some forum of reality then again you feel like almost everything ever said about Trump is the biggest bunch of bullshit ever said about a president.


This isn't something that's said about Trump. These quotes are directly attributed to Trump. 

What's the source? Where did he say them? Did he release them in writing? Did he speak them at a speech? Where did he even say this stuff?



2 Ton 21 said:


> Breitbart is reporting it.
> 
> *Donald Trump Furious: Steve Bannon ‘Not Only Lost His Job, He Lost His Mind’*
> 
> Fox News as well.
> 
> *Trump slams Bannon after criticism, says ex-chief strategist 'lost his mind'*


So it's a written statement released by Sarah Sanders? 

:lol 

Fair enough. This is going to be fun because assuming it's true, I actually don't oppose what Trump has said. If Trump is distancing himself from Bannon, I think that should make the left that hate him so much hate him less considering Bannon was supposed to be the real GOD at the White House and the enabler of the entire racist regime. 

It's a win/win


----------



## Empress

Merry Reaper said:


> That is obviously not real. Lol.
> 
> Where did he release this statement? How did ABC and the other media get it? When was this statement made?




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/948627314753056768
The White House released this statement. 

I don't care for Trump but I don't deliberately post misleading posts in here in an attempt to make him look worse than I think he is. The statement is real. Although, I'm not sure why you'd think this is false given all the other inflammatory comments he has made.


----------



## Reaper

Empress said:


> I don't care for Trump but I don't deliberately post misleading posts in here in an attempt to make him look worse than I think he is. The statement is real. Although, I'm not sure why you'd think this is false given all the other inflammatory comments he has made.


Nah. It's not about deliberately posting fake news. It's about getting duped and we all get duped so the filters should always be up. 

Since it's real, then I think it's a good thing. I never cared much for Bannon anyways. 

Trump going all in with someone like Bannon whom everyone originally hated (even the democrats) should mean something to those who thought that Trump was simply Bannon's puppet.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Just peaked in on The_Donald. Just a ton of denial. "Fake news". Yeah it's fake. Bannon never said it. That's why Breitbart has it posted, because Bannon would want the fake story up on his site. Sure Bannon still hasn't denied it and Trump tore him a new asshole over it, but yeah, it's fake news. 

fpalm


----------



## CamillePunk

So much for all those "President Bannon" tweets by the perennially clueless leftists. :lol 

Still sad to see this as Bannon is one of the few political realists when it comes to demographics and the future of this country's ideological soul.

There is clearly and always has been distance between Steve Bannon and the Trump kids. Now Don Jr is throwing shade at Bannon over Alabama and Bannon is saying Don Jr is going to "crack like an egg". Sigh.


----------



## Reaper

CamillePunk said:


> So much for all those "President Bannon" tweets by the perennially clueless leftists. :lol


Maybe he can launch a new career as a Democrat since now he's suddenly in their protective circle :mj

Trump can't have a bad guy in his camp because that makes Trump a bad guy. But Trump is still a bad guy when he torches another bad guy. 

I suppose it's consistent :Shrug


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Trumped dropped a bomb on Bannon without even having to push the button. :trump


----------



## Reaper

7-TIME AWARD WINNING WF LEGEND: THE SHIV said:


> Trumped dropped a bomb on Bannon without even having to push the button. :trump


Even on Brietbart, most of the comments pretty much state "We voted for Trump, we didn't vote for Bannon". 

Poor guy over-played his hand apparently :lmao


----------



## FatherJackHackett

Steve Bannon the new darling of the Left. What a timeline.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Until then, don't try to sit here and act like Trump's gotten shit done when he hasn't.


Picked Neil Gorsuch, executive orders to undo Obama's, Travel Ban, Tax Reform Bill, destroyed ISIS, budget cuts to stop national debt bleeding, withdrew from TPP, withdrew from the Paris Accord, approved the Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines, increased military spending, helped open new coal mines, *signed 96 laws*, revived NASA, and skyrocketed the stock market after working with multiple CEOs.

Thanks for playing.

- Vic


----------



## Smarky Mark

If Trump hasn't accomplished anything then why is the left constantly behaving as if the sky is falling? What's the problem if nothing has changed?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> If Trump hasn't accomplished anything then why is the left constantly behaving as if the sky is falling? What's the problem if nothing has changed?


He has only accomplished one thing through Congress the tax cuts. Most everything else has been undoing everything Obama did using executive orders. Its also what Trump is trying to do and failing at.

Trump is moving the country backward. And his twitter tantrums will start WWIII




2 Ton 21 said:


> Just peaked in on The_Donald. Just a ton of denial. "Fake news". Yeah it's fake. Bannon never said it. That's why Breitbart has it posted, because Bannon would want the fake story up on his site. Sure Bannon still hasn't denied it and Trump tore him a new asshole over it, but yeah, it's fake news.
> 
> fpalm


Doesn't Bannon want to primary Trump in 2020 if Trump is still president?


----------



## Draykorinee

Its not been a quiet start to 2018 from Trump has it?

Ultimately though, Bannon is a cunt, so yay Donald?

But wait, Donad is a raving loony, and Bannon talked shit about his son so...Yay Bannon?

What do i do here!

:toomanykobes


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Its not been a quiet start to 2018 from Trump has it?
> 
> Ultimately though, Bannon is a cunt, so yay Donald?
> 
> But wait, Donad is a raving loony, and Bannon talked shit about his son so...Yay Bannon?
> 
> What do i do here!


Fixed with the right meme. :trump


----------



## Draykorinee

Merry Reaper said:


> Fixed with the right meme. :trump


Ha, much better.


----------



## Reaper

Meanwhile at Hillary's home. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/03/a-f...ary-and-bill-clintons-house-in-chappaqua.html



> A fire that broke out at former president and first lady Bill and Hillary Clinton's home has been extinguished, WNBC reported Wednesday.
> 
> Firefighters arrived on the scene of the Clintons' longtime home in Chappaqua, New York to fight a fire that has since been put out, the Chappaqua Fire Department told WNBC.
> 
> The Town of New Castle Police Department said no injuries were sustained by the fire. An ambulance on the scene left without transport.
> 
> This is breaking news. Please check back for updates.


----------



## birthday_massacre

draykorinee said:


> Ha, much better.


Well its Trump so its more like this


----------



## Reaper

We're already dead from the tax cuts. No more button pushes needed :trump2


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/948658850567282698


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> He has only accomplished one thing through Congress the tax cuts. Most everything else has been undoing everything Obama did using executive orders. Its also what Trump is trying to do and failing at.
> 
> Trump is moving the country backward. And his twitter tantrums will start WWIII


So is he doing nothing or is he doing something, which is it.

Also, using percentages, what do you believe are the chances of WW3 happening while Trump is in office. I'm genuinely curious. Is it closer to 0% or closer to 100%.


----------



## Rookie of the Year

I cannot believe this "nuclear button" thing is a real thing Trump tweeted. I mean, say what you want about the job he's doing as President, as a foreigner, I'm not going to pretend I know all the facts. But these Twitter outbursts sound like the rantings of a 12 year old playing Call of Duty, not a respectable world leader.

If Trump supporters can't see how idiotic Trump sounds when he gets his little fingers moving on the Twittersphere, I'd have to seriously question their intelligence and credibility.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> So is he doing nothing or is he doing something, which is it.
> 
> Also, using percentages, what do you believe are the chances of WW3 happening while Trump is in office. I'm genuinely curious. Is it closer to 0% or closer to 100%.


I just told you, he is getting nothing done through Congress except for the tax cuts he just passed, without using executive orders.

And using percentages, the percent is much higher of WWIII happen because of Trump vs anyone else that would have been president


----------



## FriedTofu

I wonder what the spin will be for the sheepies if Trump starts calling Breitbart fake news.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: Official WF President Donald Trump Threadwant*



Rookie of the Year said:


> I cannot believe this "nuclear button" thing is a real thing Trump tweeted. I mean, say what you want about the job he's doing as President, as a foreigner, I'm not going to pretend I know all the facts. But these Twitter outbursts sound like the rantings of a 12 year old playing Call of Duty, not a respectable world leader.
> 
> If Trump supporters can't see how idiotic Trump sounds when he gets his little fingers moving on the Twittersphere, I'd have to seriously question their intelligence and credibility.


A lot of them only care about putting most of the power of this country in the hands of the state and local governments. If I have it right they want the Federal governments to only have power over all immigration and the military.

In their eyes if that happen then things that they don't like such as gay rights, abortions safety net programs ect can be rolled back they view Trump as a means to an end.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> I just told you, he is getting nothing done through Congress except for the tax cuts he just passed, without using executive orders.
> 
> *And using percentages, the percent is much higher of WWIII happen because of Trump vs anyone else that would have been president*


What are the odds of it happening? I would like to know your opinion on this.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> What are the odds of it happening? I would like to know your opinion on this.


With Trump and Kim Jong-un having a pissing contest on twitter, 50/50. 50% either of them could launch a missile. Even the WH is worried about it. Kim Jong-un is baiting Trump to threatned N. Korea so he has a reason to launch. And Trump is such a child he takes the bait every time.


https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/wh...tal-nuclear-war-but-do-nothing-to-stop-trump/

*White House officials anonymously worry about ‘accidental’ nuclear war — but do nothing to stop Trump
Travis Gettys*

President Donald Trump’s provocative tweets against North Korea are alarming White House officials — but they’re anonymously complaining to reporters instead of taking public action.

The president apparently reacted to a Fox News report about Kim Jong-Un by boasting that his “Nuclear Button” was bigger and more potent than the North Korean leader’s, and the tweet was just as alarming inside the White House as it was elsewhere, reported Axios.

“Every war in history was an accident,” one administration insider told the website’s co-founder, Mike Allen. “You just don’t know what’s going to send him over the edge.”

Allen made clear the insider was referring to Trump being close to the edge.

“This is the most important issue on the president’s desk,” one outside adviser to the West Wing told Axios. “We are in a hair-trigger environment, and this is potentially a shooting war with nuclear risk.”

Trump insiders cautioned Allen that the media tends to overanalyze the president’s social media outbursts, saying he often thoughtlessly lashed out on Twitter just to stir controversy.

But White House insiders also pointed out that the risk of war with North Korea was actually higher than most outsiders realized, and the outside adviser questioned Trump’s social media provocations in this context.

“What intel analysis or foreign policy advice leads to employing this as a tactic?” the outside adviser said.

The anonymously voiced concerns fits a pattern of Republicans questioning Trump’s fitness in private but taking virtually no public action to hold him accountable.

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough has been saying for months that GOP lawmakers, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, question the president’s mental stability and competence in private conversations but “debase” themselves by publicly backing him.

“The very people on the stage saying those things are the ones quietly behind the scenes telling every reporter that will listen to them how embarrassed they are to be associated with him — every one of them,” Scarborough recently said. “They roll their eyes, they mock him, they’re humiliated to be associated with that man. Then they go out and get behind the microphone and say (praise his leadership).”

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) voiced his deep concerns about Trump during an October interview with the New York Times, but since then he has backed the president’s agenda.


----------



## Rookie of the Year

*Re: Official WF President Donald Trump Threadwant*



The Hardcore Show said:


> A lot of them only care about putting most of the power of this country in the hands of the state and local governments. If I have it right they want the Federal governments to only have power over all immigration and the military.
> 
> In their eyes if that happen then things that they don't like such as gay rights, abortions safety net programs ect can be rolled back they view Trump as a means to an end.


If they want the Federal Government to lose a majority of their power, how would Trump be able to affect gay rights etc in such a scenario? Or is the belief that they can exert more power over state government to get things changed, i.e. they could push to take away gay rights in Georgia, for example?

Genuinely asking, as I said, I have no knowledge really of American politics and how their system works.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> With Trump and Kim Jong-un having a pissing contest on twitter, 50/50. 50% either of them could launch a missile.


Well I would guess there is a *0%* chance that you believe this bullshit, because I'm fairly certain that if you thought the end of the world was a coin flip away you wouldn't be wasting the precious time you had left posting on this forum.

Rational people are not afraid that this will bring WW3 any closer to reality. 
Wars do not begin over tweets. They are both clearly posturing. No one is going to bomb the U.S. because Trump hurt their feelings. These are powerful and vicious world leaders, not campus snowflakes.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> Well I would guess there is a *0%* chance that you believe this bullshit, because I'm fairly certain that if you thought the end of the world was a coin flip away you wouldn't be wasting the precious time you had left posting on this forum.
> 
> Rational people are not afraid that this will bring WW3 any closer to reality.
> Wars do not begin over tweets. They are both clearly posturing. No one is going to bomb the U.S. because Trump hurt their feelings. These are powerful and vicious world leaders, not campus snowflakes.


Wars can happen over tweets when it's between two unstable world leaders like Trump and Kim Jong-un. Every world leader except Trump ignores Kim Jong-un tweets,, he plays into it. That is why a war could start over a tweet when its Trump and Kim Jong-un.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> *Wars can happen over tweets* when it's between two unstable world leaders like Trump and Kim Jong-un. Every world leader except Trump ignores Kim Jong-un tweets,, he plays into it. That is why a war could start over a tweet when its Trump and Kim Jong-un.


Can you point to any war in history that began as a result of one world leader insulting another via Twitter? Or are you just making this up out of thin air?

Trump's already been the president for over a year. Wasn't the economy supposed to crash by now? Weren't we supposed to have internment camps? What gives?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> Can you point to any war in history that began as a result of one world leader insulting another via Twitter? Or are you just making this up out of thin air?
> 
> Trump's already been the president for over a year. Wasn't the economy supposed to crash by now? Weren't we supposed to have internment camps? What gives?


Internment camps LOL that is what Republicans said about Obama. Twitter only started 10 years ago and you want to look back into history of Twitter starting a war? 

And what exactly am I making up? I said Trump *can *start WWIII over his stupid tweets to Kim Jong-un because both of them are unstable. I even posted an article how people in the WH are worried about it

Wars start over words all the time, tweets are words. Are you really going to claim that a war couldn't start over what unstable world leaders are tweeting?


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> Internment camps LOL that is what Republicans said about Obama. Twitter only started 10 years ago and you want to look back into history of Twitter starting a war?
> 
> And what exactly am I making up? I said Trump *can *start WWIII over his stupid tweets to Kim Jong-un because both of them are unstable. I even posted an article how people in the WH are worried about it


So I take it you won't be paying your bills this month? Since you're near certain WW3 is going to happen? 50/50??


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: Official WF President Donald Trump Threadwant*



Rookie of the Year said:


> If they want the Federal Government to lose a majority of their power, how would Trump be able to affect gay rights etc in such a scenario? Or is the belief that they can exert more power over state government to get things changed, i.e. they could push to take away gay rights in Georgia, for example?
> 
> Genuinely asking, as I said, I have no knowledge really of American politics and how their system works.


One example a lot of the GOP feels that FDR overreached in the 1930's when he created Social Security if the states had more power then our Congress they could get rid of that a lot easier then now. Same with a lot the regulations they don't like.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> So I take it you won't be paying your bills this month? Since you're near certain WW3 is going to happen? 50/50??


Last post on this toward you since you are just trolling at this point.

Since when is 50/50 near certain?

Near certain is 90% or 99%. 50/50 isn't even fairly certain.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> Last post on this toward you since you are just trolling at this point.
> 
> Since when is 50/50 near certain?
> 
> Near certain is 90% or 99%. 50/50 isn't even fairly certain.


If I were 50% certain that WW3 was happening anytime soon I would not be wasting my time arguing with you right now. Those are insanely terrifying odds. Deep down I know even you do not believe this.

No rational minded adult is _that_ fearful of this tweet exchange. No one is going to change their plans because of this.


----------



## CamillePunk

I assumed fires were raging at Hillary's house 24/7 given her status as the devil incarnate


----------



## Reaper

As if there was any doubt @CamillePunk


----------



## FriedTofu

Any Fox News watcher can confirm this timeline on Tues?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/948416574670688256


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Official WF President Donald Trump Threadwant*



Rookie of the Year said:


> If they want the Federal Government to lose a majority of their power, how would Trump be able to affect gay rights etc in such a scenario? Or is the belief that they can exert more power over state government to get things changed, i.e. they could push to take away gay rights in Georgia, for example?
> 
> Genuinely asking, as I said, I have no knowledge really of American politics and how their system works.


I'm not sure even if the States had more control if they could ban Gay Marriage etc again, before the Supreme Court ruling States did their own thing. Funny enough I believe Gay Marriage being legal in Cali was very struggling.

Really I don't listen to people bitching about how bad it is if States have more autonomy because you have people wanting Cali to be a Sanctuary State and ignore Federal Laws because they don't like them but then at the same time bitch that other States will do things they don't like if the Government has less power.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Interesting article from the most right wing paper in Australia, owned by Murdoch same as Fox News.

I told you all the Trump campaign was just a branding exercise. 




> Lawyers for Donald Trump have sent a cease and desist letter to former White House adviser Stephen Bannon claiming the right-wing media figure breached his non-disclosure agreement after an excerpt from a soon-to-be released book was published on Wednesday.
> 
> The preview of American journalist Michael Wolff’s book Fire and Fury described a White House in chaos and disarray and has caused a stir across American and international media. An attorney for Trump said in a statement “This law firm represents President Donald J. Trump and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. On behalf of our clients, legal notice was issued today to Stephen K. Bannon, that his actions of communicating with author Michael Wolff regarding an upcoming book give rise to numerous legal claims including defamation by libel and slander, and breach of his written confidentiality and non-disparagement agreement with our clients. Legal action is imminent.”
> 
> During the 2016 presidential election, then candidate Trump required all campaign staff to sign an NDA, preventing them from making any disparaging comments against him, his campaign or his family.
> 
> Melania ‘wept when Trump won’
> 
> Donald Trump and his wife Melania were “horrified” when he won the US presidency, with Melania bursting into tears when the reality sank in, according to an explosive new book.
> 
> Mr Trump only ran for the White House to boost his own brand and because he believed his nomination would deliver “untold opportunities,” journalist Michael Wolff writes in his expose on the White House administration, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.
> 
> In the book, Mr Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon describes the moment the polls showed the real estate mogul now had the most powerful position in the world.
> 
> “A befuddled Trump morphing into a disbelieving Trump and then into a horrified Trump,” said Mr Bannon. When he realised he was to be president, he “looked as if he had seen a ghost”, his eldest son, Donald Jr. said.
> 
> Mr Wolff’s book, which is based on over 200 interviews with Mr Trump and members of his inner circle, depicts a divided and chaotic administration made up of members of a campaign team that had never expected to win the 2016 election.
> 
> He reveals that on inauguration day Mr Trump was “visibly fighting” with his wife and to have found the White House an intimidating home.
> 
> Donald and Melania Trump, along with their son Barron, on their inaugural parade last year. Picture: Getty Images.
> Donald and Melania Trump, along with their son Barron, on their inaugural parade last year. Picture: Getty Images.
> Among the claims made by the book is that Mr Trump and Melania have separate bedrooms, the first residents to sleep apart since the Kennedys and that his daughter Ivanka treats her father with “a degree of detachment”, mocking his hairstyle to friends. The colour, she would point out, was from a product called Just for Men — the longer it was left on, the darker it got. Impatience resulted in Trump’s orange-blond hair. .
> 
> Mr Trump has also banned domestic staff from touching his belongings, especially his toothbrush, partly because of a fear he could be poisoned. This is apparently why he prefers fast food, which is “safely pre-made” by a McDonald’s cook who has no idea who will eat it.
> 
> In conversations with Mr Wolff, Mr Bannon is scathing of the administration, particularly of Mr Trump’s son Donald Jr and his son-in-law Jared Kushner. He describes a meeting between Donald Jr and a Russian lawyer linked to the Kremlin as “treasonous” and “unpatriotic,” saying: “They’re going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV.”
> 
> He predicts the investigation into White House links with Russia would hit the administration with the force of a “category five” hurricane.and that it will focus on money laundering, particularly on the “greasy” financial dealings of Mr Kushner.
> 
> “You realise where this is going. This is all about money laundering,” he said.
> 
> Mr Trump today released a statement slamming Mr Bannon for his remarks, accusing him of having “lost his mind.”.
> 
> In a statement, Mr Trump blasted his former aide, saying that when Mr Bannon was fired, “he not only lost his job, he lost his mind.”
> 
> “Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my presidency,” Mr Trump said in a statement released by the White House. When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind.“
> 
> Mr Bannon, an executive with right-wing news outlet Breitbart News, joined Mr Trump’s White House bid two months after the June 9, 2016 meeting between Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and Trump campaign officials.
> 
> Besides Donald Trump Jr, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and then campaign chairman Paul Manafort attended the meeting at Trump Tower in New York.
> 
> “The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor — with no lawyers,” Mr Bannon was quoted as saying in the book. “They didn’t have any lawyers.
> 
> “Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately,” he said.
> 
> The investigation by Mr Mueller, a former FBI director, is looking into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to get him elected — a charge the president has repeatedly and vehemently denied.
> 
> Mr Trump said in an interview with The New York Times last week that he expected the Mueller probe to be “fair” and Donald Trump Jr has denied any wrongdoing.
> 
> Mr Manafort and a business associate have been indicted on money laundering charges unrelated to the election campaign. Mr Trump’s former national security adviser Mike Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russians.
> 
> Mr Bannon said the White House was being complacent about the Mueller probe, noting that Mr Mueller had recruited prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, known for his aggressive style and for turning defendants into collaborators.
> 
> “They’re sitting on a beach trying to stop a Category Five,” he said.
> 
> “You realise where this is going,” he added. “This is all about money laundering.
> 
> “Their path to f***ing Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner ... It’s as plain as a hair on your face.
> 
> “It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit ... The Kushner shit is greasy. They’re going to go right through that.”
> 
> Since leaving the White House in August, Mr Bannon has staked out some positions at odds with the Trump administration.
> 
> In the most notable break, he defied the president and backed a rival Republican candidate in a Senate race in the southern state of Alabama. Mr Trump eventually changed his position and also supported Roy Moore, who lost.
> 
> Mr Wolff, whose books include a biography of media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, reportedly interviewed the president and more than 200 members of his inner circle and others for the book.
> 
> Manafort sues Mueller
> 
> Meanwhile, Mr Trump’s former campaign chairman is suing special counsel Robert Mueller and the Justice Department.
> 
> Paul Manafort alleges in the lawsuit that Mueller exceeded his authority by investigating him for conduct that was not related to Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
> 
> Mr Manafort was indicted in October and has pleaded not guilty. The suit was filed Wednesday in federal court in Washington. Manafort’s lawyer did not immediately return a call seeking comment, and a spokesman for Mr Mueller’s office declined to comment.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh thinks that Trump is Hitler but a Hitler who didn't actually even want to win :lmao


----------



## BruiserKC

The whole thing with Bannon is hilarious. Hell, Bannon has commenters on Breitbart up in arms against him over his statements. Just a year ago, they thought Bannon was the kingmaker. Now he's become a globalist liberal. Watch the left who not long ago wanted to tar and feather Bannon now find him totes adorbs. :lol 

This has become just one crazy shitshow.


----------



## Reaper

Trump's real power at the moment is being buried so deep in liberal heads that if he said that "taking a shit in the morning is satisfying" you'll have millions of people forcing themselves to take a dump at night. You'll have dozens of articles discrediting morning poops, half a dozen claiming that if you poop in the morning you'll die. 

CNN will claim that Trump said that the government wants to ban people from pooping at night. 

Huffpost will claim that Hitler pooped in the morning and it's a symbol of white supremacy. 

Environmentalists will claim that Trump is contributing to global climate change by releasing methane gas into the atmosphere. 

Vanity Fair will claim that being able to take a poop without anal leakage discriminates against gays. 

Politifact will claim that sometimes Trump poops at night therefore it's only half true. 

NYT times will celebrate the fact that Kim Jong Un doesn't even have an asshole.

Fox will claim that X number of black people pooped in the morning therefore the American sewage system will eventually collapse. 

The progressives will claim that morning dumps will kill the poor because only 1% of the population poop in the morning because poor people can't afford to poop therefore we must tax the rich to buy poor people toilet paper. 

And Aussie newspapers will claim that Trump never even wanted to poop.


----------



## Draykorinee

BruiserKC said:


> The whole thing with Bannon is hilarious. Hell, Bannon has commenters on Breitbart up in arms against him over his statements. Just a year ago, they thought Bannon was the kingmaker. Now he's become a globalist liberal. Watch the left who not long ago wanted to tar and feather Bannon now find him totes adorbs. :lol
> 
> This has become just one crazy shitshow.


I don't think this is a realistic expectation, the left will not see Bannon as anything other than an asshole. Its just more pointless attempts to belittle the left in my opinion.



Smarky Mark said:


> So I take it you won't be paying your bills this month? Since you're near certain WW3 is going to happen? 50/50??


50/50 is about as near certain as 51/49, thats not even close to certain.

But seriously BM, there ain't no nuclear war starting over tweets, sorry.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Its just more pointless attempts to belittle the left in my opinion.


The left is doing that to itself.

We're just enjoying the cannibalism, inconsistency and hysteria.

I'm sure we're dead soon anyways, does it matter if the left gets belittled before we all die?


----------



## Draykorinee

Merry Reaper said:


> The left is doing that to itself.
> 
> We're just enjoying the cannibalism, inconsistency and hysteria.
> 
> I'm sure we're dead soon anyways, does it matter if the left gets belittled before we all die?


I don't disagree to be fair, I'm becoming more center-left by the day.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> I don't disagree to be fair, I'm becoming more center-left by the day.


FWIW, I was a pro self-governance _leftist_ 4 years ago but that was before I discovered right wing anarchy (credit goes to L-Dopa and CP) .. which is much more appealing and logically sound.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://apnews.com/19f6bfec15a74733b40eaf0ff9162bfa



> *US to end lenient policy that let legal pot flourish*
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Jeff Sessions is rescinding an Obama-era policy that paved the way for legalized marijuana to flourish in states across the country, creating new confusion about enforcement and use just three days after a new legalization law went into effect in California.
> 
> President Donald Trump's top law enforcement official was to announce the change Thursday, people with knowledge of the decision told The Associated Press. Instead of the previous lenient-federal-enforcement policy, Sessions' new stance will instead let federal prosecutors where marijuana is legal decide how aggressively to enforce longstanding federal law prohibiting it, the people said.
> 
> Sessions' plan drew immediate strong objection from Republican Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado, one of eight states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use.
> 
> Gardner said in a tweet that the Justice Department "has trampled on the will of the voters" in Colorado and other states. He said the action would contradict what Sessions had told him before the attorney general was confirmed and that he was prepared "to take all steps necessary" to fight the step including holding up the confirmation of Justice Department nominees.
> 
> Sessions is rescinding the policy by president Barack Obama's Justice Department that has generally barred federal law enforcement officials from interfering with marijuana sales in states where the drug is legal.
> 
> The people familiar with the plan spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it before the announcement.
> 
> The move by Trump's attorney general likely is sure to add to confusion about whether it's OK to grow, buy or use marijuana in states where the drug is legal. It comes just after shops opened in California, launching what is expected to become the world's largest market for legal recreational marijuana and as polls show a solid majority of Americans believe the drug should be legal.
> 
> While Sessions has been carrying out a Justice Department agenda that follows Trump's top priorities on such issues as immigration and opioids, the changes to marijuana policy reflect his own concerns. Trump's personal views on marijuana remain largely unknown.
> 
> Sessions, who has assailed marijuana as comparable to heroin and has blamed it for spikes in violence, had been expected to ramp up enforcement. Marijuana advocates argue that legalizing the drug eliminates the need for a black market and will likely reduce violence, since criminals would no longer control the marijuana trade.
> 
> The Obama administration in 2013 announced it would not stand in the way of states that legalize marijuana, so long as officials acted to keep it from migrating to places where it remained outlawed and keep it out of the hands of criminal gangs and children. Sessions is rescinding that memo, written by then-Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole, which had cleared up some of the uncertainty about how the federal government would respond as states began allowing sales for recreational and medical purposes.
> 
> The marijuana business has since become a sophisticated, multimillion-dollar industry that helps fund some government programs. Eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for recreational use, and California's sales alone are projected to bring in $1 billion annually in tax revenue within several years.
> 
> Sessions' policy will let U.S. attorneys across the country decide what kinds of federal resources to devote to marijuana enforcement based on what they see as priorities in their districts, the people familiar with the decision said.
> 
> Sessions and some law enforcement officials in states such as Colorado blame legalization for a number of problems, including drug traffickers who have taken advantage of lax marijuana laws to illegally grow and ship the drug across state lines, where it can sell for much more. The decision was a win for marijuana opponents who had been urging Sessions to take action.
> 
> "There is no more safe haven with regard to the federal government and marijuana, but it's also the beginning of the story and not the end," said Kevin Sabet, president and CEO of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, who was among several anti-marijuana advocates who met with Sessions last month. "This is a victory. It's going to dry up a lot of the institutional investment that has gone toward marijuana in the last five years."
> 
> Threats of a federal crackdown have united liberals who object to the human costs of a war on pot with conservatives who see it as a states' rights issue. Some in law enforcement support a tougher approach, but a bipartisan group of senators in March urged Sessions to uphold existing marijuana policy. Others in Congress have been seeking ways to protect and promote legal pot businesses.
> 
> Marijuana advocates quickly condemned Sessions' move as a return to outdated drug-war policies that unduly affected minorities.
> 
> Sessions "wants to maintain a system that has led to tremendous injustice ... and that has wasted federal resources on a huge scale," said Maria McFarland Sanchez-Moreno, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "If Sessions thinks that makes sense in terms of prosecutorial priorities, he is in a very bizarre ideological state, or a deeply problematic one."
> 
> A task force Sessions convened to study pot policy made no recommendations for upending the legal industry but instead encouraged Justice Department officials to keep reviewing the Obama administration's more hands-off approach to marijuana enforcement, something Sessions promised to do since he took office.
> 
> The change also reflects yet another way in which Sessions, who served as a federal prosecutor at the height of the drug war in Mobile, Alabama, has reversed Obama-era criminal justice policies that aimed to ease overcrowding in federal prisons and contributed to a rethinking of how drug criminals were prosecuted and sentenced. While his Democratic predecessor Eric Holder told federal prosecutors to avoid seeking long mandatory minimum sentences when charging certain lower-level drug offenders, for example, Sessions issued an order demanding the opposite, telling them to pursue the most serious charges possible against most suspects.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/948928646152044549

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/759153294476386304


----------



## Reaper

> https://www.dailywire.com/news/2539...tm_content=051717-news&utm_campaign=dwtwitter
> 
> *DOJ May Be Looking To REOPEN Hillary Clinton Email Investigation
> *
> After a series of disturbing revelations, Attorney General Jeff Sessions says he'd like to review the evidence.
> US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton makes a concession speech after being defeated by Republican president-elect Donald Trump in New York on November 9, 2016. Photo by JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images
> ByEMILY ZANOTTI January 4, 2018
> Attorney General Jeff Sessions is having quite the busy day. In addition to reorganizing the Department of Justice's approach to enforcing federal drug laws as they pertain to marijuana, his office says he's considering re-opening an investigation into whether Hillary Clinton improperly handled classified documents during her time as secretary of state.
> 
> Republicans in Congress have been hinting that they'd like a second crack at Clinton's email malfeasance, and her habit of using a person server and unsecured devices to transact in classified information, sending material to top aides over open connections and hosting sensitive foreign policy documents on a server in her Chappaqua, New York, master bathroom.
> 
> But in recent weeks, the DOJ says, incidents have come to light that shed doubt on the FBI's investigation, which cleared Clinton of any wrongdoing, finding that Clinton was merely careless in her handling of classified documents and not criminally reckless — a difference they've often failed to articulate.
> 
> First, FBI Director James Comey appears to have determined Clinton wouldn't face repercussions well before the FBI's investigation had concluded — or, for that matter, agents had even interviewed key witnesses. Now, it seems, agents working on the investigation exposed their own political biases, and, most recently, it appears agents found classified information on Huma Abedin's and Anthony Weiner's home computer that was never analyzed.
> 
> Session and others, including Congressman Trey Gowdy, have been hinting at the possibility of reopening a case against Hillary Clinton since November, but stayed mostly mum on the subject through the holidays, as Sessions' office interviewed FBI agents connected to the probe to see if there was any reason to believe the probe wasn't conducted fairly.
> 
> It's possible that investigation has turned up more than we know. But regardless, Hillary Clinton should be concerned. It seems the Trump Administration isn't as willing to forgive and forget as they once were.


Well, that explains the fire. :mj4


----------



## AlternateDemise

Vic Capri said:


> Picked Neil Gorsuch, executive orders to undo Obama's, Travel Ban, Tax Reform Bill, destroyed ISIS, budget cuts to stop national debt bleeding, withdrew from TPP, withdrew from the Paris Accord, approved the Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines, increased military spending, helped open new coal mines, *signed 96 laws*, revived NASA, and skyrocketed the stock market after working with multiple CEOs.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> - Vic


Congrats, he made countless executive orders, most of which he has the freedom to do and no resistance to stop him. Get back to me when it doesn't take him an entire year to pass one law that requires the input of other people.

Until then my point stands. He hasn't done shit. One law finally getting passed after a year of his presidency is unbelievably bad, especially considering how his party controls Congress at the moment. 

And next time have the decency to properly quote my reply so I know I'm getting this response. 

Thanks for playing.



Merry Reaper said:


> Where. Is there audio, video? An official source?
> 
> The fake media isn't a good source - we all know that.





Merry Reaper said:


> So it's a written statement released by Sarah Sanders?
> 
> :lol
> 
> Fair enough. This is going to be fun because assuming it's true, I actually don't oppose what Trump has said. If Trump is distancing himself from Bannon, I think that should make the left that hate him so much hate him less considering Bannon was supposed to be the real GOD at the White House and the enabler of the entire racist regime.
> 
> It's a win/win


So you go from trying to claim it's another fake news propaganda piece to defending Trump in it. 

I'll be the first to admit that I'm actually with Trump on this one in regards to the Bannon situation, but your flip flopping for the sake of your pro-Trump agenda is getting old.


----------



## Vic Capri

Obama also had problems getting things passed when the Democrats were in control his first two years as President, but hey, let's be honest. No one cares what you think.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

BlueSanta said:


> So you go from trying to claim it's another fake news propaganda piece to defending Trump in it.
> 
> I'll be the first to admit that I'm actually with Trump on this one in regards to the Bannon situation, but your flip flopping for the sake of your pro-Trump agenda is getting old.


It's not a flip flop since I wanted to be sure about the news before commenting. Once I was sure this was real I let my thoughts known on the subject. 

Which we're in agreement in so you just wasted your bait. 

Did this Bannon thing kill us already? Are we dead yet?


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/948913955975696386
Oh my god please bring this man back. :done

It's a shame that Scaramucci was dead on about Bannon being more into sucking his own dick than anything. I do believe Bannon had a directionally positive vision for the country, but it seems he couldn't get past his own ego in the end and overestimated his worth. It's too bad but the fight to protect our country from rabid progressives continues. Thank God for Donald Trump.


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> No one cares what you think.
> 
> - Vic


Kind of like you and your hypocrisy.


----------



## Stephen90

Merry Reaper said:


> Trump's real power at the moment is being buried so deep in liberal heads that if he said that "taking a shit in the morning is satisfying" you'll have millions of people forcing themselves to take a dump at night. You'll have dozens of articles discrediting morning poops, half a dozen claiming that if you poop in the morning you'll die.
> 
> CNN will claim that Trump said that the government wants to ban people from pooping at night.
> 
> Huffpost will claim that Hitler pooped in the morning and it's a symbol of white supremacy.
> 
> Environmentalists will claim that Trump is contributing to global climate change by releasing methane gas into the atmosphere.
> 
> Vanity Fair will claim that being able to take a poop without anal leakage discriminates against gays.
> 
> Politifact will claim that sometimes Trump poops at night therefore it's only half true.
> 
> NYT times will celebrate the fact that Kim Jong Un doesn't even have an asshole.
> 
> Fox will claim that X number of black people pooped in the morning therefore the American sewage system will eventually collapse.
> 
> The progressives will claim that morning dumps will kill the poor because only 1% of the population poop in the morning because poor people can't afford to poop therefore we must tax the rich to buy poor people toilet paper.
> 
> And Aussie newspapers will claim that Trump never even wanted to poop.


Fox News claims there's a war on Christmas and that global warming's a myth.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/948913955975696386
> Oh my god please bring this man back. :done
> 
> It's a shame that Scaramucci was dead on about Bannon being more into sucking his own dick than anything. I do believe Bannon had a directionally positive vision for the country, but it seems he couldn't get past his own ego in the end and overestimated his worth. It's too bad but the fight to protect our country from rabid progressives continues. Thank God for Donald Trump.


Yes please - the 2nd coming of The Mooch will take this whole shebang to new heights.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Trump and his supporters are doing everything they can to distract from Michael Wolffs book

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...insane-year-inside-trumps-white-house-1071504

*"You Can’t Make This S--- Up": My Year Inside Trump's Insane White House*


Author and columnist Michael Wolff was given extraordinary access to the Trump administration and now details the feuds, the fights and the alarming chaos he witnessed while reporting what turned into a new book.
Editor’s Note: Author and Hollywood Reporter columnist Michael Wolff’s new book, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House (Henry Holt & Co.), is a detailed account of the 45th president’s election and first year in office based on extensive access to the White House and more than 200 interviews with Trump and senior staff over a period of 18 months. In advance of the Jan. 9 publication of the book, which Trump is already attacking, Wolff has written this extracted column about his time in the White House based on the reporting included in Fire and Fury. 

I interviewed Donald Trump for The Hollywood Reporter in June 2016, and he seemed to have liked — or not disliked — the piece I wrote. "Great cover!" his press assistant, Hope Hicks, emailed me after it came out (it was a picture of a belligerent Trump in mirrored sunglasses). After the election, I proposed to him that I come to the White House and report an inside story for later publication — journalistically, as a fly on the wall — which he seemed to misconstrue as a request for a job. No, I said. I'd like to just watch and write a book. "A book?" he responded, losing interest. "I hear a lot of people want to write books," he added, clearly not understanding why anybody would. "Do you know Ed Klein?"— author of several virulently anti-Hillary books. "Great guy. I think he should write a book about me." But sure, Trump seemed to say, knock yourself out.

Since the new White House was often uncertain about what the president meant or did not mean in any given utterance, his non-disapproval became a kind of passport for me to hang around — checking in each week at the Hay-Adams hotel, making appointments with various senior staffers who put my name in the "system," and then wandering across the street to the White House and plunking myself down, day after day, on a West Wing couch.

The West Wing is configured in such a way that the anteroom is quite a thoroughfare — everybody passes by. Assistants — young women in the Trump uniform of short skirts, high boots, long and loose hair — as well as, in situation-comedy proximity, all the new stars of the show: Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, Reince Priebus, Sean Spicer, Jared Kushner, Mike Pence, Gary Cohn, Michael Flynn (and after Flynn's abrupt departure less than a month into the job for his involvement in the Russia affair, his replacement, H.R. McMaster), all neatly accessible.

The nature of the comedy, it was soon clear, was that here was a group of ambitious men and women who had reached the pinnacle of power, a high-ranking White House appointment — with the punchline that Donald Trump was president. Their estimable accomplishment of getting to the West Wing risked at any moment becoming farce.

A new president typically surrounds himself with a small group of committed insiders and loyalists. But few on the Trump team knew him very well — most of his advisors had been with him only since the fall. Even his family, now closely gathered around him, seemed nonplussed. "You know, we never saw that much of him until he got the nomination," Eric Trump's wife, Lara, told one senior staffer. If much of the country was incredulous, his staff, trying to cement their poker faces, were at least as confused.


READ MORE
Michael Wolff: Why Rupert’s Really Splitting Up the Family Business
Their initial response was to hawkishly defend him — he demanded it — and by defending him they seemed to be defending themselves. Politics is a game, of course, of determined role-playing, but the difficulties of staying in character in the Trump White House became evident almost from the first day.

"You can't make this shit up," Sean Spicer, soon to be portrayed as the most hapless man in America, muttered to himself after his tortured press briefing on the first day of the new administration, when he was called to justify the president's inaugural crowd numbers — and soon enough, he adopted this as a personal mantra. Reince Priebus, the new chief of staff, had, shortly after the announcement of his appointment in November, started to think he would not last until the inauguration. Then, making it to the White House, he hoped he could last a respectable year, but he quickly scaled back his goal to six months. Kellyanne Conway, who would put a finger-gun to her head in private about Trump's public comments, continued to mount an implacable defense on cable television, until she was pulled off the air by others in the White House who, however much the president enjoyed her, found her militancy idiotic. (Even Ivanka and Jared regarded Conway's fulsome defenses as cringeworthy.)

Steve Bannon tried to gamely suggest that Trump was mere front man and that he, with plan and purpose and intellect, was, more reasonably, running the show — commanding a whiteboard of policies and initiatives that he claimed to have assembled from Trump's off-the-cuff ramblings and utterances. His adoption of the Saturday Night Live sobriquet "President Bannon" was less than entirely humorous. Within the first few weeks, even rote conversations with senior staff trying to explain the new White House's policies and positions would turn into a body-language ballet of eye-rolling and shrugs and pantomime of jaws dropping. Leaking became the political manifestation of the don't-blame-me eye roll.

The surreal sense of the Trump presidency was being lived as intensely inside the White House as out. Trump was, for the people closest to him, the ultimate enigma. He had been elected president, that through-the-eye-of-the-needle feat, but obviously, he was yet … Trump. Indeed, he seemed as confused as anyone to find himself in the White House, even attempting to barricade himself into his bedroom with his own lock over the protests of the Secret Service.

There was some effort to ascribe to Trump magical powers. In an early conversation — half comic, half desperate — Bannon tried to explain him as having a particular kind of Jungian brilliance. Trump, obviously without having read Jung, somehow had access to the collective unconscious of the other half of the country, and, too, a gift for inventing archetypes: Little Marco … Low-Energy Jeb … the Failing New York Times. Everybody in the West Wing tried, with some panic, to explain him, and, sheepishly, their own reason for being here. He's intuitive, he gets it, he has a mind-meld with his base. But there was palpable relief, of an Emperor's New Clothes sort, when longtime Trump staffer Sam Nunberg — fired by Trump during the campaign but credited with knowing him better than anyone else — came back into the fold and said, widely, "He's just a fucking fool."

Part of that foolishness was his inability to deal with his own family. In a way, this gave him a human dimension. Even Donald Trump couldn't say no to his kids. "It's a littleee, littleee complicated …" he explained to Priebus about why he needed to give his daughter and son-in-law official jobs. But the effect of their leadership roles was to compound his own boundless inexperience in Washington, creating from the outset frustration and then disbelief and then rage on the part of the professionals in his employ.

The men and women of the West Wing, for all that the media was ridiculing them, actually felt they had a responsibility to the country. "Trump," said one senior Republican, "turned selfish careerists into patriots." Their job was to maintain the pretense of relative sanity, even as each individually came to the conclusion that, in generous terms, it was insane to think you could run a White House without experience, organizational structure or a real purpose.


READ MORE
White House: Trump Doesn't Want Michael Wolff's Book Published
On March 30, after the collapse of the health care bill, 32-year-old Katie Walsh, the deputy chief of staff, the effective administration chief of the West Wing, a stalwart political pro and stellar example of governing craft, walked out. Little more than two months in, she quit. Couldn't take it anymore. Nutso. To lose your deputy chief of staff at the get-go would be a sign of crisis in any other administration, but inside an obviously exploding one it was hardly noticed.

While there might be a scary national movement of Trumpers, the reality in the White House was stranger still: There was Jared and Ivanka, Democrats; there was Priebus, a mainstream Republican; and there was Bannon, whose reasonable claim to be the one person actually representing Trumpism so infuriated Trump that Bannon was hopelessly sidelined by April. "How much influence do you think Steve Bannon has over me? Zero! Zero!" Trump muttered and stormed. To say that no one was in charge, that there were no guiding principles, not even a working org chart, would again be an understatement. "What do these people do?" asked everyone pretty much of everyone else.

The competition to take charge, which, because each side represented an inimical position to the other, became not so much a struggle for leadership, but a near-violent factional war. Jared and Ivanka were against Priebus and Bannon, trying to push both men out. Bannon was against Jared and Ivanka and Priebus, practicing what everybody thought were dark arts against them. Priebus, everybody's punching bag, just tried to survive another day. By late spring, the larger political landscape seemed to become almost irrelevant, with everyone focused on the more lethal battles within the White House itself. This included screaming fights in the halls and in front of a bemused Trump in the Oval Office (when he was not the one screaming himself), together with leaks about what Russians your opponents might have been talking to.

Reigning over all of this was Trump, enigma, cipher and disruptor. How to get along with Trump — who veered between a kind of blissed-out pleasure of being in the Oval Office and a deep, childish frustration that he couldn't have what he wanted? Here was a man singularly focused on his own needs for instant gratification, be that a hamburger, a segment on Fox & Friends or an Oval Office photo opp. "I want a win. I want a win. Where's my win?" he would regularly declaim. He was, in words used by almost every member of the senior staff on repeated occasions, "like a child." A chronic naysayer, Trump himself stoked constant discord with his daily after-dinner phone calls to his billionaire friends about the disloyalty and incompetence around him. His billionaire friends then shared this with their billionaire friends, creating the endless leaks which the president so furiously railed against.


READ MORE
Read Donald Trump's Full Legal Demand Over Michael Wolff's Book
One of these frequent callers was Rupert Murdoch, who before the election had only ever expressed contempt for Trump. Now Murdoch constantly sought him out, but to his own colleagues, friends and family, continued to derisively ridicule Trump: "What a fucking moron," said Murdoch after one call.

With the Comey firing, the Mueller appointment and murderous White House infighting, by early summer Bannon was engaged in an uninterrupted monologue directed to almost anyone who would listen. It was so caustic, so scabrous and so hilarious that it might form one of the great underground political treatises.

By July, Jared and Ivanka, who had, in less than six months, traversed from socialite couple to royal family to the most powerful people in the world, were now engaged in a desperate dance to save themselves, which mostly involved blaming Trump himself. It was all his idea to fire Comey! "The daughter," Bannon declared, "will bring down the father."

Priebus and Spicer were merely counting down to the day — and every day seemed to promise it would be the next day — when they would be out.

And, indeed, suddenly there were the 11 days of Anthony Scaramucci.

Scaramucci, a minor figure in the New York financial world, and quite a ridiculous one, had overnight become Jared and Ivanka's solution to all of the White House's management and messaging problems. After all, explained the couple, he was good on television and he was from New York — he knew their world. In effect, the couple had hired Scaramucci — as preposterous a hire in West Wing annals as any — to replace Priebus and Bannon and take over running the White House.

There was, after the abrupt Scaramucci meltdown, hardly any effort inside the West Wing to disguise the sense of ludicrousness and anger felt by every member of the senior staff toward Trump's family and Trump himself. It became almost a kind of competition to demystify Trump. For Rex Tillerson, he was a moron. For Gary Cohn, he was dumb as shit. For H.R. McMaster, he was a hopeless idiot. For Steve Bannon, he had lost his mind.

Most succinctly, no one expected him to survive Mueller. Whatever the substance of the Russia "collusion," Trump, in the estimation of his senior staff, did not have the discipline to navigate a tough investigation, nor the credibility to attract the caliber of lawyers he would need to help him. (At least nine major law firms had turned down an invitation to represent the president.)


READ MORE
Michael Wolff: Big Media's Only Strategy? Scale for Scale's Sake
There was more: Everybody was painfully aware of the increasing pace of his repetitions. It used to be inside of 30 minutes he'd repeat, word-for-word and expression-for-expression, the same three stories — now it was within 10 minutes. Indeed, many of his tweets were the product of his repetitions — he just couldn't stop saying something.

By summer's end, in something of a historic sweep — more usual for the end of a president's first term than the end of his first six months — almost the entire senior staff, save Trump's family, had been washed out: Michael Flynn, Katie Walsh, Sean Spicer, Reince Priebus, Steve Bannon. Even Trump's loyal, longtime body guard Keith Schiller — for reasons darkly whispered about in the West Wing — was out. Gary Cohn, Dina Powell, Rick Dearborn, all on their way out. The president, on the spur of the moment, appointed John Kelly, a former Marine Corps general and head of homeland security, chief of staff — without Kelly having been informed of his own appointment beforehand. Grim and stoic, accepting that he could not control the president, Kelly seemed compelled by a sense of duty to be, in case of disaster, the adult in the room who might, if needed, stand up to the president … if that is comfort.

As telling, with his daughter and son-in-law sidelined by their legal problems, Hope Hicks, Trump's 29-year-old personal aide and confidant, became, practically speaking, his most powerful White House advisor. (With Melania a nonpresence, the staff referred to Ivanka as the "real wife" and Hicks as the "real daughter.") Hicks' primary function was to tend to the Trump ego, to reassure him, to protect him, to buffer him, to soothe him. It was Hicks who, attentive to his lapses and repetitions, urged him to forgo an interview that was set to open the 60 Minutes fall season. Instead, the interview went to Fox News' Sean Hannity who, White House insiders happily explained, was willing to supply the questions beforehand. Indeed, the plan was to have all interviewers going forward provide the questions.

As the first year wound down, Trump finally got a bill to sign. The tax bill, his singular accomplishment, was, arguably, quite a reversal of his populist promises, and confirmation of what Mitch McConnell had seen early on as the silver Trump lining: "He'll sign anything we put in front of him." With new bravado, he was encouraging partisans like Fox News to pursue an anti-Mueller campaign on his behalf. Insiders believed that the only thing saving Mueller from being fired, and the government of the United States from unfathomable implosion, is Trump's inability to grasp how much Mueller had on him and his family.

Steve Bannon was openly handicapping a 33.3 percent chance of impeachment, a 33.3 percent chance of resignation in the shadow of the 25th amendment and a 33.3 percent chance that he might limp to the finish line on the strength of liberal arrogance and weakness.

Donald Trump's small staff of factotums, advisors and family began, on Jan. 20, 2017, an experience that none of them, by any right or logic, thought they would — or, in many cases, should — have, being part of a Trump presidency. Hoping for the best, with their personal futures as well as the country's future depending on it, my indelible impression of talking to them and observing them through much of the first year of his presidency, is that they all — 100 percent — came to believe he was incapable of functioning in his job.

At Mar-a-Lago, just before the new year, a heavily made-up Trump failed to recognize a succession of old friends.

Happy first anniversary of the Trump administration.


----------



## DOPA

@2 Ton 21

I'm glad you linked that article because I wanted to talk about this news and issue myself.

As much as I despise Sessions and feel his views on Marijuana legalization and the war on drugs to be ass backwards, if I'm being intellectually honest here, there isn't anything that he is doing that is wrong from a legal and constitutional standpoint. Quite the contrary unfortunately which I really hate to say on this particular issue.

The fact is when Obama was president and states such as Colorado and Washington legalized pot, he essentially told the Department of Justice to step down and not to enforce the federal law on Marijuana. And whilst I of course agree with the ends because I believe in freedom and prohibition doesn't work, the fact is is that he still committed a breach of power in terms of the executive and was guilty of overreaching (not the only time that Obama has done this).

The fact is the executive branch should not be able to dictate to the justice department that certain laws should not be enforced or should be treated with a soft hand. That is too much power directed from the executive and would essentially void the power of legislative and judiciary branches. If the president can on a whim dictate which laws should be enforced and which shouldn't, then the separation of powers becomes meaningless.

So as much as I hate to admit it, from a position of principle in terms of both constitutionality and being someone who wants to restrict the power of government, particularly on the executive end, this is the right thing to do from a constitutional standpoint. The power of upholding and enforcing laws whether chosen to do or not do so should come from the judiciary and not the executive. It just sucks that on this occasion, the ends really are fucking terrible. If I'm going to say that what Obama did with DACA was unconstitutional, something which I disagreed with because of how flimsy the policy was in terms of actually solving the problem of the illegal aliens that came as children, then I have to be consistent when the issue is on something which I agreed with Obama on, that being drug policy.

One of the few things I've praised Obama on is his stance and actions on criminal justice and the war on drugs. Especially his treatment of non-violent drug offenders, releasing more than any president in history. He deserves a lot of credit for that but he could have gone further and hesitated to push for decriminalization or removing Marijuana from the schedule 1 on narcotics giving complete regulation to the states. In order to properly enforce the states who have voted to legalize Marijuana, Congress needs to legislate in order to at least get Marijuana off of the schedule 1 for narcotics. Under a Republican congress, this is unlikely to happen.

This has always been the fear for advocates for Marijuana legalization because there is no legislative enforcement to keeping the drug legal in the states that have voted it in. Now with Sessions pushing the power back to the DoJ, we could see them try to enforce the federal law, and it wouldn't surprise me if Sessions tries to push the agents in that direction. As much as I have said there is nothing wrong from a legal standpoint in what Sessions is doing, it's quite clear that he didn't do this because of constitutional law :lol. He did it because of his hardline stance on drug policy.

It really sucks all around.





draykorinee said:


> I don't disagree to be fair, I'm becoming more center-left by the day.


This is interesting because I've never really seen you as that left wing (at least in European terms). Maybe because you are reasonable :lol.

All jokes aside, I'm pretty sure if I remember correctly that you don't support Corbyn, so at least you haven't lost your sanity :draper2 :trump :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Makise Kurisu said:


> @2 Ton 21
> 
> I'm glad you linked that article because I wanted to talk about this news and issue myself.
> 
> As much as I despise Sessions and feel his views on Marijuana legalization and the war on drugs to be ass backwards,*if I'm being intellectually honest here, there isn't anything that he is doing that is wrong from a legal and constitutional standpoint.* Quite the contrary unfortunately which I really hate to say on this particular issue.
> 
> The fact is when Obama was president and states such as Colorado and Washington legalized pot, he essentially told the Department of Justice to step down and not to enforce the federal law on Marijuana. And whilst I of course agree with the ends because I believe in freedom and prohibition doesn't work, the fact is is that he still committed a breach of power in terms of the executive and was guilty of overreaching (not the only time that Obama has done this).
> 
> The fact is the executive branch should not be able to dictate to the justice department that certain laws should not be enforced or should be treated with a soft hand. That is too much power directed from the executive and would essentially void the power of legislative and judiciary branches. If the president can on a whim dictate which laws should be enforced and which shouldn't, then the separation of powers becomes meaningless.
> 
> So as much as I hate to admit it, from a position of principle in terms of both constitutionality and being someone who wants to restrict the power of government, particularly on the executive end, this is the right thing to do from a constitutional standpoint. The power of upholding and enforcing laws whether chosen to do or not do so should come from the judiciary and not the executive. It just sucks that on this occasion, the ends really are fucking terrible. If I'm going to say that what Obama did with DACA was unconstitutional, something which I disagreed with because of how flimsy the policy was in terms of actually solving the problem of the illegal aliens that came as children, then I have to be consistent when the issue is on something which I agreed with Obama on, that being drug policy.
> 
> One of the few things I've praised Obama on is his stance and actions on criminal justice and the war on drugs. Especially his treatment of non-violent drug offenders, releasing more than any president in history. He deserves a lot of credit for that but he could have gone further and hesitated to push for decriminalization or removing Marijuana from the schedule 1 on narcotics giving complete regulation to the states. In order to properly enforce the states who have voted to legalize Marijuana, Congress needs to legislate in order to at least get Marijuana off of the schedule 1 for narcotics. Under a Republican congress, this is unlikely to happen.
> 
> This has always been the fear for advocates for Marijuana legalization because there is no legislative enforcement to keeping the drug legal in the states that have voted it in. Now with Sessions pushing the power back to the DoJ, we could see them try to enforce the federal law, and it wouldn't surprise me if Sessions tries to push the agents in that direction. As much as I have said there is nothing wrong from a legal standpoint in what Sessions is doing, it's quite clear that he didn't do this because of constitutional law :lol. He did it because of his hardline stance on drug policy.
> 
> It really sucks all around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is interesting because I've never really seen you as that left wing (at least in European terms). Maybe because you are reasonable :lol.
> 
> All jokes aside, I'm pretty sure if I remember correctly that you don't support Corbyn, so at least you haven't lost your sanity :draper2 :trump :lol


So you are against states rights now something the GOP is always touting? They are being hypocrites. Isn't states rights part of the constitution? The 10th amendment?


----------



## DOPA

birthday_massacre said:


> So you are against states rights now something the GOP is always touting? They are being hypocrites.


No I am for states rights, I'd rather Sessions didn't do this but in terms of the Constitution there is nothing stopping him doing so. And yes they are being hypocrites but both parties have been hypocritical on states rights depending on which issue it is.

I don't agree with him on a personal level concerning this issue, I really don't want him cracking down on the states that have legalized Marijuana (if that wasn't already obvious....) but it is clear that Obama was overreaching in terms of the executive from a legal standpoint because Congress hasn't legislated to at least take weed off of schedule 1 and kick the regulation of the drug back to the states.

My main argument is because Congress didn't legislate in order to have legal backing for the states that have legalized weed to not be clamped down on by the federal government and instead relied on executive action from Obama, now Sessions from a Constitutional and legal position has the grounds to kick the responsibility back to the DOJ to enforce the federal law on this issue however they see fit.

If I have to make it clear again, I do not want the states that have legalized weed to be clamped down on but that is the reality of the situation we are facing now. I hope now you understand the nuances of what I am saying.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Makise Kurisu said:


> No I am for states rights, I'd rather Sessions didn't do this but in terms of the Constitution there is nothing stopping him doing so. And yes they are being hypocrites but both parties have been hypocritical on states rights depending on which issue it is.
> 
> I don't agree with him on a personal level concerning this issue, I really don't want him cracking down on the states that have legalized Marijuana (if that wasn't already obvious....) but it is clear that Obama was overreaching in terms of the executive from a legal standpoint because Congress hasn't legislated to at least take weed off of schedule 1 and kick the regulation of the drug back to the states.
> 
> My main argument is because Congress didn't legislate in order to have legal backing for the states that have legalized weed to not be clamped down on by the federal government and instead relied on executive action from Obama, now Sessions from a Constitutional and legal position has the grounds to kick the responsibility back to the DOJ to enforce the federal law on this issue however they see fit.
> 
> If I have to make it clear again, I do not want the states that have legalized weed to be clamped down on but that is the reality of the situation we are facing now. I hope now you understand the nuances of what I am saying.


But he is trying to violate the constitution by attempting to do an end around on states rights no?

I am more taking issue with you thinking Sessions is not trying to violate the constitution by taking away states rights when it comes to marijuana


----------



## DOPA

birthday_massacre said:


> But he is trying to violate the constitution by attempting to do an end around on states rights no?
> 
> I am more taking issue with you thinking Bannon is not trying to violate the constitution by taking away states rights when it comes to marijuana


In terms of drug policy from my understanding, those which are on schedule 1 on the narcotics list are regulated by the federal government. So on this particular issue, the federal law trumps the state law. I want this to be changed, obviously. I think that it is insane that weed is considered a class A drug in the United States, in fact I think the scheduling surrounding drugs should be completely done away with. But legally speaking in terms of the federal law and the constitution, there is no real violation here. Everything being done here is completely legal.

It really sucks, I honestly believe on this issue that states rights should be upheld and that the wishes of the people of those states should be respected. But there is a difference between what I personally feel and what the facts are constitutionally speaking in terms of the law.

This is why congress should have and needs to work towards legislating weed off of the schedule 1 list. This is what I was afraid of happening with the way Obama handled the issue, especially with Jeff fucking Sessions in charge of drug policy.


----------



## CamillePunk

Trump needs to break from Sessions on this issue and advocate legalizing marijuana (by posing it as a states' rights issue). He'd stand a better chance of re-election in 2020 for sure. His base won't abandon him and I doubt many Republicans are gonna turn their back on him over this issue given the Democratic Party's general insanity these days, including support for communist terrorist groups like Antifa.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Makise Kurisu said:


> In terms of drug policy from my understanding, those which are on schedule 1 on the narcotics list are regulated by the federal government. So on this particular issue, the federal law trumps the state law. I want this to be changed, obviously. I think that it is insane that weed is considered a class A drug in the United States, but legally speaking in terms of the federal law and the constitution, there is no real violation of the constitution here. Everything being done here is completely legal.
> 
> It really sucks, I honestly believe on this issue that states rights should be upheld and that the wishes of the people of those states should be respected. But there is a difference between what I personally feel and what the facts are constitutionally speaking in terms of the law.
> 
> *This is why congress should have and needs to work towards legislating weed off of the schedule 1 list. *This is what I was afraid of happening with the way Obama handled the issue, especially with Jeff fucking Sessions in charge of drug policy.


I can agree with this totally, but we all know why he won't.


----------



## Reaper

I don't think that having a drug policy matters because by 2020 we'll be living in a superheated earth in the middle of a nuclear apocalypse.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Vic Capri said:


> No one cares what you think.
> 
> - Vic


The fact that this is the best retort you could come up with just further proves my point. 



Merry Reaper said:


> It's not a flip flop since I wanted to be sure about the news before commenting. Once I was sure this was real I let my thoughts known on the subject.


You weren't "waiting" to see if it was real, you were already convinced that it wasn't real and spent a whole page asking people for proof rather than figure it out yourself.



Merry Reaper said:


> That is obviously not real. Lol.
> 
> Where did he release this statement? How did ABC and the other media get it? When was this statement made?


It's pretty obvious you didn't like what he was "being portrayed" as saying, until you figured out it's actually what he said in which case you immediately jumped along with it. 



Merry Reaper said:


> Which we're in agreement in so you just wasted your bait.


There's no bait here. And nothing was wasted. You were clearly not in agreement with what you thought the media was claiming he was saying. This is the problem that I'm having with the people on this board who are pro-Trump. Quite frankly I don't hate the guy and he's grown on me in some aspects compared to when he first came into the office. But the tendency of posters like you and others here to blindly agree and follow along with everything he does, especially when you consider how very little he's managed to accomplish his first year, is not only concerning but it's disgraceful. If you want America to be great again, you need to be willing to admit when a guy you are supporting is doing something wrong. If he's not going to get that message, he's not going to do anything about it (he's not going to do anything about it regardless because he still has yet to show the ability to work with others, but that's besides the point). 

You can like the guy, you can cheer for him, you can claim you are going to vote for him again. But sitting there and ignoring all the countless failures he has experienced so far his first year and acting like it's been an awesome first year of Presidency is absolute foolishness. And don't act like you haven't been proclaiming everything he does to be great and beneficial for the country, because saying his presidency isn't perfect or he's made mistakes AFTER you've been called out on it doesn't count.


----------



## Reaper

BlueSanta said:


> The fact that this is the best retort you could come up with just further proves my point.
> 
> 
> 
> You weren't "waiting" to see if it was real, you were already convinced that it wasn't real and spent a whole page asking people for proof rather than figure it out yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty obvious you didn't like what he was "being portrayed" as saying, until you figured out it's actually what he said in which case you immediately jumped along with it.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no bait here. And nothing was wasted. You were clearly not in agreement with what you thought the media was claiming he was saying. This is the problem that I'm having with the people on this board who are pro-Trump. Quite frankly I don't hate the guy and he's grown on me in some aspects compared to when he first came into the office. But the tendency of posters like you and others here to blindly agree and follow along with everything he does, especially when you consider how very little he's managed to accomplish his first year, is not only concerning but it's disgraceful. If you want America to be great again, you need to be willing to admit when a guy you are supporting is doing something wrong. If he's not going to get that message, he's not going to do anything about it (he's not going to do anything about it regardless because he still has yet to show the ability to work with others, but that's besides the point).
> 
> You can like the guy, you can cheer for him, you can claim you are going to vote for him again. But sitting there and ignoring all the countless failures he has experienced so far his first year and acting like it's been an awesome first year of Presidency is absolute foolishness. And don't act like you haven't been proclaiming everything he does to be great and beneficial for the country, because saying his presidency isn't perfect or he's made mistakes AFTER you've been called out on it doesn't count.


Clearly you haven't read my posts because I disagree with a lot that he does. You're wasting your time and your breath and time. You're not a serious poster if you think I defend everything he does or says :lol Every few weeks some new person in this thread makes the same ridiculous claim. Frankly speaking in anything it says more about you and your hysterical nature than my opinion of trump. 

Since we're all going to die anyways why even bother trying to talk/debate politics?


----------



## AlternateDemise

Merry Reaper said:


> Clearly you haven't read my posts because I disagree with a lot that he does. You're wasting your time and your breath and time. You're not a serious poster if you think I defend everything he does or says


Oh please, drop the act. I've been following this thread since it was first made. I'm well aware of what you guys have been saying through out the thread. You're not gonna fool me. 

But hey, who knows, there are a shit ton of pages in this thread, so maybe I missed a few pages. And who knows, my memory isn't perfect, hell no ones is, maybe I did see you criticize Trump and I simply don't remember it. 

If that's the case, prove it to me. Otherwise you're just full of shit as Trump is when he claims he's the reason the Economy is doing so well. 



Merry Reaper said:


> Since we're all going to die anyways why even bother trying to talk/debate politics?


:draper2


----------



## Reaper

BlueSanta said:


> Oh please, drop the act. I've been following this thread since it was first made. I'm well aware of what you guys have been saying through out the thread. You're not gonna fool me.
> 
> But hey, who knows, there are a shit ton of pages in this thread, so maybe I missed a few pages. And who knows, my memory isn't perfect, hell no ones is, maybe I did see you criticize Trump and I simply don't remember it.
> 
> If that's the case, prove it to me. Otherwise you're just full of shit as Trump is when he claims he's the reason the Economy is doing so well.
> 
> 
> 
> :draper2


:lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

Steve Bannon has earned himself a linguistic kill shot moniker.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949126530839572481


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Steve Bannon has earned himself a linguistic kill shot moniker.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949126530839572481


OH NO NOT ZERO ACCESS

How quickly Donald heels on his former tag partner. Still if this somehow leads to a Mooch resurfacing I'm all for it.

So who's next to get the twitter smackdown? Obviously the safe bet is Amorosa once she 'reveals' some unflattering truths about DT.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Steve Bannon has earned himself a linguistic kill shot moniker.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949126530839572481


LOL You know the book is 100% true just based on how much Trump tried to stop the book from coming out.

Also, why does Trump always capitalize random words? It just shows you how stupid he is. It's bad enough when he wrongly puts words in quotes.

As each day passes and each new tweet, Trump is becoming more and more unhinged and unstable. His tweet is borderline written in broken English.


----------



## yeahbaby!

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL You know the book is 100% true just based on how much Trump tried to stop the book from coming out.


Au contraire, I would wager DT hasn't even read the book as it probably doesn't have any pictures - he's just heard on Fox and Friends that it's mean about him. SAD!


----------



## Vic Capri

> Since we're all going to die anyways why even bother trying to talk/debate politics?


Some people like to be miserable.



> Oh my god please bring this man back.


I agree. At least The Mooch was entertaining.

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

When people attack the intelligence of a guy who is infinitely more successful than they are and think it reflects badly on anyone but themselves. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> When people attack the intelligence of a guy who is infinitely more successful than they are and think it reflects badly on anyone but themselves. :lol


Trump's own tweets are what reflects badly on him and how stupid he sounds in them. The other thing that reflects badly are the ones who defend Trump for being stupid. 

It's just cute you think the people that call out Trump for acting this way are who look bad. How much money Trump has has nothing to do with how stupid he is. You just like to deflect because you know you can't defend how stupid Trump is.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> When people attack the intelligence of a guy who is infinitely more successful than they are and think it reflects badly on anyone but themselves. :lol


When somebody compares the success of people who probably came from working/middle class to that of someone born in to billions and handed a massive start up and thinks it reflects badly on them...:Rollins



Makise Kurisu said:


> All jokes aside, I'm pretty sure if I remember correctly that you don't support Corbyn, so at least you haven't lost your sanity :draper2 :trump :lol


Last year was the first year I didn't vote Labour, some of that was tactical but I also hoped that Corbyn would then leave and we could get someone more centre left, I was disappointed when he stayed on, although it was understandable seeing as he did so well (comparatively), however any other leader would have destroyed May in my opinion.
One thing is though, as leader of the opposition I do support him, because frankly the Tories are a disaster so I have to, but I don't want to derail this thread.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

CamillePunk said:


> Trump needs to break from Sessions on this issue and advocate legalizing marijuana (by posing it as a states' rights issue). He'd stand a better chance of re-election in 2020 for sure. His base won't abandon him and I doubt many Republicans are gonna turn their back on him over this issue given the Democratic Party's general insanity these days, including support for communist terrorist groups like Antifa.


Even though I don't want him to get reelected, I largely agree with you here,his chances of reelection are better taking a more Libertarian stance on this issue with the way younger generations think about pot. The 2 groups of voters who would be upset if he took that position are old fogies who will default vote GOP and Evangelicals who will back Trump at the same rate they did in 2016 as long as he gives them the judges they want and plays up the "War On Christmas" non issue as red meat.


----------



## DOPA

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/04/us-...00-jobs-in-dec-vs-estimate-of-190000-adp.html



> *US private sector added 250,000 jobs in Dec, vs estimate of 190,000: ADP*
> 
> Private sector job creation surged in December as a strong holiday shopping season pushed companies to hire more workers, ADP and Moody's Analytics said Thursday.
> 
> The report helped send the Dow to break the 25,000 mark for the first time.
> 
> Companies hired 250,000 new workers to close out the year, well above Wall Street expectations of 190,000. The month was the best for job creation since March and topped the 185,000 in November, a number that was revised lower by 5,000.
> 
> The total brought 2017's private payroll growth as gauged by ADP and Moody's to 2.54 million, an average of 212,000 a month.
> 
> Job growth was broad based, as professional and business services led the way with 72,000 new positions. The education and health services sector was next at 50,000 and trade, transportation and utilities contributed 45,000. Wall Street-related payrolls grew by 19,000.
> 
> The information services sector was the only one to lose jobs, reporting a drop of 4,000.
> 
> By size, businesses with between 50 and 499 employees added 100,000 jobs while small firms hired 94,000 and large companies contributed 56,000 to the total.
> 
> "The job market ended the year strongly," Moody's chief economist Mark Zandi said in a statement. "Robust Christmas sales prompted retailers and delivery services to add to their payrolls. The tight labor market will get even tighter, raising the specter that it will overheat."
> 
> Overall, service-related companies were responsible for the balance of jobs, with 222,000 new hires. Goods-producing industries added the rest, with construction growing by 16,000 and manufacturing by 9,000.
> 
> The private payrolls numbers come a day ahead of the government's closely watched nonfarm payrolls report.
> 
> Economists expect that the U.S. economy added about 189,000 jobs in December while the unemployment rate likely stayed at 4.1 percent, according to FactSet.
> 
> Economists and policymakers at the Federal Reserve will be watching the wages component most closely. Despite a job market that appears at full employment, salaries have been slow to rise. Average hourly earnings are projected to rise 0.3 percent for the month.



https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/04/job...7-see-lowest-level-since-1990-challenger.html



> *Job-cut announcements in 2017 see lowest level since 1990, Challenger report says*
> 
> *U.S. employers announced plans to cut 32,423 jobs in December, bringing the year's total to a low not seen since 1990*, global outplacement consultancy Challenger, Gray & Christmas reported Thursday.
> 
> "The tight labor market, coupled with uncertainty surrounding health care and tax legislation, possibly kept employers from making any long-term staffing decisions this year," CEO John Challenger said in a statement. "However, 2018 may see an increase in job cut announcements, as companies realign with consumer demand."
> 
> Cuts in 2017 totaled 418,770, 20 percent below 2016's number. In 1990, companies announced plans to cut 316,047 jobs.
> 
> Last month saw*7.4 percent fewer job-cut announcements than November, and 3.6 percent fewer than in December 2016.*
> 
> Widespread restructuring and competition from online sales led to unprecedented cuts in retail jobs in 2017. Retail employers announced 76,084 job cuts this year, a 28 percent increase from 2016, according to the Challenger report.
> 
> "The retail pivot that caused thousands of store closures and job cuts was not seen in any other industry this year," John Challenger said.
> 
> The health-care and services sectors also had significantly higher job-cut announcements in 2017. Health-care employers announced 40,732 cuts, a 118 percent increase over 2016, while announced plans to cut jobs in services almost quadrupled to 36,174.
> 
> "While companies in the Pharmaceutical, Health Care, Construction, and Food industries did announce more job cuts than last year, it was nothing like the Energy cuts seen in the last two years or the Financial cuts seen during the recession," Challenger said.
> 
> *Despite the losses, the passage of the tax bill has prompted unprecedented hiring plans for 2018. Employers report plans to hire more than 1.1 million near hires, 27 percent more than last year.*
> 
> AT&T, Fifth Third Bancorp, Wells Fargo and Boeing were among the companies that announced bonuses, wage increases or new investment in response to the passage of the tax bill.
> 
> The Challenger report comes a day before the Labor Department releases its December jobs data.



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...n-u-s-accelerates-to-cap-best-year-since-2004



> *Manufacturing in the U.S. Just Accelerated to Its Best Year Since 2004*
> 
> U.S. manufacturing expanded in December at the fastest pace in three months, as gains in orders and production capped the strongest year for factories since 2004, the Institute for Supply Management said Wednesday.
> 
> The survey-based measure of factory activity -- the year’s second-highest behind September, when storm-related supply delays boosted the index -- *brings the 2017 average to 57.6, the best in 13 years.* The latest gain extends a string of strong readings that’s been fueled by more domestic business investment, improving global economies and steady spending by American households.
> 
> A common refrain from companies surveyed, though, was difficulty finding highly-skilled labor, and some firms are paying higher wages to attract the workforce needed, ISM manufacturing survey committee chairman Timothy Fiore said on a conference call with reporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The acceleration in bookings indicates production will remain robust in coming months as factories race to limit mounting order backlogs amid declining customer inventories. Increasing export orders underscore improvement in global markets.
> 
> The figures suggest manufacturing strength will persist into early 2018, even after the ISM’s semi-annual survey of purchasing managers published last month showed factories anticipate growth in capital spending to slow this year. The December monthly poll was taken before President Donald Trump signed the tax legislation, which provides companies with incentives to invest more, Fiore said in an interview.
> 
> *What Our Economists Say*
> 
> Bloomberg Economics’ assessment that the dip in the November ISM headline was a headfake proved accurate. This was due to the alleviation of bottlenecks following the hurricanes, whereby supplier deliveries weighed on the headline. The December results showed a payback for this effect. However, it was not just that, as enthusiasm for the tax reform bill’s passage bolstered business confidence. This may not be the end of the ISM’s climb, as both new orders and production posted further gains in the month. Business sentiment has been high enough for long enough that it is actually starting to drive the “hard data” in a positive direction.
> 
> -- Carl Riccadonna and Yelena Shulyatyeva, Bloomberg Economics
> 
> *Other Details*
> 
> * Sixteen of 18 industries reported growth in December, led by machinery and computer and electronic products; wood products and textile mills reported contraction
> * ISM factory employment gauge declined to a still-strong 57 from 59.7
> * Measure of export orders increased to a six-month high of 58.5 from 56
> * Gauge of supplier deliveries climbed to 57.9 from 56.5, indicating stronger demand was leading to longer lead times
> * Index of customer inventories fell to 42 from 45.5, signaling stockpiles were declining at a faster pace
> * Factory inventories index showed a third straight month of contraction
> Index of prices paid climbed to 69 from 65.5



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...-tax-victory-tsunami-building/article/2644944



> *The number of companies offering employee bonuses, pay hikes, and increases in benefits in reaction to President Trump’s December tax reform victory is now over 100, with thousands of workers impacted and charities too.*
> 
> Less than a day after Americans for Tax Reform put out an initial list of 40, it jumped to 52 as more company plans poured in.
> 
> And by the end of today, ATR’s John Kartch told Secrets that the list will hit over 100. *"Small businesses from across the country are sending me news of their tax-cut bonuses, wage hikes, and charitable donations. Many of these were only announced internally. There is a broad and deep tsunami building,"* added Kartch, ATR's vice president of communications.
> 
> Kartch is asking that firms who have decided to spread the anticipated wealth let him know. “Please help ATR expand this list – if you know of any companies missing below, please send to [email protected]),” he put in his blog post.
> 
> Grover Norquist, ATR's president, said *the bonuses are nullifying Democratic attacks on the GOP tax package. He told Secrets, "Every announcement of another company raising wages, hiring, paying bonuses, investing in America is another nail in the coffin of the Democrat attacks on the Republican tax cut. This drip, drip, drip is added to the daily reports on stock market gains, the bigger checks in pay envelopes and the jump in your 401K and IRA."*
> 
> Below is his ATR's list. It includes the plans and comments by the firms:
> 
> AT&T — $1,000 bonuses to 200,000 employees; $1 billion increase in capital expenditures.
> 
> “Congress, working closely with the President, took a monumental step to bring taxes paid by U.S. businesses in line with the rest of the industrialized world. Tax reform will drive economic growth and create good-paying jobs. In fact, we will increase our U.S. investment and pay a special bonus to our U.S. employees.” – Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson
> 
> AAON — $1,000 bonus checks to 2,000 employees.
> 
> “We are very appreciative of all AAON employees and want to commemorate the passing of this historic, economy-stimulating tax reform law. While most employees are shareholders of the company and benefit as a result of the new tax law, we felt it appropriate to provide a more direct recognition of their importance to AAON’s future success.” — CEO Norman H. Asbjornson
> 
> AccuWeather – year-end bonuses to all employees. (Approx. 450 – 500 employees)
> 
> “The bonuses are possible due to the company's robust financial performance in 2017 and strong confidence in the growing U.S. and global economy now that the Tax Bill has passed.” – AccuWeather press release
> 
> Aflac – increase 401(k) match from 50% to 100% on the first 4% of compensation plus one-time $500 contribution to every employee’s 401(k); $250 million increase in overall U.S. investment.
> 
> "We are pleased that these tax reforms provide Aflac with an opportunity to increase our investments in initiatives that reflect our company values; providing for our employees in the long and short term, ensuring future growth for our company and giving back to the community." — Aflac Chairman and CEO Dan Amos
> 
> American Airlines — $1,000 bonuses for every employee (excluding officers). The bonuses will total $130 million. AA had 127,600 employees as of Sept. 2017.
> 
> “Recent tax reform has received much publicity. While the company does not yet pay cash taxes due to our enormous losses in the past, there is no doubt that our country’s new tax structure will have positive long-term benefits for American. We will be able to invest even more in aircraft and facilities, and we will be able to do so with even greater confidence about the future. As we analyze those potential future benefits, our leadership team, backed by our Board of Directors, considered how a portion of that positive impact might be directly shared with the very people who produce the profits at American—all of you.
> 
> We are pleased to announce that in light of this new tax structure and in recognition of our outstanding team members, American will distribute $1,000 to each team member (excluding Officers) at our mainline and wholly owned regional carriers. These distributions will total approximately $130 million and will be made in the first quarter of 2018.” – American Airlines press release
> 
> American Bank – $1,000 bonuses for 60 employees
> 
> “President and CEO Mark W. Jaindl stated, “Beginning in 2018, we expect to see benefits from the recent tax reform due to lower corporate tax rates. As we celebrate the holiday season and prepare to close out another year of growth at American Bank, the Board of Directors and senior management want to give back to our team members who are directly responsible for our success.”
> 
> Mr. Jaindl continued, “We expect the actions taken by Congress and the President will have a material positive impact on growth throughout the country. As a result, we anticipate our hiring efforts will increase in 2018.” – American Bank press release
> 
> American Savings Bank – $1,000 bonuses to 1,150 employees; base wage increase from $12.21 to $15.25
> 
> Americacollect – $300 - $500 bonuses for 250 employees
> 
> “Today, Congress passed the tax reform bill; our company will be taxed less because of it. Since we will now be taxed less, I wanted to take this opportunity and utilize this financial benefit to give back to each of you, our teammates, by directly impacting your paycheck in the form of a bonus!” — Americollect President and CEO Kenlyn T. Gretz
> 
> Aquesta Financial Holdings — $1,000 bonuses to 95 employees; base wage hike to $15 per hour
> 
> "We are very happy to share with our valuable team members some portion of the benefits Aquesta will realize by the enactment of Tax Reform. Decreased tax rates will allow Aquesta Bank to continue to grow by accelerating lending to small businesses and hiring additional team members to help with that growth. While almost all of our employees will also pay lower taxes in 2018 due to this new law, we felt that immediate recognition of their importance to Aquesta would send the right message: our people are what makes Aquesta different." – Aquesta President and CEO Jim Engel
> 
> Associated Bank – $500 employee bonuses (exact number receiving bonus unknown at this time); base wage will rise from $10 to $15 per hour
> 
> “[Associated Bank President and CEO Philip B.] Flynn said the new tax legislation, particularly the reduction in business tax rates, allowed the company to share some of the benefits with its employees. It also helps position the company to further enhance the customer experience and its community investments in the future.” – Associated Bank press release
> 
> Bank of America — $1,000 bonuses to 145,000 U.S. employees
> 
> “Beginning in 2018, we will see benefits from the tax reform, too, in the form of lower corporate tax rates.
> 
> In the spirit of shared success, we intend to pass some of those benefits along immediately. U.S. employees making up to $150,000 per year in total compensation – about 145,000 teammates – will receive a one-time bonus of $1,000 by year-end.” – CEO Brian Moynihan
> 
> Bank of Hawaii – $1,000 bonuses to 2,074 employees; base wage increase from $12 to $15
> 
> “Our employees are, by far, our greatest asset. It’s our pleasure to reward our team with this holiday opportunity,” said bank Chairman, President and CEO Peter Ho. “We’ve recently been thinking about increasing our minimum wage level throughout the organization to the living wage level. The adjustments to the corporate tax rate provided further momentum to execute on the plan.” – Bank of Hawaii press release
> 
> Bank of the Ozarks – Bonuses of up to $1,200 for 2,300 employees
> 
> “Recently signed U.S. corporate tax legislation has given us the opportunity to enhance current compensation programs for our employees. This bonus plan rewards hard work and performance while promoting our longstanding commitment to excellence which has driven our Company’s success for decades.” – Bank of the Ozarks press release
> 
> BB&T – $1,200 bonuses for 27,000 employees; base wage will rise from $12 to $15 per hour; $100 million in charitable donations
> 
> “Overall, BB&T's Executive Management team believes the successful passage of tax reform is very encouraging news that should move BB&T, the financial services industry and the U.S. economy in the direction of stronger growth.” – BB&T press release
> 
> Boeing — $100 million in charitable donations; $100 million for workforce development; $100 million for infrastructure and facilities
> 
> "On behalf of all of our stakeholders, we applaud and thank Congress and the administration for their leadership in seizing this opportunity to unleash economic energy in the United States," said [Boeing CEO Dennis] Muilenburg. "It's the single-most important thing we can do to drive innovation, support quality jobs and accelerate capital investment in our country."
> 
> Canary LLC – due to tax reform, the company will hire more employees and increase capital spending.
> 
> “There are two components. One is ordering more capital equipment, which is what the expensing provision of the new tax reform bill allows us to do. And the second leg of that is hiring more people which we are furiously working on right now.”
> 
> "So what the tax reform package is allowing us to do is really dial up our capital spending even more, so we are going to try to achieve 50 percent revenue growth next year in 2018 over 2017." – CEO Dan Eberhart
> 
> Central Pacific Bank – all 850 employees will receive $1,000 bonuses; base wage will rise from $12 to $15.25
> 
> “We are delighted to have this opportunity with the lowering of the corporate tax rate to take care of our hard-working employees, who are our most important asset, and give them an extra special holiday this year.” — Central Pacific President and CEO Catherine Ngo
> 
> Citizens Financial Group — $1,000 bonuses for 12,500 employees and $10 million for charitable donations
> 
> “Corporate tax reform provides us with an opportunity to recognize the role our colleagues have played in delivering better results for customers and shareholders, and to positively impact the communities where we live, work and play,” said Bruce Van Saun, chairman and chief executive officer of Citizens Financial Group. – Citizens Financial Group press release
> 
> Comcast — $1,000 bonuses to 100,000 employees; at least $50 billion investment in infrastructure in next five years
> 
> “Based on the passage of tax reform and the FCC's action on broadband, Brian L. Roberts, Chairman and CEO of Comcast NBCUniversal, announced that the Company would award special $1,000 bonuses to more than one hundred thousand eligible frontline and non-executive employees.” – Comcast press release
> 
> Comerica Bank — $1,000 to 4,500 non-officer employees; base wage increase to $15 per hour
> 
> “This increase in minimum wage and one-time bonus are made possible by the tax reform bill that was passed by the U.S. Congress, then signed by the President on Dec. 22, 2017.” – Comerica Bank press release
> 
> Commerce Bank – 3,450 employees will receive bonuses — $1,000 for full time employees and $250 for part time employees; $25 million in charitable donations
> 
> “The new tax reform legislation should be very positive for economic growth and capital investment which will benefit the banking industry. This new law makes the banking industry more competitive and allows us to reward our core employees who work hard every day to provide superior service to the people and the companies we serve while building long term customer relationships so important to our communities and shareholders. In addition, we are very pleased to provide significant additional funding to The Commerce Bancshares Foundation which will strengthen our ability to continue to support the communities where we do business and whose prosperity is so important to our business.” –Commerce Bank press release
> 
> Community Trust Bancorp — $1,000 bonuses for full time employees and $500 bonuses for part-time employees (exact number receiving bonus unknown at this time)
> 
> “The bonus will be paid to employees as soon as the new tax tables are released in 2018 so that employees may receive the full benefit of the reduction in tax rates.
> 
> “Management and the Boards of Directors continue to believe that our most valuable assets are our employees and are pleased that changes in the tax laws facilitate our ability to recognize their hard work and dedication to the success of CTBI.” – Community Trust Bancorp press release
> 
> Copperleaf Assisted Living – $200 - $600 bonuses for 175 employees
> 
> “An assisted-living business will give its 175 employees bonuses up to $600 as a result of the tax reform package passed by Congress and signed by President Trump on Friday.
> 
> Krista Mendyke, who owns Copperleaf Assisted Living with her husband, Jim, said they will give away all of the company's estimated tax savings as a result of the legislation.” – excerpt from Stevens Point (Wis.) Journal
> 
> Dayton T. Brown Inc. (engineering/testing company) — $400 bonuses for each of the 210 employees
> 
> “We’re going to save a significant amount of money on this new tax law and . . . certainly, we’re nothing without our employees,”
> 
> The inspiration for the bonus was AT&T’s announcement Wednesday that it was giving its employees $1,000 bonuses, [Chief Financial Officer Steve] Marini said. – excerpt from NewsDay article
> 
> Delaware Supermarkets Inc. — $150 extra bonuses to 1,000 non-management personnel.
> 
> “Our ability to provide bonuses and training to our employees demonstrates the far-reaching implications of this tax reform. We have a renewed optimism for the local and the national economy, and this important legislation better positions us for future growth.” – Christopher Kenny, CEO
> 
> “This legislation benefits those of who count on Main Street budgets for our livelihoods, and it’s a privilege to share the benefits with the men and women who work so hard at ShopRite. It makes it possible to succeed in a very competitive industry.” — Melissa Kenny, director of sales and marketing
> 
> Express Employment Professionals — $2,000 bonuses to more than 200 non-executive employees
> 
> [CEO Bob] Funk said the bonus is in part because of the company's expected savings from the tax reform legislation Congress passed last week.
> 
> "We wanted to show our appreciation for our employees for doing such a good job this year," Funk told The Oklahoman on Tuesday. "It's our privilege to be able to give back to our employees." – excerpt from article in The Oklahoman
> 
> Fifth Third Bancorp – $1,000 bonuses for 13,500 employees; base wage will rise to $15
> 
> Newly passed tax legislation includes a reduction in corporate tax rates designed to spur economic growth. Carmichael said the tax cut allowed the Bank the opportunity to reevaluate its compensation structure and share some of those benefits with its talented and dedicated workforce.
> 
> Carmichael said the higher wage is an important step to help support individuals, their families and the communities in which we operate. Fifth Third has a history of investing in its 18,000 employees.
> 
> Once the legislation is signed into law, nearly 3,000 hourly employees will see their pay increase to $15 an hour. The one-time $1,000 bonus is expected to be distributed by the end of the year, assuming the president signs the bill before Christmas. Senior managers and executive leadership are excluded from this compensation.
> 
> “It is good for our communities, employees and Fifth Third Bank,” [President and CEO Greg] Carmichael said. – Fifth Third press release
> 
> First Hawaiian Bank – $1,500 bonuses to 2,264 employees; base wage increase to $15
> 
> First Horizon National Corp. – $1,000 bonuses to 4,000 employees
> 
> “And as a result of this outstanding performance and because of recent tax reform efforts that we believe will benefit First Horizon, we are happy to offer bonuses to our people who work hard every day to maintain First Horizon’s reputation as one of the best companies to work for and one of the most trusted banks in the country.” – First Horizon National Corp. press release
> 
> Gate City Bank — $1,000 hand-delivered bonus checks to 538 non-management personnel; $500,000 higher charitable giving; $500,000 worth of free home appraisals.
> 
> “This new tax reduction enables us to make decisions that benefit our customers, communities and team members in a significant way which has been our culture for decades. Gate City Bank is making a commitment to reinvest an additional $1.6 million in 2018.”
> 
> “As a thank you for our employees' hard work and dedication, we will be providing our 538 employees with $1,000 each, giving back over $625,000. Every employee will be hand-delivered a check for a net amount of $1,000 on January 15th. Executive Leadership, Regional Leaders, Office Managers and Department Managers are not eligible. This is above and beyond general compensation.”
> 
> INB Bank — $500 bonuses to 200 employees. The bonuses will exclude the Senior Management Team. The base wage will be raised to $15 per hour
> 
> “INB, a regional independent community bank, today announced that it plans to share a portion of its anticipated tax savings with its employees as a result of the federal tax reform legislation signed last week.” – INB press release
> 
> Kansas City Southern — $1,000 bonuses. (Exact number receiving bonus unknown at this time; the company employs 6,485)
> 
> “Kansas City Southern is pleased with the passage of this legislation and optimistic about what it could mean for our customers, investors and growth in the U.S. economy, as well as trade growth with Mexico. KCS wants to share the benefit with our employees, who work so hard to serve our customers and increase shareholder value.” — KCS president and chief executive officer Patrick J. Ottensmeyer
> 
> Melaleuca – all 2,000 employees will receive a $100 bonus for each year they have worked at the company
> 
> “We’re going to be able to have quite a few substantial dollars after taxes,” [CEO Frank] VanderSloot said. “I suspect we’re one of the largest taxpayers in the state, so we’re going to have some more dollars to spread around. That money should go to the people who built the company.” – Associated Press article
> 
> National Bank Holdings Corporation – $1,000 bonuses for employees making less than $50,000 (exact number receiving bonus unknown at this time)
> 
> “This move is in part a response to the recently enacted tax legislation, which is anticipated to have a positive impact on the U.S. economy.” – National Bank Holdings Corporation press release
> 
> Nationwide Insurance — $1,000 bonuses to 29,000 employees; increased 401(k) matching contributions for 33,000 employees
> 
> “The combination of the new tax legislation, including a reduced corporate tax rate, and our associates’ ongoing commitment to our members, community and On Your Side promise are the reasons we’re making this investment that further enhances the already robust benefits we offer to attract and retain the best talent.” – Nationwide Insurance statement
> 
> Navient – 98% of Navient’s 6,700 employees will receive a $1,000 bonus (approx. 6,566 bonus-eligible employees)
> 
> “Congress passed a major tax bill. One aspect of this bill lowered the corporate tax rate to help make America more competitive in the global marketplace and to help grow our economy. This lower tax rate has a positive impact to Navient.
> 
> “In response, I wanted to do something that would have an immediate impact for Team Navient. I am thrilled to announce that we will pay a $1,000 bonus to all non-officer employees. In total, 98 percent of our teammates will receive this bonus, which will be delivered through a special payroll deposit next week.” – Navient President and CEO Jack Remondi
> 
> Nelnet — $1,000 bonuses for 4,100 employees
> 
> OceanFirst Financial Corp. – base wage increase to $15 per hour
> 
> “OceanFirst Financial Corp. (NASDAQ:OCFC) the holding company for OceanFirst Bank, today announced a commitment to increase the Bank’s minimum hourly pay rate to $15.00 within 30 days of the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act which has been approved by Congress and is expected to be signed into law in the near future.” – OceanFirst Financial Corp. press release
> 
> Ohnward Bancshares — $1,000 bonuses for all 260 employees
> 
> As a result of the passage of the tax relief bill this week, Ohnward Bancshares has announced it will pay a $1,000 tax relief, holiday bonus to every company employee. This bonus is separate, and, in addition to, normal bonuses received based on company performance. “There has been a lot of debate about what a tax cut will do for the nation’s economy. This sweeping tax reform will create economic growth in our communities, but only if the expense savings are shared”, comments the Ohnward leadership team, Abram Tubbs, Brigham Tubbs, Alan Tubbs and Kendra Beck. – Ohnward Bancshares press release
> 
> Pinnacle Bank — $1,000 bonuses for 1,007 employees
> 
> "We feel strongly that the message should be loud and clear that this is a tax cut that will benefit all Americans.” – Pinnacle press release
> 
> PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. — $1,000 bonuses to 47,500 employees; an additional $1,500 in employee pension accounts; base wage hike to $15; $200 million charitable contribution
> 
> "The tax reform law creates an opportunity to reward our employees who are working hard each day to serve our customers, build strong relationships in our communities and create long-term value for our shareholders," said William S. Demchak, PNC's chairman, president and chief executive officer. "The Board's decision to recognize our employees and support our communities is reflective of our commitment to PNC's success." – PNC press release
> 
> Regions Financial Corporation – base wage increase to $15 per hour; $40 million in charitable donations; $100 million in capital expenditures
> 
> “Regions is making these investments in anticipation of the savings it will recognize as a result of federal tax reform intended to support economic growth.” – Regions Financial Corporation press release
> 
> Rush Enterprises – $1,000 bonuses for all 6,600 employees
> 
> “We believe tax reform to be beneficial for Rush Enterprises, our communities and overall economic growth,” said W.M. “Rusty” Rush, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of Rush Enterprises, Inc. “We are happy to take this step to invest in our employees and honor their important contributions to our company with this $1,000 gift,” he added.
> 
> The $1,000 discretionary bonus will be paid to all Rush Enterprises, Inc. employees once the President signs the tax reform bill into law. – Rush Enterprises, Inc.
> 
> Sinclair Broadcast Group — $1,000 bonuses for 9,000 employees
> 
> “We are grateful to our president and legislature for passing the landmark Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and are excited about the benefits it will provide for our country’s economy, our Company, and our employees,” stated Chris Ripley, Sinclair’s President and CEO. “We recognize that our employees are our most valuable resource, truly appreciate their combined achievements for our Company and look forward to a very bright future.” – Sinclair press release
> 
> Southwest Airlines — $1,000 bonuses for all 55,000 employees; $5 million additional charitable donations
> 
> The Southwest Board of Directors authorized a bonus to all Southwest Airlines Employees to celebrate the recent passage of the tax reform legislation. All Fulltime and Parttime Southwest Employees employed with Southwest on Dec. 31, 2017, will receive a $1,000 cash bonus on Jan. 8, 2018.
> 
> "We applaud Congress and the President for taking this action to pass legislation, which will result in meaningful corporate income tax reform for the transportation sector in general, and for Southwest Airlines, in particular," said Southwest's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Gary Kelly. "We are excited about the savings and additional capital, which we intend to put to work in several forms—to reward our hard-working Employees, to reinvest in our business, to reward our Shareholders, and to keep our costs and fares low for our Customers." – Southwest Airlines press release
> 
> TCF Financial Corporation — $1,000 bonuses for full time employees; $500 bonuses for part time employees (exact number receiving bonus unknown at this time);
> 
> “As a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, TCF will provide approximately $5 million in one-time bonuses to eligible team members—$1,000 to full-time team members and $500 to part-time team members—who earned less than $100,000 in total compensation during 2017, totaling 80 percent of its workforce. Additionally, TCF will donate $5 million to TCF Foundation to increase grants to nonprofit organizations in the communities it serves, including increasing its match of team member contributions to nonprofit organizations from 100 percent to 200 percent in 2018.” – TCF Financial Corporation press release
> 
> The Flood Insurance Agency — $1,000 bonuses for 17 full time employees
> 
> “Small businesses represent almost 75% of all jobs in the USA and the new tax laws benefit many those businesses. Their allocation of additional after tax income could be what causes a wave to turn into a tsunami of economic growth that moves the USA to a destiny defined by everyone’s hopes and dreams.
> 
> My hope is that our insurance industry leads the way with both large public insurance corporations and small insurance agencies announcing their plans for leveraging their tax savings toward a bright American future. My hope is that news media does their part by reporting every announcement building awareness of the growing tsunami.
> 
> I want our company to participate in that tsunami. I want our employees to help define that destiny. Our company is a mid-size insurance MGA with approximately $15 million of revenue. On Tuesday December 26th we announced a $1000 bonus for all our full time employees.” – CEO Evan Hecht
> 
> Territorial Savings Bank — $1,000 bonuses to 247 employees; base wage hike from $11.25 to $15.00 per hour
> 
> Turning Point Brands, Inc. — $1,000 bonuses for 107 employees
> 
> “We are giving $1,000 bonuses as a direct result of tax reform becoming law. These employees would not normally get a bonus like this. Our dedicated employees are responsible for our success, and we are very pleased to announce this bonus for them during the holiday season. We are extremely happy with tax reform and wanted our valued employees to feel the benefits. We can attest that this tax package is directly benefiting working people, just as our national leaders promised when they started this effort.”
> 
> “We especially want to thank President Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and House Speaker Paul Ryan for pushing to get tax reform done this year, which allowed our people to immediately feel the impact. Every leader who pushed for and voted for tax reform made these bonuses possible,” Wexler said. “Senator McConnell has personally toured our facility in Louisville and we appreciate his interest in our employees and our business as well as his interest in all Kentucky businesses.”
> 
> Unity Bank – all 200 non-executive employees will receive a $750 bonus
> 
> In response to Congressional approval of tax reform legislation, Unity Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ:UNTY), parent company of Unity Bank, announced today that its Board of Directors has elected to provide all employees excluding executive management with a one-time $750 bonus.
> 
> “The bank’s Board and executive management felt strongly that the anticipated benefit of the corporate tax rate reduction should be shared with our employees,” said Unity Bank President & CEO James A. Hughes. “Unity’s employees constantly demonstrate their commitment to our customers and the community, not only in their work responsibilities, but by donating their personal time and resources to benefit those in need. We foster an entrepreneurial culture at Unity where the employees and bank can grow together and this decision fits perfectly with that philosophy.”
> 
> The corporate tax rate in the recently passed legislation will drop from 35% to 21%. Unity Bank intends to pay the bonuses to its approximately 200 employees in January. – Unity Bancorp Inc. press release
> 
> U.S. Bancorp – $1,000 bonuses for 60,000 employees; base wage hike to $15 per hour; $150 million charitable contribution
> 
> Wells Fargo – raised base wage from $13.50 to $15.00 per hour; $400 million in charitable donations for 2018; $100 million increased capital investment over next three years
> 
> “Our announcement was directly related to the passage of tax reform.” — Arati Sontakay Randolph, Wells Fargo senior vice president



Early indications for Trump's tax plan overall looks very good for 2018 . We will have to see how it translates throughout the year but I'm liking these signs.


-------------------------


Meanwhile in Canada Land: http://business.financialpost.com/n...0000-fewer-jobs-due-to-minimum-wage-increases



> *Minimum wage hikes expected to cut 60,000 jobs by 2019, Bank of Canada warns*
> 
> OTTAWA — The Bank of Canada estimates there will be about 60,000 fewer jobs by 2019 due to the increases in minimum wages across the country, but that labour income will be higher due to the increases.
> 
> In examining the impact of the wage increases, the report estimated that the consumer price index could be boosted by about 0.1 percentage points on average and real gross domestic product could be cut by 0.1 per cent by early 2019.
> 
> The number of jobs lost was based on a 0.3 per cent decline in the number of hours worked, while aggregate real wages were estimated to increase 0.7 per cent.
> 
> The research paper by the staff at the central bank noted that if the average working hours declined following the increase in the minimum wage, the number of jobs lost would also be lower.
> 
> The Bank of Canada estimated that about eight per cent of all employees work at minimum wage, a proportion that increases to 11 per cent if a threshold of five per cent above minimum wage is used.
> 
> 
> Ontario raised its minimum wage to $14 per hour on Jan. 1 from $11.60 and plans to increase it to $15 in 2019, while Alberta is expected to raise its minimum wage to $15 later this year.


 @DesolationRow @Merry Reaper This is yet another example of how the minimum wage mandated by governments picks winners and losers and hurts workers in the form of job cuts. Something which the $15 an hour crowd cannot admit to themselves.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> When somebody compares the success of people who probably came from working/middle class to that of someone born in to billions and handed a massive start up and thinks it reflects badly on them...:Rollins


I totally expect people who've never actually been around money to make these statements because when you don't have money, you also don't have friends who squander millions and _become_ poor.

78% of NFL athletes and 60% of all NBA athletes are broke or bankrupt. While society loves to highlight "rags to riches" stories, what it doesn't talk about is "riches to rags". Trump started off with less than the majority of these athletes. 

http://www.businesspundit.com/25-rich-athletes-who-went-broke/

https://www.forbes.com/2007/06/08/b...t-biz-cz_dg_0608ragsbillies.html#333b1b22417a

https://www.forbes.com/2007/06/08/b..._dg_0608ragsbillies_slide_2.html#4b1b4d525ee9

You need an incredibly amount of intelligence to make money from money. If you're a dumb shmuck, you can make millions ANNUALLY and still end up in the soup kitchen begging for handouts. This idea that Trump is dumb or that he had a great start since he's a billionaire _now _is completely nonsensical. You're better than this to stay so firmly rooted to the anti-Trump hysteria bubble.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose

draykorinee said:


> When somebody compares the success of people who probably came from working/middle class to that of someone born in to billions and handed a massive start up and thinks it reflects badly on them...:Rollins
> 
> 
> 
> Last year was the first year I didn't vote Labour, some of that was tactical but I also hoped that Corbyn would then leave and we could get someone more centre left, I was disappointed when he stayed on, although it was understandable seeing as he did so well (comparatively), however any other leader would have destroyed May in my opinion.
> One thing is though, as leader of the opposition I do support him, because frankly the Tories are a disaster so I have to, but I don't want to derail this thread.


Don't come on this thread often but thought I'd give my weight behind this post. Completely agreed all round.

Trump's early failures in business outweigh his early successes and he had to rely on daddy's money to an extent that comparing him to people who've built themselves up from nothing as entrepreneurs is laughable. As has been pointed out in the past, Paris Hilton has a better return on investment in terms of inheritance than Trump. http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/10/paris-hilton-is-better-at-business-than-donald-trump-is/

As for Corbyn, I've largely supported him - albeit cringing at times, but the discussion is made so irrelevant by just how fundamentally bad the Tories are making the opposition the only real ticket in town. 

PS Comparing Trump's history to that of athletes who have had sudden riches thrust upon them and don't have a safety blanket of family, friends, established businesses and contacts is disingenuous nonsense.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Never forget if Trump had put every dollar he inherited in the bank he'd be richer today than he is. 

Losing money isn't a success.


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> When people attack the intelligence of a guy who is infinitely more successful than they are and think it reflects badly on anyone but themselves. :lol


I wasn't aware that being born into a rich family required intelligence.


----------



## Vic Capri

> This is yet another example of how the minimum wage mandated by governments picks winners and losers and hurts workers in the form of job cuts. Something which the $15 an hour crowd cannot admit to themselves.


They wanted $15 an hour...










- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

Merry Reaper said:


> I totally expect people who've never actually been around money to make these statements because when you don't have money, you also don't have friends who squander millions and _become_ poor.
> 
> 78% of NFL athletes and 60% of all NBA athletes are broke or bankrupt. While society loves to highlight "rags to riches" stories, what it doesn't talk about is "riches to rags". Trump started off with less than the majority of these athletes.
> 
> http://www.businesspundit.com/25-rich-athletes-who-went-broke/
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/2007/06/08/b...t-biz-cz_dg_0608ragsbillies.html#333b1b22417a
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/2007/06/08/b..._dg_0608ragsbillies_slide_2.html#4b1b4d525ee9
> 
> You need an incredibly amount of intelligence to make money from money. If you're a dumb shmuck, you can make millions ANNUALLY and still end up in the soup kitchen begging for handouts. This idea that Trump is dumb or that he had a great start since he's a billionaire _now _is completely nonsensical. You're better than this to stay so firmly rooted to the anti-Trump hysteria bubble.


I'm not sure what this has to do with my post, do you think it's okay to compare my success in business to someone who was given millions to start as well as all the business links and acumen of his wealthy family and friends bought? Sorry but that's completely nonsensical. 

As to me saying Trump is dumb, I don't believe that's in my post you quoted, ive always maintained he is a buffoon, but that's not intelligence based, that's about presentation. This seems a weird tangeant to go on.

Trump is not dumb, no one who gets where he is could possibly be unintelligent. That doesn't stop people being stupid, or idiotic on what they do or how they do it or how people perceive that.


----------



## Reaper

@draykorinee - Clearly you've never heard of billionnaires that go broke nor do you care as long as it keeps you on the train of belief that somehow Trump's wealth has nothing to do with anything other than just winning a lottery. In fact, people who win lotteries (even the lottery of family wealth) have in incredibly high rate of going broke. 

The slight of hand in attributing Trump's personal success to his "family's business acumen" is another feel good thought because family business acumen has nothing to do with personal success. 

----

Andrew Klavin (who actually isn't even much of a Trump supporter like many at PJ Media) has the best take on the current media hysteria so far. 

https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/wolff-book-proves-journalists-stink/


> *The Wolff Book Proves It: Our Journalists Stink*
> 
> The self-destruction of Steve Bannon is a terrific story but not an important story. That is, for those of us who love politics for its Shakespearean revelation of character on the grand stage, it's an amazing farewell-to-all-my-greatness moment. But if you are concerned about the threats to liberty at home and abroad, the prosperity of our fellow Americans and allies, and the positive developments — like fresh space exploration — that might emerge from a new American century, well, Steve don't matter much. Or at all.
> 
> But Bannon's fall, and the scandal-mongering book that helped it along — Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House — do underscore one thing of real importance: our mainstream journalists are genuinely awful. They will sell any narrative they can to keep from selling the one that seems increasingly likely to be true: Trump is smarter than they are and doing a better job than the last two presidents combined.
> 
> Consider this "bombshell" from the book. Bannon thinks Don Trump Jr's June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer was "treasonous," and that "the chance that Don Jr. did not walk these jumos up to his father's office on the twenty-fifth floor is zero." It's a fascinating comment, because it indicates that Bannon so miscalculated his power and political acumen that he thought he could knock down the central pillar of his prestige — Trump's friendship — and survive with his career intact. But it has no factual or evidentiary weight. Bannon wasn't at the meeting and didn't even join the campaign until August 2016. So he's just another guy with an opinion — and a guy whose opinions tend to be overblown and melodramatic at that.
> 
> Now listen to how Chuck Todd reported it on MSNBC in a tone I can only describe as one of prissy self-righteousness: "Welcome to a five alarm dumpster fire for the White House or shall we call it Bannon’s rebellion? The Russia investigation has been blown open in dramatic fashion. Not by the ‘fake news media,’ not by the ‘deep state Justice Department,’ but by Steve Bannon!" Stephanie Ruhle and political reporter Mark Murray also opined that Bannon's remarks gave the Russia investigation "legitimacy."
> 
> *Why? Bannon wasn't there. He wasn't part of the campaign at the time. He has an opinion. So do I. How does any of this "blow open" anything besides Bannon's piehole?
> *
> All of what I've seen of Fire and Fury so far seems more sound and fury, a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing. Donald Trump was so ignorant he didn't know who John Boehner was, Wolff writes. It took me a fifteen second Google search to prove that wasn't true. Trump had spoken about Boehner frequently. He played golf with the guy! It's an important anecdote meant to tell us something about the president of the United States and it's utterly false. What kind of writer — what kind of publisher — doesn't check that stuff?
> 
> Or consider this description from Wolff's self-promotion piece for Hollywood Reporter: "Everybody was painfully aware of the increasing pace of [Trump's] repetitions. It used to be inside of 30 minutes he'd repeat, word-for-word and expression-for-expression, the same three stories — now it was within 10 minutes."
> 
> We know this isn't true. As recently as October, we saw Trump speak for 45 minutes off-the-cuff under press questioning. Over Christmas, he talked to the New York Times. He's clearly all there. A big, outlandish character, no question, but no more outlandish than he was in the 1980's. Why should Wolff's assertion get any sort of attention at all?
> 
> The nation's journalists cover this obvious nonsense because otherwise, they'd have to enter what to them is uncharted territory: the truth.
> 
> *If there's anything substantial in Wolff's tales of chaos in the early Trump White House, it shows nothing more than this: Those of us who thought the political neophyte Trump was unprepared to take office in January were correct — and Trump's response — that he would learn in office and appoint the "best people" to help him — was equally correct.
> 
> But that would mean that Trump is practically smarter and more adept than the journalists who hate him and those journalists will accept any narrative other than that one. The White House is running more smoothly? Well, that's John Kelly's doing, not Trump's. ISIS is defeated? Well, that's Matthis's work, not Trump's. Great judicial appointments? Well, that's the Federalist Society. Tax cuts? That's Ryan and McConnell. Regulatory rollbacks? Well, that's all those guys running the agencies. Trump is so busy tweeting and watching the Gorilla Channel, he just hasn't had time to get in the way, that's all.
> *
> We are watching our mainstream news media implode. They don't just jump on any fake news that might make Trump look bad for the few moments before they're forced to retract it. They're now actually reporting their fantasies — fantasies in which Trump doesn't keep making them look like the idiots they are.


Yes, while the leftist echo chamber applauds more questionable characters and builds upon a rapidly evolving book of fiction with conspiracy theories, lies, half-truths, deliberate misinterprations, the Trump Train continues down a path of massive administrative success.


----------



## Draykorinee

Merry Reaper said:


> @draykorinee - Clearly you've never heard of billionnaires that go broke nor do you care as long as it keeps you on the train of belief that somehow Trump's wealth has nothing to do with anything other than just winning a lottery. In fact, people who win lotteries (even the lottery of family wealth) have in incredibly high rate of going broke.
> 
> The slight of hand in attributing Trump's personal success to his "family's business acumen" is another feel good thought because family business acumen has nothing to do with personal success.
> 
> ----
> 
> Andrew Klavin (who actually isn't even much of a Trump supporter like many at PJ Media) has the best take on the current media hysteria so far.
> 
> https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/wolff-book-proves-journalists-stink/
> 
> 
> 
> *The Wolff Book Proves It: Our Journalists Stink*
> 
> The self-destruction of Steve Bannon is a terrific story but not an important story. That is, for those of us who love politics for its Shakespearean revelation of character on the grand stage, it's an amazing farewell-to-all-my-greatness moment. But if you are concerned about the threats to liberty at home and abroad, the prosperity of our fellow Americans and allies, and the positive developments — like fresh space exploration — that might emerge from a new American century, well, Steve don't matter much. Or at all.
> 
> But Bannon's fall, and the scandal-mongering book that helped it along — Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House — do underscore one thing of real importance: our mainstream journalists are genuinely awful. They will sell any narrative they can to keep from selling the one that seems increasingly likely to be true: Trump is smarter than they are and doing a better job than the last two presidents combined.
> 
> Consider this "bombshell" from the book. Bannon thinks Don Trump Jr's June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer was "treasonous," and that "the chance that Don Jr. did not walk these jumos up to his father's office on the twenty-fifth floor is zero." It's a fascinating comment, because it indicates that Bannon so miscalculated his power and political acumen that he thought he could knock down the central pillar of his prestige — Trump's friendship — and survive with his career intact. But it has no factual or evidentiary weight. Bannon wasn't at the meeting and didn't even join the campaign until August 2016. So he's just another guy with an opinion — and a guy whose opinions tend to be overblown and melodramatic at that.
> 
> Now listen to how Chuck Todd reported it on MSNBC in a tone I can only describe as one of prissy self-righteousness: "Welcome to a five alarm dumpster fire for the White House or shall we call it Bannon’s rebellion? The Russia investigation has been blown open in dramatic fashion. Not by the ‘fake news media,’ not by the ‘deep state Justice Department,’ but by Steve Bannon!" Stephanie Ruhle and political reporter Mark Murray also opined that Bannon's remarks gave the Russia investigation "legitimacy."
> 
> *Why? Bannon wasn't there. He wasn't part of the campaign at the time. He has an opinion. So do I. How does any of this "blow open" anything besides Bannon's piehole?
> *
> All of what I've seen of Fire and Fury so far seems more sound and fury, a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing. Donald Trump was so ignorant he didn't know who John Boehner was, Wolff writes. It took me a fifteen second Google search to prove that wasn't true. Trump had spoken about Boehner frequently. He played golf with the guy! It's an important anecdote meant to tell us something about the president of the United States and it's utterly false. What kind of writer — what kind of publisher — doesn't check that stuff?
> 
> Or consider this description from Wolff's self-promotion piece for Hollywood Reporter: "Everybody was painfully aware of the increasing pace of [Trump's] repetitions. It used to be inside of 30 minutes he'd repeat, word-for-word and expression-for-expression, the same three stories — now it was within 10 minutes."
> 
> We know this isn't true. As recently as October, we saw Trump speak for 45 minutes off-the-cuff under press questioning. Over Christmas, he talked to the New York Times. He's clearly all there. A big, outlandish character, no question, but no more outlandish than he was in the 1980's. Why should Wolff's assertion get any sort of attention at all?
> 
> The nation's journalists cover this obvious nonsense because otherwise, they'd have to enter what to them is uncharted territory: the truth.
> 
> *If there's anything substantial in Wolff's tales of chaos in the early Trump White House, it shows nothing more than this: Those of us who thought the political neophyte Trump was unprepared to take office in January were correct — and Trump's response — that he would learn in office and appoint the "best people" to help him — was equally correct.
> 
> But that would mean that Trump is practically smarter and more adept than the journalists who hate him and those journalists will accept any narrative other than that one. The White House is running more smoothly? Well, that's John Kelly's doing, not Trump's. ISIS is defeated? Well, that's Matthis's work, not Trump's. Great judicial appointments? Well, that's the Federalist Society. Tax cuts? That's Ryan and McConnell. Regulatory rollbacks? Well, that's all those guys running the agencies. Trump is so busy tweeting and watching the Gorilla Channel, he just hasn't had time to get in the way, that's all.
> *
> We are watching our mainstream news media implode. They don't just jump on any fake news that might make Trump look bad for the few moments before they're forced to retract it. They're now actually reporting their fantasies — fantasies in which Trump doesn't keep making them look like the idiots they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, while the leftist echo chamber applauds more questionable characters and builds upon a rapidly evolving book of fiction with conspiracy theories, lies, half-truths, deliberate misinterprations, the Trump Train continues down a path of massive administrative success.
Click to expand...

Another baseless accusation of something I've never said.

So let's try this once more.

Is it correct to compare my success in business as a child of working class parents to somebody who had a leg up in business?

Because that was my point at no point throughout this while exchange have I stated Trump is only successful because of his start in life nor have I said he is dumb. Two things I do not believe to be true. I'm not sure where you're pulling these from?

The whole thing about broke billionaires is once again so irrelevant.

I would suggest you only read what you wanted in this case.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Makise Kurisu said:


> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/04/us-...00-jobs-in-dec-vs-estimate-of-190000-adp.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/04/job...7-see-lowest-level-since-1990-challenger.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...n-u-s-accelerates-to-cap-best-year-since-2004
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...-tax-victory-tsunami-building/article/2644944
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Early indications for Trump's tax plan overall looks very good for 2018 . We will have to see how it translates throughout the year but I'm liking these signs.
> 
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> 
> Meanwhile in Canada Land: http://business.financialpost.com/n...0000-fewer-jobs-due-to-minimum-wage-increases
> 
> 
> 
> @DesolationRow @Merry Reaper This is yet another example of how the minimum wage mandated by governments picks winners and losers and hurts workers in the form of job cuts. Something which the $15 an hour crowd cannot admit to themselves.


Oh please, companies lay off workers all the time without the min. wage going up. This is just an excuse to not pay workers a living wage.

If your company cannot support paying your workers a living wage, you should not be in business.

It's, even more, a joke when you have companies making millions claiming they can't afford to pay workers $15 an hour especially when their CEOs gets huge bonuses.

Min. wage should be $21 an hour if it kept up with inflation.


----------



## FatherJackHackett

Merry Reaper said:


> Andrew Klavin (who actually isn't even much of a Trump supporter like many at PJ Media) has the best take on the current media hysteria so far.


I really like Klavan and listen to his podcast quite regularly. Although I don't agree with him about everything he's very insightful and seems really well-adjusted, not to mention much less intense and generally nicer to listen to than Ben Shapiro.

The turnaround of Klavan has been fun to watch. Before the election he was pretty much a Never Trumper, although was always more willing to give him a chance than Shapiro. He loves Trump now, and attributes it to the fact that he has delivered a solid conservative agenda and has inspired a fightback against PC culture.


----------



## Reaper

FatherJackHackett said:


> I really like Klavan and listen to his podcast quite regularly. Although I don't agree with him about everything he's very insightful and seems really well-adjusted, not to mention much less intense and generally nicer to listen to than Ben Shapiro.
> 
> The turnaround of Klavan has been fun to watch. Before the election he was pretty much a Never Trumper, although was always more willing to give him a chance than Shapiro. He loves Trump now, and attributes it to the fact that he has delivered a solid conservative agenda and has inspired a fightback against PC culture.


PJ Media remains one of my favorite alternate sources. Great commentary and while they criticize other outlets frequently, they back it up with a lot of good stuff of their own.

I don't have the attention span to listen to podcasts, but I read most of their articles. 

There's so much good political analysis on the right at the moment that it's fascinating to read the other side still acting like brats in a candy store.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh please, companies lay off workers all the time without the min. wage going up. This is just an excuse to not pay workers a living wage.
> 
> If your company cannot support paying your workers a living wage, you should not be in business.
> 
> It's, even more, a joke when you have companies making millions claiming they can't afford to pay workers $15 an hour especially when their CEOs gets huge bonuses.
> 
> Min. wage should be $21 an hour if it kept up with inflation.


Who are you to put a price on labor? Shouldn't the market be responsible for that?

So if you're a small business owner and you need someone to operate the cash register... that person should be paid *$21* an hour!?!? Should unskilled, easily expendable labor demand that much?

How would small business owners even have a chance if they had to shell out that much just for labor?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> Who are you to put a price on labor? Shouldn't the market be responsible for that?
> 
> So if you're a small business owner and you need someone to operate the cash register... that person should be paid *$21* an hour!?!? Should unskilled, easily expendable labor demand that much?
> 
> How would small business owners even have a chance if they had to shell out that much just for labor?


$21 is what min. wage should be if it kept up with inflation. 

If someones full time job is running a cash register then yes they should get a living wage so they can support themselves.

Like I said if they can't support paying their workers a living wage they should not have a company.

You dont think someone working 40 hours a week shouldn't make at least $15 an hour which is just 30,000 a year.


----------



## Reaper

Muh SHOSHULIZED HEALTHCARE IS SO GREAT! 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/2543...tm_content=051717-news&utm_campaign=dwtwitter



> *SOCIALIST PARADISE: British National Health Service Cancels 50,000 Surgeries*
> 
> British single-payer system forced to ration care for tens of thousands.
> 
> In a stunning move, the British National Health Service, which operates the government-run medical system, ordered the cancellation of over 50,000 “non-urgent” surgeries in every hospital across England, leaving sick patients in limbo as they wait for procedures.
> 
> The order came on Tuesday, as hospitals dealt with large crowds stemming from a winter outbreak of the flu. Some patients were forced to wait 12 hours, standing in the corridors as seating areas became overwhelmed, according a Washington Free Beacon report.
> 
> British Prime Minister Theresa May offered an apology on Thursday during an interview with Sky News. "I know it's difficult, I know it's frustrating, I know it's disappointing for people and I apologize," she said as she visited patients at a London hospital.
> 
> The NHS offers free government-run health care to British citizens, making up about a third of England’s budget. Unfortunately, this move has caused the health care quality to drop in recent years.
> 
> One doctor described treating patients with "battlefield medicine," while others have said that the hospitals face "third world conditions” as the medical staff became overwhelmed with patients coming in with flu-type symptoms.
> 
> Since Britain initiated a government-run health care system, the overall quality has steadily dropped, even as leftist politicians propose similar systems for the United States.
> 
> Paul Gallagher wrote about the dismal state of the NHS back in 2015 for the Independent.
> 
> The UK has one of the worst healthcare systems in the developed world according to a damning new report which said the nation has an “outstandingly poor” record of preventing ill health.
> 
> Hospitals are now so short-staffed and underequipped that people are also dying needlessly because of a chronic lack of investment. The verdict, from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), will make embarrassing reading for (then-Prime Minister) David Cameron who denied the cash-strapped NHS is heading for its worst winter crisis.
> 
> He adds,
> 
> Britain was placed on a par with Chile and Poland as countries still lagging behind the best performers in survival following diagnosis for different types of cancer. The UK came 21st out of 23 countries on cervical cancer survival, 20th out of 23 countries on breast and bowel cancer survival and 19th out of 31 countries on stroke.
> 
> These are staggering statistics for those who want the United States to emulate the health care policies of our neighbors across the Atlantic.
> 
> As sick patients wait for a diagnosis from their physician, they may find themselves on the receiving end of a cancellation instead of a treatment to cure their ailments.


I suppose they can't print money fast enough? The government is not releasing funds? Just tax people more? Is anyone donating? 

BTW, taxes are basically minimum required payments. Since we know that leftists LOVE more taxes, why don't they just all pay more taxes than they are required to?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> Muh SHOSHULIZED HEALTHCARE IS SO GREAT!
> 
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/2543...tm_content=051717-news&utm_campaign=dwtwitter
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose they can't print money fast enough? The government is not releasing funds? Just tax people more? Is anyone donating?
> 
> BTW, taxes are basically minimum required payments. Since we know that leftists LOVE more taxes, why don't they just all pay more taxes than they are required to?


So you think non-urgent issues should be taken care of before urgent issues?

yeah we know you think the people who have more money should be taken care of first, before people who have urgent needs for care

You think the US system is so great yet its ranked 37th in the world.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> If someones full time job is running a cash register then yes they should get a living wage so they can support themselves.


If an unskilled worker demands $21 an hour (or $30,000 a year) then what do you think skilled workers should be demanding?

Plumbers, electricians, technicians... how much should they be earning?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> If an unskilled worker demands $21 an hour (or $30,000 a year) then what do you think skilled workers should be demanding?
> 
> Plumbers, electricians, technicians... how much should they be earning?


$21 an hour is 42k a year, which again is what min. wage should be if it kept up with inflation.

$30,000 or $15 an hour is a living wage, which under unless you get a second job or have another income from a sponge, it's near possible to survive.

Plumbers make like 100k a year. Electricians make like $60k a year.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> *$21 an hour is 42k a year, which again is what min. wage should be if it kept up with inflation.*
> 
> $30,000 or $15 an hour is a living wage, which under unless you get a second job or have another income from a sponge, it's near possible to survive.
> 
> Plumbers make like 100k a year. *Electricians make like $60k a year*.


Should a cashier be earning 70% of what an electrician makes?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> Should a cashier be earning 70% of what an electrician makes?


Yes, a cashier should be making $15 an hour if it's their full-time job.

Why shouldn't someone working a full-time job make a living wage?


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> Yes, a cashier should be making $15 an hour if it's their full-time job.
> 
> *Why shouldn't someone working a full-time job make a living wage?*


Because that wage doesn't fall from the sky, it comes out of someone's pocket.

Why should someone be forced to pay you X amount of dollars for a job when someone else is willing to do it for less?


----------



## Reaper

Smarky Mark said:


> Why should someone be forced to pay you X amount of dollars for a job when someone else is willing to do it for less?


That person is a scab and traitor to his comrades.

If you just kill enough of them you'll have enough for everyone else. Didn't you know how communism works?

Take venzuela for example. They keep raising minimum wage there and as more people starve to death, the system will eventually work.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> Because that wage doesn't fall from the sky, it comes out of someone's pocket.
> 
> Why should someone be forced to pay you X amount of dollars for a job when someone else is willing to do it for less?


You are kidding right. So the federal min. Is wage 7.25 you think companies should be allowed to pay someone less like $5?

If people like you and reaper had your way, you would bring back slave labor like they have in China.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> You are kidding right. So the federal min. Is wage 7.25 you think companies should be allowed to pay someone less like $5?
> 
> If people like you and reaper had your way, you would bring back slave labor.


You and I clearly have a different definition of slavery.

A slave is someone forced into labor against their will. A wage employee is someone working voluntarily.

So in all honesty I don't know the point you are trying to make.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> You and I clearly have a different definition of slavery.
> 
> A slave is someone forced into labor against their will. A wage employee is someone working voluntarily.
> 
> So in all honesty I don't know the point you are trying to make.


You dont think people in China being forced to work for $2 an hour and 12 hour days is not slave labor?

Ok dude, you obviously don't understand what slave labor means.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> You dont think people in China being forced to work for $2 an hour and 12 hour days is not slave labor?
> 
> Ok dude, you obviously don't understand what slave labor means.


$2 USD is the equivalent of 12.98 in Chinese Yaun.

The lowest mininum wage in China is 11 Yaun an hour. That would mean they are being paid slightly above the average minimum wage.

Try again.


----------



## virus21




----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> $2 USD is the equivalent of 12.98 in Chinese Yaun.
> 
> The lowest mininum wage in China is 11 Yaun an hour. That would mean they are being paid slightly above the average minimum wage.
> 
> Try again.


LOL 11 Yaun is slave labor in China.

That is nothing in China, and that is not even the point.

The point was you would be ok with US workers making $2 an hour if businesses could get away with it.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL 11 Yaun is slave labor in China.
> 
> That is nothing in China.


It's the minimum wage. No one there is being forced to work against their will.

Either you develop the skills you need in order to negotiate a higher wage, or you try and find an employer that's willing to pay more.

Keep in mind that China's economic structure is completely different than ours. You've yet to make a compelling argument for raising the minimum wage here in the states.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> The point was you would be ok with US workers making $2 an hour if businesses could get away with it.


Who the FUCK would work for 2 dollars an hour?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> Who the FUCK would work for 2 dollars an hour?


You made the point, and i quote



Smarky Mark said:


> Because that wage doesn't fall from the sky, it comes out of someone's pocket.
> 
> Why should someone be forced to pay you X amount of dollars for a job* when someone else is willing to do it for less*?


So if a company is forcing people to work for $2 an hour and some people are desperate enough to work for it, do you think that is ok?


----------



## FriedTofu

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949303089416294401
Sloppy Steve Bannon. Sloppy Joe. Bannon = average Joe.

Jedi mindtrick.


----------



## DOPA

Double post, the one below is the full response/post I wanted to do. Apologies :/.


----------



## DOPA

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh please, companies lay off workers all the time without the min. wage going up. This is just an excuse to not pay workers a living wage.


First of all, it's pretty obvious to me that you did not even read the article. The Bank of Canada, Canada's own central bank has projected that the expected 60,000 job loss is a direct result and consequence of the minimum wage hike. This isn't a "companies lay off workers all the time" deal, this is the result of the unintended consequences that come in the result of state enforced wage hikes.

Your response is also extremely flippant for someone who says they care about workers. Companies lay off workers all the time so the government should enact policies which ensures more unemployment? Wow that makes a lot of sense as a policy to legislate. Again, picking winners and losers and ensuring those who don't have the skill requirements to be paid that much lose their job and not earn any money at all. Those who lose their job through the state enforced wage hike aren't exactly gaining the benefits that you are promising them. And the consequences don't even have to be as severe as unemployment to see negative effects. If businesses don't lay off their workers to recoup the money they are going to lose through the wage hike then they are going to cut their staffs hours, which means overall the employees take home less. They may be getting paid more by the hour but if that results in two of their working days being cut which is a common consequence of raising the minimum wage, then they end up taking less money home, leaving them worse off. These are outcomes proponents do not take the time to think about.

Also it's obvious that in your emotionally charged response to me that you simply do not understand how businesses works in reality: If a government mandates that a business has to by law for example pay their employees $15 an hour that means that business is going to lose money. The fact is regardless of how big or small a company is, they aren't going to know what is round the corner and they aren't going to take their chances simply paying the extra money and taking the loss in the event of them taking huge losses down the line in the future. No matter how likely or unlikely it is. No business works like that and no business that is worth their salt would do that. 

But let's say for example they take that risk and take the losses, pay everybody the $15 an hour, everybody gets a pay rise, everybody is happy. What happens if in the next year that company takes huge losses? Guess what, if they are lucky to still be in business then staff will have to be laid off anyway and more staff than they would have initially would have had to do, meaning that the wage hike that was enforced by the government put the business in an even worse position than it already was as they are spending more on their expenditures i.e their employees. If they aren't so lucky and they do go out of business, then the minimum wage hike which was enforced by the state had a direct impact on the business going under, meaning the state holds some responsibility for not only the business closing but all the job losses that come with it. This is especially true of businesses which aren't the big multinational corporations that you are so concerned about. 

The truth is the world you want where everyone gets paid a certain amount which you deem to be a living wage with no consequences for other workers who end up worse due to the public policy doesn't exist, companies will always restructure to prepare for the worst because they don't have a magic ball telling them where their business is going to be in 6 months to a years time. So inevitably, you are going to hurt ordinary workers through these policies.

Not only that but your insistence that businesses should just pay the $15 an hour or any amount you deem fit and that they aren't going to restructure to make sure they don't lose money doesn't reflect human nature. What if for example you or I had a business which was effected by the state enforced minimum wage hike and were to lose money? Would we keep everyone employed or working the same hours if we are going to lose money? Of course we wouldn't. We would do what is in the best interests of ourselves so that we don't lose that money. So it's absurd that you would a) be for a policy which does this and causes a mass of unemployment and b) would blame companies for doing what we would all do if that situation fell onto us.




birthday_massacre said:


> If your company cannot support paying your workers a living wage, you should not be in business.


What about small and medium sized businesses that don't hire thousands or millions of people? Are you saying that they don't deserve to be in business and should be punished if they can't afford to pay the $15 wage hike to their employees?

This is where progressives simply do not look at the overall picture, you are so concerned about the big bad corporations that you don't even stop to think about the type of consequences these policies bring to businesses who are simply trying to get by and make a living just like you or I. Ordinary working people who have a business of their own and aren't earning millions and millions of dollars. Are you saying you would rather see smaller companies go out of business and for even more of the market share to go to big corporations if they can't afford to pay your state enforced wage standards?

For someone who is concerned about corporations wielding too much power and influence in the market, you sure like to support policies which help already established big businesses to retain their huge shares of the market and thus making America even more corporatist than it already is. I thought you were against corporatism?



birthday_massacre said:


> It's, even more, a joke when you have companies making millions claiming they can't afford to pay workers $15 an hour especially when their CEOs gets huge bonuses.
> 
> Min. wage should be $21 an hour if it kept up with inflation.


Over 100 companies have announced that they are going to be increasing the wages of their employees and giving them bonuses, with some even going as far as paying their lower waged employees the magical $15 an hour that the progressive wing of the Democrats have been fighting for for years in response Donald Trump's tax plan that was recently signed into law.

So as someone who says they care about workers being paid higher wages, will you join me in supporting the companies that not only are increasing the wages of their employees and are giving them bonuses but are also going to be laying off considerably less of their workers than before President Trump's tax plan (doing the opposite of what minimum wage laws do)? :trump.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Makise Kurisu said:


> First of all, it's pretty obvious to me that you did not even read the article. The Bank of Canada, Canada's own central bank has projected that the expected 60,000 job loss is a direct result and consequence of the minimum wage hike. This isn't a "companies lay off workers all the time" deal, this is the result of the unintended consequences that come in the result of state enforced wage hikes.
> 
> Your response is also extremely flippant for someone who says they care about workers. Companies lay off workers all the time so the government should enact policies which ensures more unemployment? Wow that makes a lot of sense as a policy to legislate. Again, picking winners and losers and ensuring those who don't have the skill requirements to be paid that much lose their job and not earn any money at all. Those who lose their job through the state enforced wage hike aren't exactly gaining the benefits that you are promising them. And the consequences don't even have to be as severe as unemployment to see negative effects. If businesses don't lay off their workers to recoup the money they are going to lose through the wage hike then they are going to cut their staffs hours, which means overall the employees take home less. They may be getting paid more by the hour but if that results in two of their working days being cut which is a common consequence of raising the minimum wage, then they end up taking less money home, leaving them worse off. These are outcomes proponents do not take the time to think about.


Companies say that shit all the time, oh if this happens we will have to lay off workers. Then even when it doesn't happen, they still end up laying off workers. 

Companies look for excuses all the time to lay off workers even when they are making millions if not billions of dollars. 

Hell look at the whole carrier thing, they crying if they don't get tax exemptions they will have to outsource the jobs, then they get them, and they still outsource the jobs. 

If the top CEO and execs that are vastly overpaid take a slight pay cut or cut their bonus's you could easily pay to increase the min. wage so they can have a living wage.

Its funny you don't think a person working 40 hours a week should make a living wage. Why is that?




Makise Kurisu said:


> lso it's obvious that in your emotionally charged response to me that you simply do not understand how businesses works in reality: If a government mandates that a business has to by law for example pay their employees $15 an hour that means that business is going to lose money. The fact is regardless of how big or small a company is, they aren't going to know what is round the corner and they aren't going to take their chances simply paying the extra money and taking the loss in event of them taking huge losses down the line in the future. No matter how likely or unlikely it is. No business works like that and no business that is worth their salt would do that.
> 
> But let's say for example they take that risk and take the losses, pay everybody the $15 an hour, everybody gets a pay rise, everybody is happy. What happens if in the next year that company takes huge losses? Guess what, if they are lucky to still be in business then staff will have to be laid off anyway and more staff than they would have initially would have had to do, meaning that the wage hike that was enforced by the government put the business in an even worse position than it already was as they are spending more on their expenditures i.e their employees. If they aren't so lucky and they do go out of business, then the minimum wage hike which was enforced by the state had a direct impact on the business going under, meaning the state holds some responsibility for not only the business closing but all the job losses that come with it. This is especially true of businesses which aren't the big multinational corporations that you are so concerned about.
> 
> The truth is the world you want where everyone gets paid a certain amount which deem to be a living wage with no consequences for other workers who end up worse due to the public policy doesn't exist, companies will always restructure to prepare for the worst because they don't have a magic ball telling them where their business is going to be in 6 months to a years time. So inevitably, you are going to hurt ordinary workers through these policies.
> 
> Not only that but your insistence that businesses should just pay the $15 an hour or any amount you deem fit and that they aren't going to restructure to make sure they don't lose money doesn't reflect human nature. What if for example you or I had a business which was effected by the state enforced minimum wage hike and were to lose money? Would we keep everyone employed or working the same hours if we are going to lose money? Of course we wouldn't. We would do what is in the best interests of ourselves so that we don't lose that money. So it's absurd that you would a) be for a policy which does this and causes a mass of unemployment and b) would blame companies for doing what we would all do if that situation fell onto us.



If a company takes a loss they lay off workers even when there isn't a min. wage increase. Min wage is way under what it should be if it kept up with inflation, not sure why people like you don't understand about this. Why not pay the people at teh top a little less and the ones at the bottom a little more? We are not just talking about cashier jobs here either, just look at job websites, they are offering people just like $10-12 an hour for admin jobs and jobs they want people to have degrees for. 

You dont think companies that are making millions if not billions can afford to pay $15 an hour? And for the companies that can't stay in the black the should not be in business.



Makise Kurisu said:


> What about small and medium sized businesses that don't hire thousands or millions of people? Are you saying that they don't deserve to be in business and should be punished if they can't afford to pay the $15 wage hike to their employees?
> 
> This is where progressives simply do not look at the overall picture, you are so concerned about the big bad corporations that you don't even stop to think about the type of consequences these policies bring to businesses who are simply trying to get by and make a living just like you or I. Ordinary working people who have a business of their own and aren't earning millions and millions of dollars. Are you saying you would rather see smaller companies go out of business and for even more of the market share to go to big corporations if they can't afford to pay your state enforced wage standards?
> 
> For someone who is concerned about corporations wielding too much power and influence in the market, you sure like to support policies which help already established big businesses to retain their huge shares of the market and thus making America even more corporatist than it already is. I thought you were against corporatism?


What about them? They can afford it too? They are paying their top CEOs and execs hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Again pay them a little less and pay the people at the bottom a little more. The answer is that simple. 




Makise Kurisu said:


> Over 100 companies have announced that they are going to be increasing the wages of their employees and giving them bonuses, with some even going as far as paying their lower waged employees the magical $15 an hour that the progressive wing of the Democrats have been fighting for for years in response Donald Trump's tax plan that was recently signed into law.
> 
> So as someone who says they care about workers being paid higher wages, will you join me in supporting the companies that not only are increasing the wages of their employees and are giving them bonuses but are also going to be laying off considerably less of their workers than before President Trump's plan (doing the opposite of what minimum wage laws do)?


Most of those companies were already giving out bonsses and wage increases before Trumps tax cuts. Don't be fooled. And Trumps tax cut is going to cause a depression, like it does when ever we have tax cuts this huge, just like under Bush and just like under Regan, an just like in the 30s


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> *So if a company is forcing people to work for $2 an hour* and some people are desperate enough to work for it, do you think that is ok?


Nobody can force anyone to work, that's called slavery. Employee services in the U.S. are strictly *voluntary*. 

A company couldn't get away with offering 2 dollars an hour because nobody would work for them.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> Nobody can force anyone to work, that's called slavery. Employee services in the U.S. are strictly *voluntary*.
> 
> A company couldn't get away with offering 2 dollars an hour because nobody would work for them.


Keep dodging the question.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> Keep dodging the question.


It's a retarded question.

You're asking me do I think it's okay for employers to offer 2 dollars an hour. I'm telling you that could never happen.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose

Merry Reaper said:


> Muh SHOSHULIZED HEALTHCARE IS SO GREAT!
> 
> I suppose they can't print money fast enough? The government is not releasing funds? Just tax people more? Is anyone donating?
> 
> BTW, taxes are basically minimum required payments. Since we know that leftists LOVE more taxes, why don't they just all pay more taxes than they are required to?


Are you kidding me?

You do understand that the British healthcare system is currently in the hands of a heavily right wing government that is deliberately starving it of money.

You do understand that, right?

And you do understand that the British taxpayer currently pays significantly less per head for it's national single-taxpayer system that covers 100% of the population than the American taxpayer does for public health that covers far less than 50%.

And that someone could literally get private insurance in the UK on top of the tax they pay that goes to the NHS and it STILL would be less than the current 'compromise so that it isn't fully socialised' US system.


----------



## Stinger Fan

No one is owed a "livable" wage off doing work teenagers do by flipping burgers or putting groceries in a shopping bag . You're not meant to have a "livable" wage working at McDonald's or the grocery store, sorry to break it to you. That's one of the reasons having a college degree or working at a trade is so valuable because you know...they actually can get you livable wages, thats what you strive for. There's not a ton of room to progress at shit jobs like McDonalds and to expect tax payers to offset the cost so those workers can have a "livable wage" is ridiculous. The fact that people actually try and deflect from the real jobs lost as just another day at the office where"companies let people go all the time" is just ignorant. This idea that big companies will be "fine" therefore small companies that might take a hit are some how invalid and therefore not deserving of existing is sheer ignorance of economics but then again socialists always have had their love for broken calculators. Let's kill small local businesses, that's always a great thing for the economy so little Johnny can have a few extra bucks while his co-workers gets fired to facilitate that increase.

Sorry but not sorry, working at McDonalds shouldn't net you a vehicle an apartment, and whatever else people "need" . Minimum wage for minimum skills .


----------



## Reaper

ipickthiswhiterose said:


> Are you kidding me?
> 
> You do understand that the British healthcare system is currently in the hands of a heavily right wing government that is deliberately starving it of money.
> 
> You do understand that, right?
> 
> And you do understand that the British taxpayer currently pays significantly less per head for it's national single-taxpayer system that covers 100% of the population than the American taxpayer does for public health that covers far less than 50%.
> 
> And that someone could literally get private insurance in the UK on top of the tax they pay that goes to the NHS and it STILL would be less than the current 'compromise so that it isn't fully socialised' US system.


Minimum taxes are a requirement. Pay more. No one's stopping anyone from doing so.

Or maybe they can just start printing money.

Oh I know. Let's ask the magic money fairy to give everyone more money from it's magic pixie dust tree star.

If only care bears and my little pony were real. We wouldn't need Harry Potter to make our problems go away.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose

Merry Reaper said:


> Minimum taxes are a requirement. Pay more. No one's stopping anyone from doing so.
> 
> Or maybe they can just start printing money.
> 
> Oh I know. Let's ask the magic money fairy to give everyone more money from it's magic pixie dust tree star.


Did you know that the Asian Mongoose vocalises in 12 different ways?

(See I can write non sequiturs too)


Being slightly more charitable to your post: The "Magic Money Tree" argument works both ways.

There may be no magic money tree, but there is equally no "Magic Austerity Bucket" in which public funding for the police, roads, education, public health systems, judicial system and armed forces can be cut and cut and frozen and frozen and a right wing government not expect public services that benefit everyone, including those that protect the short and long term safety and health of the people of the country, to be torn apart.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose

Merry Reaper said:


> If only care bears and my little pony were real. We wouldn't need Harry Potter to make our problems go away.


PS. Making additions to your posts to pile on the hyperbole doesn't make them cleverer or any more salient a point. It just makes your argument sound emotive and juvenile.


----------



## Reaper

What makes you think I want to waste my time on completely discredited and debunked leftist "toss money at it and it'll fix it" bullshit?

I moved beyond your ilks shitty economics years ago. 

Your crowd is even worse than the antivax and flat earth crowd because at least I never heard of a flat earther starving and killing millions by taking over entire populations and trying to nationalize everything.


----------



## virus21

> Maybe the Democratic Party’s No. 2 was just joking about antifa violence. Or maybe he supports it.
> 
> View image on Twitter
> View image on Twitter
> 
> Rep. Keith Ellison
> ✔
> @keithellison
> At @MoonPalaceBooks and I just found the book that strike fear in the heart of @realDonaldTrump
> 2:48 PM - Jan 3, 2018
> 9,055 9,055 Replies 2,738 2,738 Retweets 9,829 9,829 likes
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> On Wednesday, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the Democratic National Committee’s deputy chair, tweeted a photo of himself cheekily smiling with a copy of “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.” His caption: “I just found the book that strike [sic] fear in the heart of @realdonaldtrump.”
> 
> Obnoxious and wrong: Violence prompts moderates to support the side being attacked against the one violating civic norms. Antifa helps Trump.
> 
> Yet it also plays well on the left, feeding fantasies of a serious threat from right-wing extremists. And Ellison, who spent years defending the odious Louis Farrakhan, is a radical who gains from that polarization.
> 
> In short, he wasn’t just trolling the right for kicks, he was baiting liberals like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who have denounced antifa’s thuggery.
> 
> When you talk about antifa, Pelosi said, “you’re not talking about the far left of the Democratic Party — they’re not even Democrats.”
> 
> Ellison plainly disagrees.


https://nypost.com/2018/01/04/keith-ellison-invites-antifa-to-the-party/


----------



## DOPA

birthday_massacre said:


> Companies say that shit all the time, oh if this happens we will have to lay off workers. Then even when it doesn't happen, they still end up laying off workers.
> 
> Companies look for excuses all the time to lay off workers even when they are making millions if not billions of dollars.


Once again you are only looking at this issue from the view of big large corporations and not the entire economy, there are many more smaller businesses than there are corporations and therefore the angle you are taking with this isn't all encompassing and isn't representative of the whole when talking about unemployment as an argument against my opposition to the minimum wage.

Not to mention, none of these arguments refute the negative impacts of the minimum wage, that being the loss of employment and loss of work hours for some of the low waged workers who are lucky to still be employed. Your whole argument boils down to "well companies lay off workers anyway so why are you making it such a big deal."

But you are failing to understand that:

1) In the event we are talking about job lay offs, not all of them are down to affordability, there are a variety reasons why someone should be let go of their job. In the case of the minimum wage however it is *specific* to the issue of either not being able to afford to keep them on or in the event of losing money and therefore recouping losses they are going to take in the result of government policy.

2) In the cases of job layoffs without the enforcement or the raising of the minimum wage that are solely based on affordability and cutting costs the responsibility is fully with the employer. That isn't the case with the minimum wage increases, it is the government policy through raising the minimum wage that is putting them in the position where they have to cut jobs in order to not take big losses or in the cases of some small businesses, actually going out of business. Essentially the former is solely through the choices that the business has made themselves whilst the other is through compulsion in the form of government policy.

They are not the same thing and the former does not excuse and undermine the effects of the latter. Nor is it a competent argument in favour of the minimum wage increases.





birthday_massacre said:


> Its funny you don't think a person working 40 hours a week should make a living wage. Why is that?


It's not that I don't think employees shouldn't make more money. Hell, it would be in my own interest for that to happen. It's that policy wise the evidence that consistently comes out shows that there is more of a side effect through unemployment and the cutting of work hours than there is the benefit for those who are lucky enough to enjoy the increase in the minimum wage.....and that is not even taking into account that those benefits end the moment you account for increased inflation.





birthday_massacre said:


> If a company takes a loss they lay off workers even when there isn't a min. wage increase. Min wage is way under what it should be if it kept up with inflation, not sure why people like you don't understand about this. Why not pay the people at teh top a little less and the ones at the bottom a little more? We are not just talking about cashier jobs here either, just look at job websites, they are offering people just like $10-12 an hour for admin jobs and jobs they want people to have degrees for.
> 
> You dont think companies that are making millions if not billions can afford to pay $15 an hour? And for the companies that can't stay in the black the should not be in business.


People are paid by both experience and education, so an admin who is just starting out in the workforce and is doing a job with low responsibility and who doesn't have the job experience is not going to be paid all that highly. It's not that difficult to figure out.

Secondly, once again, CEO's and executives who work significantly longer hours, have far more responsibility, have the whole weight of those businesses in terms of their successes and failures, whether they deliver a profit or a loss, have far more experience than the vast majority of people working for that particular company and where there are fewer of them so the competition for those positions are higher and the demand for those positions to be filled by the company are higher are going to be paid significantly more especially if they deliver on the results.

Not to mention once again, there are far fewer of these executives and CEO's than there are workers, especially in big corporate settings and they are far more important to those companies than your average low waged worker. Which is why when minimum wage hikes are introduced, guess who it is that gets hurt through job cuts and less hours? It certainly isn't the executives is it?

Then there is the fact that there are far MORE low waged workers than executives. Tesco for example has 12 executives and around *500,000* employees. The vast majority of these employees are low waged workers. Say you were raise their wages from £8.50 to £15 an hour, an increase of £6.50 an hour, you'd have find an extra £3.25 Million. If you account for bonuses, the CEO of Tesco makes around £4 million and the CFO makes around £2.2 Million. The lower executives earn around half at £1.1 Million so let's take those figures and do a little maths:

The executives in order to provide this wage hike if they were contribute it themselves would have to give up anywhere between £169,000 to £615,000 a year not accounting for pay based on performance. Do you honestly believe those people who have worked for 20-30 years to get to the position they are in would be happy about giving up that sort of money when it would not be based on the competency of the job they are doing? They would leave the moment they get an offer from a company that is going to provide them more money and not cut their salary when the cut itself is not based on the competency of the job they are doing.

That's looking at trying to do it from the angle of cutting the executives wages, not even taking into account the rest of the business and the costs that the company have to pay out in terms of merchandise, warehouses, products they are selling, paying for the upkeep and maintenance of the stores, lorries, vans, imports, exports, licences for alcohol and tobacco, lottery, and a whole host of other expenditures that the company has to take into account as well as paying it's shareholders and keeping them happy through bonds and dividends.

There is a lot more that a business and a company has to keep in mind than just it's low waged workers. If it were that simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with.




birthday_massacre said:


> What about them? They can afford it too? They are paying their top CEOs and execs hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Again pay them a little less and pay the people at the bottom a little more. The answer is that simple.


You honestly believe small and medium sized businesses have executives and CEO's? You are clueless if you think these types of businesses that are at the very least aren't making millions of dollars a year even have the structure or the financial investment to have a corporate setting. Let alone pay the type of money you are suggesting.

Your local restaurant, mom and pop shop, hairdressers, bakery, cab service, independent supermarket or off license, beauticians etc. aren't going to have fucking CEO's and executives. The idea that these types of businesses are just going to have an endless amount of money to account for wage hikes for future business plans and to account for not knowing where their business is going to be in 6 months to a years time shows you really do not understand the real world.





birthday_massacre said:


> Most of those companies were already giving out bonsses and wage increases before Trumps tax cuts. Don't be fooled. And Trumps tax cut is going to cause a depression, like it does when ever we have tax cuts this huge, just like under Bush and just like under Regan, an just like in the 30s


You really believe that anyone let alone me is going to believe that 100 or close to a 100 businesses were going to just hand out wage increases and bonuses before even knowing what the corporate tax rate and code were going to be under Trump? If it were 2, 3....hell even 5 or 10, that argument would be believable and I'd consider it. But you are more than stretching arguing most of the 100+ businesses :lol.

Not to mention in my post you initially responded to, there were an incredible number of businesses going on record saying that it was because of Trump's tax plan and the confidence they have in the reforms (because European countries such as the one I live in have proven that low corporate tax rates WORK.) that they have taken those steps.

Don't give people bullshit arguments you can't back up :trump.


----------



## DOPA

#CutTheirDamnAid


----------



## Reaper

Take it from someone from Pakistan, they never needed or used American money in anything anyways. The vast majority of the money is completely unaccounted for.

Secondly. Pakistan has one of the biggest and most well organized militaries in the world. The money was offered by the US as a bribe to partake in their wars and the government there gladly accepted. If you don't want to do something but someone gives you money with little to no accountability, it doesn't mean that you still have to do it. 

Once Pakistan decided on its own to do something about the terrorists, only then did they actually achieve tangible results.

I've been talking about this for nearly a year on here. Maybe I should become one of Trump's advisors on Pakistan...

---


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949354151649177602

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949449196536393728
:kobelol


----------



## Smarky Mark

Stinger Fan said:


> No one is owed a "livable" wage off doing work teenagers do by flipping burgers or putting groceries in a shopping bag . You're not meant to have a "livable" wage.


You know it's a bullshit argument because none of them can ever define what a 'livable wage' really is. Enough to afford groceries? Enough to afford an apartment? Enough to afford a vehicle? 

We all have different wants and needs so how does one define 'livable wage'?


----------



## Art Vandaley

Smarky Mark said:


> You know it's a bullshit argument because none of them can ever define what a 'livable wage' really is. Enough to afford groceries? Enough to afford an apartment? Enough to afford a vehicle?
> 
> We all have different wants and needs so how does one define 'livable wage'?


A livable wage is enough to live on, so yes, as you've correctly identified food, shelter and transport to necessities ie work/schools/shops/hospitals.

Its not that difficult a concept.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

Stinger Fan said:


> No one is owed a "livable" wage off doing work teenagers do by flipping burgers or putting groceries in a shopping bag . You're not meant to have a "livable" wage working at McDonald's or the grocery store, sorry to break it to you. That's one of the reasons having a college degree or working at a trade is so valuable because you know...they actually can get you livable wages, thats what you strive for. There's not a ton of room to progress at shit jobs like McDonalds and to expect tax payers to offset the cost so those workers can have a "livable wage" is ridiculous. The fact that people actually try and deflect from the real jobs lost as just another day at the office where"companies let people go all the time" is just ignorant. This idea that big companies will be "fine" therefore small companies that might take a hit are some how invalid and therefore not deserving of existing is sheer ignorance of economics but then again socialists always have had their love for broken calculators. Let's kill small local businesses, that's always a great thing for the economy so little Johnny can have a few extra bucks while his co-workers gets fired to facilitate that increase.
> 
> Sorry but not sorry, working at McDonalds shouldn't net you a vehicle an apartment, and whatever else people "need" . Minimum wage for minimum skills .



I think it's hilarious how stupid this young generation is. They see dollar signs, but, don't understand the bigger picture. The future is looking like shit when it comes to jobs. Companies are already doing what they can to save money. When I started working, there was almost no such thing as agency workers. Now, a large chunk of the workforce is agency. The company pays the agency 20 dollars (for example), with half of that going to the agency worker, but, the agency worker doesn't get benefits or gainshare, no paid vacations/sicks days, so, in the end, companies are saving a lot of money. Who the fuck wants an uncertain future working as an agency person? Pretty sure no one does, but, that's what's up, anything to save money.

With these increases, the money to accomodate it has to come from somewhere, and that is where the suffering begins.

I swear, if I go to a fast food place and hear some asshole whine about the high prices after jumping for joy over his 15 dollar an hour raise, I will punch his face in.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> You know it's a bullshit argument because none of them can ever define what a 'livable wage' really is. Enough to afford groceries? Enough to afford an apartment? Enough to afford a vehicle?
> 
> We all have different wants and needs so how does one define 'livable wage'?


A livable wage is what you need to support you and your family. It's not that hard of a concept. You don't think someone working a 40-hour job should be able to make enough to afford an apartment, food, and transportation?


----------



## nucklehead88

Merry Reaper said:


> Minimum taxes are a requirement. Pay more. No one's stopping anyone from doing so.
> 
> Or maybe they can just start printing money.
> 
> Oh I know. Let's ask the magic money fairy to give everyone more money from it's magic pixie dust tree star.
> 
> If only care bears and my little pony were real. We wouldn't need Harry Potter to make our problems go away.


Maybe try not spending billions on a stupid fucking wall?


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose

Merry Reaper said:


> What makes you think I want to waste my time on completely discredited and debunked leftist "toss money at it and it'll fix it" bullshit?


To be fair you fell for the Charlie Gard dogwhistle bull that even the right in the UK admitted was a crock so you're clearly willing to waste your time on a lot of things. 



Merry Reaper said:


> I moved beyond your ilks shitty economics years ago.


Other than being positioned vaguely to the left, you don't have the first idea what my 'ilk' is, sir. If you haven't noticed, nations positioned to the left (as you're defining it) of mixed economy scenarios do perfectly fine. Especially if you're defining 'the left' in such broad terms as 'Has a nationalised healthcare system ' or something similar. I mean, even without discussing Scandinavia or New Zealand that would include every nation ranked in the top 10 for doing business OTHER than America. Even generally vaguely right-leaning countries like Switzerland (private, but insurance companies have a compulsion to sell basic healthcare cover to everyone with a fixed price) and Singapore (straight up national health service) would qualify as 'my ilks shitty economics' under your terms.



Merry Reaper said:


> Your crowd is even worse than the antivax and flat earth crowd because at least I never heard of a flat earther starving and killing millions by taking over entire populations and trying to nationalize everything.


"My crowd" is arguing for a mixed economy model in which the nation promotes Life (the right to healthcare), Liberty (the right to security) and the Pursuit of Happiness (the right to education).

It isn't arguing for communism.

Stop pretending it's arguing for communism.

It's no different than pretending that as some kind of a "Nu-Objectivist" you're arguing for pure lawless anarchy and reducing arguments against you to "Well, there's no government in Somalia and look what's happening there!....."


----------



## Reaper

ipickthiswhiterose said:


> To be fair you fell for the Charlie Gard dogwhistle bull that even the right in the UK admitted was a crock so you're clearly willing to waste your time on a lot of things.
> 
> 
> 
> Other than being positioned vaguely to the left, you don't have the first idea what my 'ilk' is, sir. If you haven't noticed, nations positioned to the left (as you're defining it) of mixed economy scenarios do perfectly fine. Especially if you're defining 'the left' in such broad terms as 'Has a nationalised healthcare system ' or something similar. I mean, even without discussing Scandinavia or New Zealand that would include every nation ranked in the top 10 for doing business OTHER than America. Even generally vaguely right-leaning countries like Switzerland (private, but insurance companies have a compulsion to sell basic healthcare cover to everyone with a fixed price) and Singapore (straight up national health service) would qualify as 'my ilks shitty economics' under your terms.
> 
> 
> 
> "My crowd" is arguing for a mixed economy model in which the nation promotes Life (the right to healthcare), Liberty (the right to security) and the Pursuit of Happiness (the right to education).
> 
> It isn't arguing for communism.
> 
> Stop pretending it's arguing for communism.
> 
> It's no different than pretending that as some kind of a "Nu-Objectivist" you're arguing for pure lawless anarchy and reducing arguments against you to "Well, there's no government in Somalia and look what's happening there!....."


Throwing money at stuff doesn't fix it. Eventually money runs out. It's not a never ending well .. bla blah blah.

And yes. Centrally planned economics of any kind are communism. All roads from centrally planned economics lead to communism.

Nationalised healthcare is a disaster and will eventually collapse on itself or collapse the economy. There is no path to success for it.

Bla blah blah. 

Now you'll double down. And waste your time. Blah blah blah. 

Nothing will change. Boring. Done this song and dance a dozen times. You may have a new fleeting interest in pushing your communism right now. I have no interest in wasting any more time on it. Socialists have no clue how to run things.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose

Merry Reaper said:


> Throwing money at stuff doesn't fix it. Eventually money runs out. It's not a never ending well .. bla blah blah.


Throwing money at stuff indeed doesn't fix it......

.......As evidenced by the fact that the US's ridiculous tippy toeing around deliberately not having a nationalised healthcare system because of "Gaaaaarrrrgh, socialism!" costs so much more per head than all the countries that have a nationalised healthcare system.



Merry Reaper said:


> And yes. Centrally planned economics of any kind are communism. All roads from centrally planned economics lead to communism.


Apart from building a wall. And the armed forces. And prisons. And education.

Or was I being too generous by guessing that you WEREN'T advocating anarchy?



Merry Reaper said:


> Nationalised healthcare is a disaster and will eventually collapse on itself or collapse the economy. There is no path to success for it.


I'm glad that in your infinite wisdom you are able to condemn and throw away 70 years worth of postwar consensus national healthcare across the whole of western Europe and much of Asia as inherently doomed to failure and a disaster.




Merry Reaper said:


> Bla blah blah.
> 
> Now you'll double down. And waste your time. Blah blah blah.


Cracking analysis.



Merry Reaper said:


> Nothing will change. Boring. Done this song and dance a dozen times. You may have a new fleeting interest in pushing your communism right now. I have no interest in wasting any more time on it. Socialists have no clue how to run things.


I've called you out on this and yet you still do it.

At this point, having implied that "centrally planned economics of any kind are communism", thus rendering anyone who believes in the government managing education, the military, the police, the roads, prisons and yes, the building of a border wall, as a communist, one wonders how credible your argument remains, and how many people would agree with you.

Perhaps you should indeed go to Somalia and see how you find it*

(*Yes, it's annoying isn't it)


----------



## Reaper

ipickthiswhiterose said:


> Throwing money at stuff indeed doesn't fix it......
> 
> .......As evidenced by the fact that the US's ridiculous tippy toeing around deliberately not having a nationalised healthcare system because of "Gaaaaarrrrgh, socialism!" costs so much more per head than all the countries that have a nationalised healthcare system.
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from building a wall. And the armed forces. And prisons. And education.
> 
> Or was I being too generous by guessing that you WEREN'T advocating anarchy?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that in your infinite wisdom you are able to condemn and throw away 70 years worth of postwar consensus national healthcare across the whole of western Europe and much of Asia as inherently doomed to failure and a disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cracking analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> I've called you out on this and yet you still do it.
> 
> At this point, having implied that "centrally planned economics of any kind are communism", thus rendering anyone who believes in the government managing education, the military, the police, the roads, prisons and yes, the building of a border wall, as a communist, one wonders how credible your argument remains, and how many people would agree with you.
> 
> Perhaps you should indeed go to Somalia and see how you find it*
> 
> (*Yes, it's annoying isn't it)


You're arguing for nationalized healthcare on a report where 50000 surgeries were cancelled.  

Well played.

Nationalised healthcare's "success" is an illusion.

From now on I won't waste more of my time. I'll just post this list over and over again.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose

Merry Reaper said:


> You're arguing for nationalized healthcare on a report where 50000 surgeries were cancelled.
> 
> Well played.
> 
> Nationalised healthcare's "success" is an illusion.


I clearly addressed that in my first post.

You responded by going round the houses in a series of barely related comments.

Paying attention to what the other person is writing is generally considered recommended in debate, even fruitless online ones.

The failings of nationalised healthcare can be quantified in terms of the number of non-essential surgeries cancelled, during Winter, after 8 years of tactical austerity by a right-wing government.

The failings of non-nationalised healthcare can be quantified in terms of the countless number of people left destitute, uncared for and dead because a nation that promised them a philosophy of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness forgot the first one.

I know which I'd rather have.


----------



## Reaper

ipickthiswhiterose said:


> I clearly addressed that in my first post.
> 
> You responded by going round the houses in a series of barely related comments.
> 
> Paying attention to what the other person is writing is generally considered recommended in debate, even fruitless online ones.
> 
> The failings of nationalised healthcare can be quantified in terms of the number of non-essential surgeries cancelled, during Winter, after 8 years of tactical austerity by a right-wing government.
> 
> The failings of non-nationalised healthcare can be quantified in terms of the countless number of people left destitute, uncared for and dead because a nation that promised them a philosophy of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness forgot the first one.
> 
> I know which I'd rather have.


"Non essential" ... yountopk the word of the government in telling you what comfortable like it wants you to hear to make you feel better about their massive failre. Your argument is already dead and you don't even realize that what you're saying makes you more callous than you think you are. That's what centrally planned economies do. The government has so much power now that it gets to decide what's essential and what's not. That's the definition of communism. The Chinese government once decided that forcing people to only have 1 child would allow their communism to work. I don't see much of a difference here. 

Of course you would rather have someone else pay for your shit. That's why theives exist. They love other people's shit. Why don't you acknowledge that that's what you are and let's get this over with.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose

Merry Reaper said:


> "Non essential" ... yountopk the word of the government in telling you what comfortable like it wants you to hear to make you feel better about their massive failre. Your argument is already dead and you don't even realize that what you're saying makes you more callous than you think you are.


I'd rather have surgery delayed for a month than not have it at all because I can't afford it.

You do understand that insurance companies also have definitions of levels of priorities of surgery, right? 

Also - and I'll remind you of this little chestnut because you've already ignored it once - paying for private insurance schemes that cover serious surgery in the UK on top of the tax you pay is STILL cheaper than paying for the 'we can't have socialism' compromise in the US. 



Merry Reaper said:


> That's what centrally planned economies do. The government has so much power now that it gets to decide what's essential and what's not. That's the definition of communism.


Yep. You got me. The whole of Western Europe, the Antipodes, Asia and Canada are communist. We've been communist for decades now. We just hoped you wouldn't notice.



Merry Reaper said:


> Of course you would rather have someone else pay for your shit. That's why theives exist. They love other people's shit. Why don't you acknowledge that that's what you are and let's get this over with.


So you reduce opponents of your position to the state of criminal evil. For someone who just literally in their very last post complained about "You're either with us or against us" debate tactics that seems rather hypocritical. And by 'rather' I mean 'entirely'


----------



## Reaper

ipickthiswhiterose said:


> I'd rather have surgery delayed for a month than not have it at all because I can't afford it.
> 
> You do understand that insurance companies also have definitions of levels of priorities of surgery, right?
> 
> Also - and I'll remind you of this little chestnut because you've already ignored it once - paying for private insurance schemes that cover serious surgery in the UK on top of the tax you pay is STILL cheaper than paying for the 'we can't have socialism' compromise in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. You got me. The whole of Western Europe, the Antipodes, Asia and Canada are communist. We've been communist for decades now. We just hoped you wouldn't notice.
> 
> 
> 
> So you reduce opponents of your position to the state of criminal evil. For someone who just literally in their very last post complained about "You're either with us or against us" debate tactics that seems rather hypocritical. And by 'rather' I mean 'entirely'


What makes you think that I'm in favor of America's current system? I think it's completely broken. Why do you Brits get so super defensive and assume that if we're criticizing your bullshit that we love everything about ours? America's socialist systems are also failing. We are not a non socialist state. We're already deep into marxist/Keynesianism holes ourselves. 

And yes taking someone's money by force is theft. Theft is morally wrong. Involuntary taxation (the only kind of taxation) is wrong.

Defining a wrong as a right does not make it right. Stealing is wrong mmk. Stop pretending it's not. I'm not reducing someone to pure evil when I'm trying to remind them that involuntary taxation is theft. I suppose when you're rised to believe that wrong is right, then you can't really be called evil. Just misguided.


----------



## DOPA

@DesolationRow @Mercy @Merry Reaper @Pratchett


----------



## Draykorinee

ipickthiswhiterose said:


> Merry Reaper said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Non essential" ... yountopk the word of the government in telling you what comfortable like it wants you to hear to make you feel better about their massive failre. Your argument is already dead and you don't even realize that what you're saying makes you more callous than you think you are.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather have surgery delayed for a month than not have it at all because I can't afford it.
> 
> You do understand that insurance companies also have definitions of levels of priorities of surgery, right?
> 
> Also - and I'll remind you of this little chestnut because you've already ignored it once - paying for private insurance schemes that cover serious surgery in the UK on top of the tax you pay is STILL cheaper than paying for the 'we can't have socialism' compromise in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> Merry Reaper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what centrally planned economies do. The government has so much power now that it gets to decide what's essential and what's not. That's the definition of communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. You got me. The whole of Western Europe, the Antipodes, Asia and Canada are communist. We've been communist for decades now. We just hoped you wouldn't notice.
> 
> 
> 
> Merry Reaper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you would rather have someone else pay for your shit. That's why theives exist. They love other people's shit. Why don't you acknowledge that that's what you are and let's get this over with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you reduce opponents of your position to the state of criminal evil. For someone who just literally in their very last post complained about "You're either with us or against us" debate tactics that seems rather hypocritical. And by 'rather' I mean 'entirely'
Click to expand...

Never engage reaper in arguments about health care or taxes, you'll never lose that one it's just a complete waste of everyone's time going round in circles against arguments like taxes are communism or some such.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

:lol


----------



## Stinger Fan

Alkomesh2 said:


> A livable wage is enough to live on, so yes, as you've correctly identified food, shelter and transport to necessities ie work/schools/shops/hospitals.
> 
> Its not that difficult a concept.


Which all increases with minimum wage increases. Then in a few years the exact same people will complain again that the minimum wage isn't "enough" to live on and will demand wages be increased again. They're completely unaware that the reason their dollar doesn't stretch as far as they thought it did was because of their initial demands that made companies have to offset the cost of their raise. Its a never ending cycle because people just don't get it


----------



## Stephen90

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949619270631256064



All Trump is doing is proving Wolff right by his childish, immature tweets.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Never engage reaper in arguments about health care or taxes, you'll never lose that one it's just a complete waste of everyone's time going round in circles against arguments like taxes are communism or some such.


As I had already indicated in my first post.

I don't have the patience that Dopa has to keep banging my head against people who have no interest in gaining anything new from these discussions.

People want their free things and you can't prevent them from bending morality in order to get it. I get it now.


----------



## Vic Capri

It was really cool to see JBL interview his former boss.

- Vic


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> A livable wage is what you need to support you and your family. It's not that hard of a concept. You don't think someone working a 40-hour job should be able to make enough to afford an apartment, food, and transportation?


You are so concerned about what's 'fair' for the unskilled worker but you completely disregard the person who actually has to pay that money out of their own pocket. The employer is also a human being and also has rights.

You're not entitled to anything because you choose to flip burgers or work as a cashier. Anyone can do these jobs and there is no shortage of people applying for them. In a normal society an unskilled worker does not get to dictate how much they are going to be paid.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> You are so concerned about what's 'fair' for the unskilled worker but you completely disregard the person who actually has to pay that money out of their own pocket. The employer is also a human being and also has rights.
> 
> You're not entitled to anything because you choose to flip burgers or work as a cashier. Anyone can do these jobs and there is no shortage of people applying for them. In a normal society an unskilled worker does not get to dictate how much they are going to be paid.


It's nice to know you think someone working 40 hours a week does not deserve a living wage to support themselves or their family.

So if you are so against companies being dictated how much they should pay their workers, are you against any kind of min wage?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Just when you think Trump can't get any more embarrassing.....

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/06/polit...e-house-fitness-very-stable-genius/index.html

*Trump: I'm a 'very stable genius'*

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump slammed reports questioning his mental stability in a series of tweets Saturday morning, writing he's a "very stable genius."

"Now that Russian collusion, after one year of intense study, has proven to be a total hoax on the American public, the Democrats and their lapdogs, the Fake News Mainstream Media, are taking out the old Ronald Reagan playbook and screaming mental stability and intelligence ... " Trump wrote.

"Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart," the President continued. "Crooked Hillary Clinton also played these cards very hard and, as everyone knows, went down in flames. I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star ... to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius ... and a very stable genius at that!"

he remarkable spectacle of Trump defending his mental stability comes after the President and some of his top officials spent the last few days countering claims in author Michael Wolff's explosive new book, "Fire and Fury," about Trump's mental fitness to serve as President. The book also paints the picture of a President who neither knows nor cares about policy and doesn't seem to perceive the vast responsibilities of his role.
CNN has not independently confirmed all of Wolff's assertions.


Trump is clearly off the deep end. This is the POTUS tweeting like a 14 year old girl.


----------



## Honey Bucket

'I'm, like, really smart' will be the phrase of 2018.


----------



## virus21

Honey Bucket said:


> 'I'm, like, really smart' will be the phrase of 2018.


To be fair, many Me-llennials have been saying that for years


----------



## Vic Capri

Its too bad the channel story was fake news. I was laughing my ass off imagining President Trump asking


> Why aren't the gorillas fighting each other?


- Vic


----------



## BornBad

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949688567076442112


----------



## RavishingRickRules

BornBad said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949688567076442112


:lmao :lmao :lmao that is actually amazing.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> *It's nice to know you think someone working 40 hours a week does not deserve a living wage to support themselves or their family.*
> 
> So if you are so against companies being dictated how much they should pay their workers, are you against any kind of min wage?


Once again you pontificate as if these wages just fall from the sky. You keep trying to come from a place of moral authority but there's nothing moral about taking someone else's money.

You wanna be a cashier? Fine but you cannot reasonably expect someone to pay you 20 dollars an hour because there are going to be plenty of people more than happy to do the same job for less. You aren't special and no you don't deserve any kind of special treatment. As an unskilled worker you aren't offering anything of value.

A house is not a right, a car is not a right. Nature does not owe you these things just because you live and breathe. An employer doesn't have to overpay you just because you want these things for yourself. If you want more financial freedom then develop a skill and put yourself in a position where you can demand more money, it's that simple.

You are not supposed to make a career or support of a family from a minimum wage job.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> Once again you pontificate as if these wages just fall from the sky. You keep trying to come from a place of moral authority but there's nothing moral about taking someone else's money.
> 
> You wanna be a cashier? Fine but you cannot reasonably expect someone to pay you 20 dollars an hour because there are going to be plenty of people more than happy to do the same job for less. You aren't special and no you don't deserve any kind of special treatment. As an unskilled worker you aren't offering anything of value.
> 
> A house is not a right, a car is not a right. Nature does not owe you these things just because you live and breathe. An employer doesn't have to overpay you just because you want these things for yourself. If you want more financial freedom then develop a skill and put yourself in a position where you can demand more money, it's that simple.
> 
> You are not supposed to make a career or support of a family from a minimum wage job.


What are you talking about? Working for someone is not taking someone else's money. You are WORKING for it. I just think if you are working 40 hours a week, you should at least be able to be paid enough to support yourself and your family, something you don't think should happen.

I love how you get stuck on this cashier thing and keep ignoring the other jobs like Admin jobs that don't pay a living wage either. Do you think an admin should only make like $10-12 an hour? 

And AGAIN it's not overpaying people to give them a living wage, like you keep ignoring min. wage should be $21 an hour if it kept up with inflation and productivity, so anything under that technically is being underpaid. 

I also love how you keep ignoring my question.

Should there even be a min wage or should employees be able to pay employees whatever they want?
It's a simple question, it's just very telling you refuse to answer.

Also I love how you love to bash jobs like cashiers or frontline jobs, but those are the people that are the backbone of most companies and without them, most companies would not run or make any money especially ones that are retail or deal with any kind of customer service.


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> Should there even be a min wage or should employees be able to pay employees whatever they want?
> It's a simple question, it's just very telling you refuse to answer.


Labor is a service like anything else. I don't believe the government has any right to intervene and demand someone pay X amount for a service.

You would agree that labor is a service, correct?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarky Mark said:


> Labor is a service like anything else. I don't believe the government has any right to intervene and demand someone pay X amount for a service.
> 
> You would agree that labor is a service, correct?


So then you do think it would be ok for a company to pay someone, like a cashier, $2 an hour since don't think the govt has any right to tell them that is not enough.

And yes labor is a service.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949741319139737600


----------



## Smarky Mark

birthday_massacre said:


> So then you do think it would be ok for a company to pay someone, like a cashier, $2 an hour since don't think the govt has any right to tell them that is not enough.
> 
> And yes labor is a service.


May I ask why you keep asking this same retarded question? No company would have anything to gain by offering 2 dollars an hour. It's not going to happen. It's almost as if you have a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economics. 

And if you agree that labor is a service, are there any other services you feel the government should set the price for? Should the local restaurant owner be forced to charge certain prices for meals? People gotta eat right?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949741319139737600


LOL at Trump supporters claiming he is playing with us. Trump has shown time and time again what a child he is, and people even say he is like that in the WH behind closed doors.

But sure keep telling yourself he is playing 4D chess because you know you can't defend the stupid things Trump says.






Smarky Mark said:


> May I ask why you keep asking this same retarded question? No company would have anything to gain by offering 2 dollars an hour. It's not going to happen. It's almost as if you have a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economics.
> 
> And if you agree that labor is a service, are there any other services you feel the government should set the price for? Should the local restaurant owner be forced to charge certain prices for meals? People gotta eat right?


Because it just shows you how stupid it is for you to claim there shouldn't be a min. wage. And the way economics works is, the more the middle class makes, the more they put that money back into the economy, thus the more companies make. But sure keep claiming I don't know how basic economics work. If you claim that is not true then its you who has that problem

Setting food prices is not the same as setting a min wage. Its laughable you would even make that comparison.


----------



## GOON

donald trump is my hero.


----------



## Genesis 1.0

RavishingRickRules said:


> :lol


Just waiting on the President to thank him for the support.


----------



## Stephen90

Merry Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949741319139737600


By throwing a temper tantrum on Twitter.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949685684213870592


> *Trump Isn’t Another Hitler. He’s Another Obama.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a lot of people remember this, but George W Bush actually campaigned in 2000 against the interventionist foreign policy that the United States had been increasingly espousing. Far from advocating the full-scale regime change ground invasions that his administration is now infamous for, Bush frequently used the word “humble” when discussing the type of foreign policy he favored, condemning nation-building, an over-extended military, and the notion that America should be the world’s police force.
> 
> Eight years later, after hundreds of thousands of human lives had been snuffed out in Iraq and Afghanistan and an entire region horrifically destabilized, Obama campaigned against Bush’s interventionist foreign policy, edging out Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries partly because she had supported the Iraq invasion while he had condemned it. The Democrats, decrying the warmongering tendencies of the Republicans, elected a President of the United States who would see Bush’s Afghanistan and Iraq and raise him Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia, along with a tenfold increase in drone strikes. Libya collapsed into a failed state where a slave trade now runs rampant, and half a million people died in the Syrian war that Obama and US allies exponentially escalated.
> 
> Eight years later, a reality TV star and WWE Hall-of-Famer was elected President of the United States by the other half of the crowd who was sick to death of those warmongering Democrats. Trump campaigned on a non-interventionist foreign policy, saying America should fight terrorists but not enter into regime change wars with other governments. He thrashed his primary opponents as the only one willing to unequivocally condemn Bush and his actions, then won the general election partly by attacking the interventionist foreign policy of his predecessor and his opponent, and criticizing Hillary Clinton’s hawkish no-fly zone agenda in Syria.
> 
> Now he’s approved the selling of arms to Ukraine to use against Russia, a dangerously hawkish move that even Obama refused to make for fear of increasing tensions with Moscow. His administration has escalated troop presence in Afghanistan and made it abundantly clear that the Pentagon has no intention of leaving Syria anytime soon despite the absence of any reasonable justification for US presence there. The CIA had ratcheted up operations in Iran months into Trump’s presidency, shortly before the administration began running the exact same script against that country that the Obama administration ran on Libya, Syria and Ukraine.
> 
> Maybe US presidents are limited to eight years because that’s how long it takes the public to forget everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the lead-up to the November elections those of us on the left who backed third parties were promised over and over and over again by Democratic party loyalists that if Hillary Clinton failed to secure the election there’d be goose-stepping stormtroopers patrolling the streets and murdering non-whites with impunity, concentration camps for Muslims and white supremacist extermination programs. Comparisons to Hitler went on nonstop, and anyone who failed to fall in line with the mainstream liberal narrative can attest that they were accused of aiding actual, literal Nazism on a regular basis.
> 
> A year into Trump’s presidency, and not only did the apocalyptic predictions of national genocide fail to come true, he’s not even deporting as many immigrants as Obama. He is, however, out-bombing him.
> 
> We were promised another Hitler. Instead, we got another Obama, who was himself another Bush. The march into corporatist Orwellian police state at home and globalist oligarchic hegemony abroad continues unhindered for the United States of America.
> 
> And of course that march would have continued had Hillary won as well, it just would have looked a bit different. Fewer environmental deregulations, likely catastrophic escalations against the Syrian government and possibly Russia, the exact same approaches to Iran, just as much hawkishness toward North Korea but minus the tweets about button sizes, no attempts at dismantling Obama’s corporatist healthcare plan. Not much more than that.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/917179905451819008
> Nobody wants to hear this. The Democrats still want to believe that the sitting president is simultaneously a Nazi, a Kremlin secret agent, an idiot, and a lunatic, and Trump supporters want to believe that he’s a populist savior fighting to liberate the nation from the claws of the deep state. Because of their partisan blinders they will both find reasons to believe they’ve got either a savior or a traitor in the White House despite the fact that their country’s actual policy and behavior remains more or less the same.
> 
> I still sometimes get Democrats telling me that Trump is about to flip into Hitler 2.0 any minute now and start throwing non-whites into extermination camps. Whenever I point out that they were wrong about their “your choices are Hillary or Hitler” alarmism I get a bunch of them telling me “give him time”. Well he’s had time. They were wrong. They didn’t get a Nazi, they got another shitty neocon. And since the Dems have been paced into alignment with the neocons there’s no one left to oppose their agendas, which is why we’re seeing so little pushback on Trump’s Iran saber rattling.
> 
> I get Trump supporters telling me that he’s fighting the deep state, but the only way you can believe that at this point is to redefine “deep state” to mean “Democrats and their supporters”, which would actually just be more partisan bickering, which is all we’re actually seeing at this point. The only people you see pushing the collusion narrative and working for impeachment at this point are Democrats and Never-Trumpers; now that Trump has proven himself a good, compliant little boy the intelligence community has been putting its energy into the anti-detente propaganda effort to manufacture support for its new cold war escalations instead.
> 
> The MAGA crowd tells me their guy has de-escalated the Syrian situation in an attempt to paint him as less pro-war than his predecessor, but that’s not even true either. Until US troops actually leave Syria, all this administration has done is kill a bunch of people (many of them civilians), occupy parts of a sovereign nation, and refuse to leave. Why are those troops still there when Syria and its allies are perfectly capable of handling any remaining traces of ISIS as they have been? No good reason, that’s for sure.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/947610948553945088
> This is not the fault of the American people. The American people consistently vote against interventionist wars (as evidenced by the fact that winning presidential candidates have to campaign against them), and while they may be guilted by the tribe into flag-waving once the troops are there, they consistently say no to every request for consent for more empire-building wars. In my recent article about how the CNN/CIA narrative is running the same script for Iran as they did for Libya and Syria, most of the pushback I received was from good people who wanted to make sure I knew that they didn’t consent to military intervention, they were simply offering their support for the people of Iran.
> 
> Which is about as naive and sweet as a kid wanting to help the nice old man find his puppy. I understand you wanting to help find the puppy America, but for God’s sake please don’t get in that man’s van.
> 
> So the will of the American people has been heard loud and clear. They do not consent to more regime change wars and more military interventions. They do not want that.
> 
> Through the trickery of the mainstream media though, they are paced by fear-mongering and guilting into a reluctant, bargaining, “Well okay then…” consent which is quickly turned over into flag-waving enthusiasm because you have to support your troops, don’tchaknow? And I get that! Everyone knows a serviceman or woman; you don’t want to make them feel sad or like their life is being wasted. That’s such a tragedy! Who wants to make that conscious?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/948922286639218688
> Let’s be clear, too: the troops are often from some of the finest of working and middle-class families across the States, families whose strong sense of morality about right and wrong led their young sons and daughters to make the courageous decision to enter the armed forces. These young men and women were born with the most exemplary of desires. They want to make the world a better place and they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to do so. People love these families and they love their children.
> 
> These young people really are our best new humans. They are so committed to the highest interest that they would put aside their self-interest to do so. Do you know how rare that quality is in a human? And these young people are being taken from us young, whether that be by death or by destroying their beautiful minds as they are warped by the war machine into thinking that evil is good. Taken and used to pump up the egos of a selfish few.
> 
> In a healthy culture, the highest interest would dictate the desires of these young men and women. Unfortunately, the “highest interest” which should be assessed by the will of the people, is not being heard. It is not being enacted. The will of the people has repeatedly said that it does not want to send these young people off to kill another country’s young people to shore up the share portfolios of a few cancerous beings. The will of the people consistently says no to that, but it has been corralled by a small group of bloodthirsty vampires, parasites who will happily lay any amount of young bodies to waste to win their tiny dick battles until they are finally satisfied with the amount of zeroes on their bank statements.
> 
> Spoiler alert: they never will be.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949424882634207233
> Americans talk about “seeing through the partisan bullshit” of US politics like it’s some kind of magical superpower, but it’s not. Both parties act in slightly different ways toward the exact same ends, working together like the jab-cross combination of a boxer to advance the same warmongering, corporatist oligarchic agendas, and there’s no reason to believe any of them about anything. America has two corporatist war parties who serve a plutocratic class of elites; one of them wears a cowboy hat, the other has pink hair. That’s it. That’s all you need to see to free yourself from the illusion.
> 
> Please stop attacking one another for the evils that have been inflicted on you by this small group of sociopaths, America. Stop buying into the two-party good cop/bad cop schtick that the elites use to turn urban Americans against rural Americans and turn your anger toward your real enemies.
> 
> SOURCE


----------



## Tater

Came across this beauty on Twitter today.










:lmao


----------



## Stephen90

Tater said:


> Came across this beauty on Twitter today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao


A 71 year old with the maturity of a 12 year old.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949685684213870592


Who should be president then if both the GOP and democrats are evil pieces of shit screwing the US?

At this point I have no hope for this country's present or future and I think if anyone was smart they would not either.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Tater said:


> Came across this beauty on Twitter today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao












Also, have some rep for your earlier post that ripped into both the dems and repubs. :yoshi


----------



## Tater

The Hardcore Show said:


> Who should be president then if both the GOP and democrats are *evil* pieces of shit screwing the US?


I know a guy. He has experience dealing with evil.


----------



## Draykorinee

2018 is fantastic already. I'm like, really sure it's going to be great.


----------



## virus21

Tater said:


> I know a guy. He has experience dealing with evil.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Merry Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949741319139737600


And what does that accomplish?


----------



## FriedTofu

BlueSanta said:


> And what does that accomplish?


To sell merch. Wonder how much they are still making off of MAGA related stuff.


----------



## virus21

Tater said:


>














The Hardcore Show said:


> Who should be president then if both the GOP and democrats are evil pieces of shit screwing the US?
> 
> At this point I have no hope for this country's present or future and I think if anyone was smart they would not either.


I have little hope for western civilization. The east is salvation, the west is fucked.


----------



## GOON

> I get Trump supporters telling me that he’s fighting the deep state, but the only way you can believe that at this point is to redefine “deep state” to mean “Democrats and their supporters”, which would actually just be more partisan bickering, which is all we’re actually seeing at this point.


This is such a horrendous misreading of the situation. Just because your average Trump supporter can't properly articulate what the "deep state" actually is doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Nor can it merely be reduced to "The Democrats." The deep state (intelligence, national security apparatus, and so on) exists in the United States as it does in every major nation.



> Please stop attacking one another for the evils that have been inflicted on you by this small group of sociopaths, America. Stop buying into the two-party good cop/bad cop schtick that the elites use to turn urban Americans against rural Americans and turn your anger toward your real enemies.


I really hate "woke" takes like this that act like they're above all partisan engagements and are truly the wokest of woke centrists. And it's naive to chalk up the urban-rural divide to merely a "good cop/bad cop" performance by the two major parties. The urban-rural antagonism is real just like the other antagonisms between "classes" within America. In their heart of hearts, the "woke," purple-haired urbanite fashion designer looks down upon the rural, small-town American. They might as well live within totally different nations at this point.

Perhaps the elites exploit these antagonisms but the urbanites are more than happy to play the part that the elites designed for them.


----------



## AlternateDemise

virus21 said:


> I have little hope for western civilization. The east is salvation, the west is fucked.


This isn't even the worst point in the United States' history. There was a time when literally half the country split away and declared themselves their own nation because of who got elected President. The country will get through this just fine. It's never going to be perfect, it probably won't even be great, but saying the West is fucked is a gross exaggeration.


----------



## Tater

GOON said:


> I get Trump supporters telling me that he’s fighting the deep state, but the only way you can believe that at this point is to redefine “deep state” to mean “Democrats and their supporters”, which would actually just be more partisan bickering, which is all we’re actually seeing at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> This is such a horrendous misreading of the situation. Just because your average Trump supporter can't properly articulate what the "deep state" actually is doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Nor can it merely be reduced to "The Democrats." The deep state (intelligence, national security apparatus, and so on) exists in the United States as it does in every major nation.
Click to expand...

You completely missed the point being made here. She wasn't saying that the Deep State doesn't exist. Most of the articles she writes, including this one, attacks Deep State machinations. Or maybe you didn't read the entire paragraph.

_"now that Trump has proven himself a good, compliant little boy the intelligence community has been putting its energy into the anti-detente propaganda effort to manufacture support for its new cold war escalations instead."_

The point she was making is that you have to be a sucker to believe Trump is actually fighting against the Deep State, when the reality is, he's just as much their puppet as Obama before him.



GOON said:


> Please stop attacking one another for the evils that have been inflicted on you by this small group of sociopaths, America. Stop buying into the two-party good cop/bad cop schtick that the elites use to turn urban Americans against rural Americans and turn your anger toward your real enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> I really hate "woke" takes like this that act like they're above all partisan engagements and are truly the wokest of woke centrists. And it's naive to chalk up the urban-rural divide to merely a "good cop/bad cop" performance by the two major parties. The urban-rural antagonism is real just like the other antagonisms between "classes" within America. In their heart of hearts, the "woke," purple-haired urbanite fashion designer looks down upon the rural, small-town American. They might as well live within totally different nations at this point.
> 
> Perhaps the elites exploit these antagonisms but the urbanites are more than happy to play the part that the elites designed for them.
Click to expand...

Once again, swing and a miss. Just for starters, she wasn't speaking *for* the "purple-haired urbanite fashion designer urbanites", she was speaking *against* them. Both things you responded to, you got completely backasswards from their intended meaning. 

Yeah, you're right about one thing, the urbanites you speak of do look down on rural, small-town Americans. They play their parts like the good little sheep that they are; just like the rural, small-town American _purple-haired urbanite fashion designer urbanite_ hating sheep play their parts as well.

Personally, I don't much care for the purple haired cunts or the dumbass rural hicks but I know that neither of them are my enemy. They are just sheep playing their parts. My enemy is the ruling elite; the oligarchy; the Republicrat-con; the Deep State; the military industrial complex; etc; whatever form it takes, that is what I am against. They're the reason why the USA is falling apart. They war monger abroad while sucking up all the wealth and breeding division at home. That division is necessary for them to remain in power. There is one thing and one thing only these people fear and that's a united populace against them. 

Just because I don't like the purple haired cunts and the dumbass rural hicks doesn't make them my enemy and it doesn't stop me from allying myself with them against our true enemies. Power in numbers is our only effective weapon and it's a weapon that remains useless so long as Americans continue bickering over stupid partisan bullshit.


----------



## GOON

Tater said:


> You completely missed the point being made here. She wasn't saying that the Deep State doesn't exist. Most of the articles she writes, including this one, attacks Deep State machinations. Or maybe you didn't read the entire paragraph.
> 
> _"now that Trump has proven himself a good, compliant little boy the intelligence community has been putting its energy into the anti-detente propaganda effort to manufacture support for its new cold war escalations instead."_
> 
> The point she was making is that you have to be a sucker to believe Trump is actually fighting against the Deep State, when the reality is, he's just as much their puppet as Obama before him.


If he's a "puppet" then why is the Deep State still trying to impeach him over Russia? Why would they try to subvert someone who is already their "puppet" and risk the instability that would result in many areas of the country in the case of Trump's impeachment? That sounds like a pretty dumb move on their part.




> Yeah, you're right about one thing, the urbanites you speak of do look down on rural, small-town Americans. They play their parts like the good little sheep that they are; just like the rural, small-town American _purple-haired urbanite fashion designer urbanite_ hating sheep play their parts as well.


Lmao this isn't a high school play, my dude. They adopt this "role" regardless of whether or not the "elites" push for it because it's something that they genuinely feel.




> Personally, I don't much care for the purple haired cunts or the dumbass rural hicks but I know that neither of them are my enemy. They are just sheep playing their parts. My enemy is the ruling elite; the oligarchy; the Republicrat-con; the Deep State; the military industrial complex; etc; whatever form it takes, that is what I am against. They're the reason why the USA is falling apart. They war monger abroad while sucking up all the wealth and breeding division at home. That division is necessary for them to remain in power. There is one thing and one thing only these people fear and that's a united populace against them.


See, the problem here is that you think that these "problems" are entirely manufactured by the "elites" as opposed to being genuine antagonisms. They don't have to "breed" anything. Modern day America was already a powder keg of contradictions and antagonisms. You act like the solution is merely ridding ourselves of this ruling elite. Fine, but then how do you heal the urban-rural class divide that has existed since the Industrial Revolution? How do you heal the racial issues on a collective scale, particularly between whites and blacks? 

These are fissures that have existed long before the current "ruling-class" held power and are the reason why the USA is "falling apart" as you claim.




> Just because I don't like the purple haired cunts and the dumbass rural hicks doesn't make them my enemy and it doesn't stop me from allying myself with them against our true enemies. Power in numbers is our only effective weapon and it's a weapon that remains useless so long as Americans continue bickering over stupid partisan bullshit.


Everything is partisan. Your post is the epitome of "woke centrism." You yourself are a partisan when it comes to the "elites." The usage of the term "sheep" to describe those who disagree with you is itself a partisan stance. Stop acting like you're above the partisan fray.


----------



## Tater

GOON said:


> If he's a "puppet" then why is the Deep State still trying to impeach him over Russia? Why would they try to subvert someone who is already their "puppet" and risk the instability that would result in many areas of the country in the case of Trump's impeachment? That sounds like a pretty dumb move on their part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lmao this isn't a high school play, my dude. They adopt this "role" regardless of whether or not the "elites" push for it because it's something that they genuinely feel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, the problem here is that you think that these "problems" are entirely manufactured by the "elites" as opposed to being genuine antagonisms. They don't have to "breed" anything. Modern day America was already a powder keg of contradictions and antagonisms. You act like the solution is merely ridding ourselves of this ruling elite. Fine, but then how do you heal the urban-rural class divide that has existed since the Industrial Revolution? How do you heal the racial issues on a collective scale, particularly between whites and blacks?
> 
> These are fissures that have existed long before the current "ruling-class" held power and are the reason why the USA is "falling apart" as you claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything is partisan. Your post is the epitome of "woke centrism." You yourself are a partisan when it comes to the "elites." The usage of the term "sheep" to describe those who disagree with you is itself a partisan stance. Stop acting like you're above the partisan fray.


You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/950180207515897856

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/950180209650819072

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/950180212821590016


----------



## FriedTofu

I thought identity politics was above the likes of Trump supporters around here but why do I keep seeing reposting of tweets by white nationalists. :hmmm


----------



## DesolationRow

FriedTofu said:


> I thought identity politics was above the likes of Trump supporters around here but why do I keep seeing reposting of tweets by white nationalists. :hmmm


Not sure what has been going on in this thread as of late aside from a bunch of excellent posts by *L-DOPA* in which he mentioned me (need to catch up) but in the past I have reposted tweets by white nationalists, generic right-wingers, libertarians, socialists, anarchists, etc., so long as it's interesting/thought-provoking/agreeable. Spend just about no time on twitter so it's things that get passed along through one means or another.


----------



## FriedTofu

DesolationRow said:


> Not sure what has been going on in this thread as of late aside from a bunch of excellent posts by *L-DOPA* in which he mentioned me (need to catch up) but in the past I have reposted tweets by white nationalists, generic right-wingers, libertarians, socialists, anarchists, etc., so long as it's interesting/thought-provoking/agreeable. Spend just about no time on twitter so it's things that get passed along through one means or another.


You are highly respected around here and it feels icky that you are spreading other more dubious tweets from your sources unintentionally. Both in here and the terrorism thread.


----------



## Vic Capri

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949785381641187328
- Vic


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/949785381641187328
> - Vic


Gotta love Trump supporters trying to backtrack. By the way the president doesn't believe in global warming.


----------



## AlternateDemise

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/950180207515897856
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/950180209650819072
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/950180212821590016


Why are we acting like Trump has a chance in the second election? I know he won the first one with many claiming he had no shot, but the truth of the matter is as long as Clinton was the running opponent, the chance was always there. 

Second time around he isn't going to be so lucky. And quite frankly until I see some major improvements in regards to Trump's Presidency, Trump losing the next election is the best thing that can happen to this country.


----------



## Tater

BlueSanta said:


> Trump losing the next election is the best thing that can happen to this country.


...only if the person who replaces him isn't another shitty right wing corporatist Democrat. 8 years of Clinton got us Dubya. 8 years of Obama got us Trump. The USA doesn't need to be inflicted by whatever monstrosity would follow if another one of those neoliberal Wall Street lackeys gets back into the WH.


----------



## Arya Dark

BlueSanta said:


> Why are we acting like Trump has a chance in the second election? I know he won the first one with many claiming he had no shot, but the truth of the matter is as long as Clinton was the running opponent, the chance was always there.
> 
> Second time around he isn't going to be so lucky. And quite frankly until I see some major improvements in regards to Trump's Presidency, Trump losing the next election is the best thing that can happen to this country.



*All of that depends on who the Dems decide to run against Trump. They were stupid enough to run Hillary last time and I've seen nothing to suggest that they have grown wiser since then.*


----------



## Vic Capri

> Why are we acting like Trump has a chance in the second election?


The economy. 



> By the way the president doesn't believe in global warming.


By the way, Florida is experience the Ice Age.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> By the way, Florida is experience the Ice Age.
> 
> - Vic


Oh look another person who does not know the difference between weather and climate

2017 was the 2nd hottest year on record for the earth, behind, wait for it.........2016.


----------



## Stephen90

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh look another person who does not know the difference between weather and climate
> 
> 2017 was the 2nd hottest year on record for the earth, behind, wait for it.........2016.


Typical Trump supporter living in his own world.


----------



## Vic Capri

Keep crying.

- Vic


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Stephen90 said:


> Typical Trump supporter living in his own world.


Understand they are never wrong on anything. I am, you are everybody who does not agree with them are.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

The Hardcore Show said:


> Understand they are never wrong on anything. I am, you are everybody who does not agree with them are.





Vic Capri said:


> Keep crying.
> 
> - Vic


Your not living in the real world. Your not.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> Keep crying.
> 
> - Vic


The only one who is crying is Trump on twitter day after day.


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> Keep crying.
> 
> - Vic


That's funny coming from a Trump supporter Trump's been whining ever since Fire and Fury was released.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stephen90 said:


> That's funny coming from a Trump supporter Trump's been whining ever since Fire and Fury was released.


He was whining way before that lol


----------



## RavishingRickRules

I mean that's one of the funniest ironies in the current climate though right? Trump supporters are the most triggered, sensitive, irrational babies, crowned by their support of the Snowflake in Chief. As an outsider it's one of the more hysterical things about US politics right now seeing people with no knowledge, comprehension or argument worth a shit breaking down into quivering messes all over the place yammering "Snowflake, Libtard, Hillary, Obama, Snowflake, Libtard, Hillary, Obama" on repeat until their head explodes :lmao. The only people more entertaining are the people who still back Brexit whenever they're met with the facts of the situation and can't give a remotely valid argument as to why they support it.


----------



## Stephen90

birthday_massacre said:


> He was whining way before that lol


I stand corrected. Trump's Twitter temper tantrums have become legendary.


----------



## TakerFreak

Left wing >>> Right wing. Trump is a big child and never should have become president.


----------



## Draykorinee

Tater said:


> BlueSanta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump losing the next election is the best thing that can happen to this country.
> 
> 
> 
> ...only if the person who replaces him isn't another shitty right wing corporatist Democrat. 8 years of Clinton got us Dubya. 8 years of Obama got us Trump. The USA doesn't need to be inflicted by whatever monstrosity would follow if another one of those neoliberal Wall Street lackeys gets back into the WH.
Click to expand...

Obama was not the reason though, it was Clinton.


----------



## Smarky Mark

If Trump is just a puppet of the deep state then why put so much energy into tarnishing his image? How does that make any sense? If he and Obama serve the same master, then why aren't they being treated the same? To me it is obvious that there are multiple factions at work. 

I don't believe Trump is a unifyer of people, that much is clear. That has been the biggest letdown for me overall. I am mostly a supporter of his but I wish he would make more of an effort to try and reach out to those on the other side. It would be so easy for him to silence the doubters but all he does is feed into it.

It feels deliberate. Almost as if his 'sponsors' prefer it that way.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Tater said:


> ...only if the person who replaces him isn't another shitty right wing corporatist Democrat. 8 years of Clinton got us Dubya. 8 years of Obama got us Trump. The USA doesn't need to be inflicted by whatever monstrosity would follow if another one of those neoliberal Wall Street lackeys gets back into the WH.


I would argue that Hilary was the greater reason for Trump becoming President. 



Mercy said:


> *All of that depends on who the Dems decide to run against Trump. They were stupid enough to run Hillary last time and I've seen nothing to suggest that they have grown wiser since then.*


There can't be anyone currently worse than Hilary...can there? 



Vic Capri said:


> The economy.


You mean the economy that is benefiting entirely from Obama's current policies that Trump's trying to get rid of?

I'm starting to think you're just saying shit for the sake of saying it without thinking logically beforehand. 



Vic Capri said:


> By the way, Florida is experience the Ice Age.
> 
> - Vic


Be honest, how old are you?



Vic Capri said:


> Keep crying.
> 
> - Vic


This is the second time now you've resorted to acting like a five year old when someone easily tears your logic apart. This is the image you are giving Trump supporters and why people don't take them seriously. At some point you're going to have to start accepting the reality that you're facing here.



birthday_massacre said:


> Oh look another person who does not know the difference between weather and climate
> 
> 2017 was the 2nd hottest year on record for the earth, behind, wait for it.........2016.


Weren't those the years there was some kind of event happening that resulted in warmer than usual temperatures though? I can't remember the name of it, but from what I understand, we're probably not going to see temperatures that high on average again for a while.


----------



## virus21

BlueSanta said:


> There can't be anyone currently worse than Hilary...can there?


A Hilary thats 4 years older and likely even more insane?


----------



## Stephen90

BlueSanta said:


> I would argue that Hilary was the greater reason for Trump becoming President.
> 
> 
> 
> There can't be anyone currently worse than Hilary...can there?
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the economy that is benefiting entirely from Obama's current policies that Trump's trying to get rid of?
> 
> I'm starting to think you're just saying shit for the sake of saying it without thinking logically beforehand.
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest, how old are you?


Waiting for @Merry Reaper and @Vic Capri to start with their daily Trump excuses.


----------



## AlternateDemise

virus21 said:


> A Hilary thats 4 years older and likely even more insane?


There's no way the Democrats would nominate her again. She's arguably the biggest reason Trump is the current President. Granted, she was close to winning a couple key states and the demographic seems to be shifting, but I just can't see them picking her again.


----------



## virus21

BlueSanta said:


> There's no way the Democrats would nominate her again. She's arguably the biggest reason Trump is the current President. Granted, she was close to winning a couple key states and the demographic seems to be shifting, but I just can't see them picking her again.


Oh considering the lack of any competence in the DNC at this point, they would do it.


----------



## Draykorinee

BlueSanta said:


> Weren't those the years there was some kind of event happening that resulted in warmer than usual temperatures though? I can't remember the name of it, but from what I understand, we're probably not going to see temperatures that high on average again for a while.


No, 2016 was an el nino year, that's why they expected 2017 to be cooler and it wasn't. They weren't both el nino, thus there was no reason for it being even hotter than an actual el nino year. I don't know why you're not expecting those average temperatures again, especially as this year is a la Nina year.


----------



## Smarky Mark

BlueSanta said:


> There's no way the Democrats would nominate her again. She's arguably the biggest reason Trump is the current President. Granted, she was close to winning a couple key states and the demographic seems to be shifting, but I just can't see them picking her again.


The democrats will not be running a male candidate, I am like 90% sure of that. 

Without the gender card they are toast. At this point the extreme left (and Hollywood) all but 'expect' a female or ethnic minority to represent them.So much so that if a white male were selected it would probably upset a great deal of them.


----------



## birthday_massacre

draykorinee said:


> No, 2016 was an el nino year, that's why they expected 2017 to be cooler and it wasn't. They weren't both el nino, this there was no reason for it betting even hotter than an actual el nino year. I don't know why you're not expecting those average temperatures again, especially as this year is a la Nina year.


Not to mention the reason we have storms like El Nino is because of climate change.

Also the 10 or 11 hottest years in history have all happened since 1998. And most of them in the past 10 years.


----------



## virus21

Smarky Mark said:


> The democrats will not be running a male candidate, I am like 90% sure of that.
> 
> Without the gender card they are toast. At this point the extreme left (and Hollywood) all but 'expect' a female or ethnic minority to represent them.So much so that if a white male were selected it would probably upset a great deal of them.


They didn't win with it last time. People are getting fed up with the identity politics. By 2020 and if the "left" keep it up, people will have enough. And if the extreme left and Hollywood is who the Democrats will be courting, they might as well let Trump win as neither of them are all the popular right now.


----------



## Smarky Mark

virus21 said:


> They didn't win with it last time. *People are getting fed up with the identity politics*. By 2020 and if the "left" keep it up, people will have enough. And if the extreme left and Hollywood is who the Democrats will be courting, they might as well let Trump win as neither of them are all the popular right now.


But it doesn't look like they've learned from anything. They've doubled down since then. Both the left news media as well as Hollywood.


----------



## birthday_massacre

virus21 said:


> They didn't win with it last time. People are getting fed up with the identity politics. By 2020 and if the "left" keep it up, people will have enough. And if the extreme left and Hollywood is who the Democrats will be courting, they might as well let Trump win as neither of them are all the popular right now.


Hillion got 3 million more votes than Trump LOL

Trumps approval rating is in the low to mid 30s.

The country is moving left not right


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Smarky Mark said:


> The democrats will not be running a male candidate, I am like 90% sure of that.


Depends,after 4 years of Trump some wonkish no frills bland guy like Tom Udall or Brian Schatz just might appealing as hell to Democratic primary voters. Just like a Black Guy promopted the GOP base to go with someone White Nationalist friendly Birther, then the Dem voters might counter a Celebrity candidate with the opposite of a celebrity candidate


----------



## AlternateDemise

Smarky Mark said:


> The democrats will not be running a male candidate, I am like 90% sure of that.


I seriously doubt that'll be the case. Most likely it'll be a male candidate unless someone who is female can pop up who is capable of representing the Democrats properly.


----------



## DOPA

@DesolationRow @Tater

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...-3-stock-market-skeptics-see-ahead/847751001/



> *[401(k) at risk? What 3 stock market skeptics see ahead*
> 
> As the stock market calmly racks up records and swells 401(k) balances amid a 9-year-old bull run, some skeptics who predicted the crash in 2008 are getting nervous.
> 
> These are the same doubters who sounded the alarm before anyone else and predicted the past decade's financial crisis and who warn that the market could suffer another meltdown when the good times end on Wall Street.
> 
> They stress, however, that the end of the bull could be a long way off.
> 
> USA TODAY contacted three of them to find out what dangers they see.
> 
> •Robert Shiller, a Yale economist and author of the 2000 book Irrational Exuberance, warned of a coming Internet stock bust. In the book’s 2005 edition, he said a “catastrophic collapse of the housing and stock markets could be on its way.”
> 
> •Peter Schiff, head of investment firm Euro Pacific Capital, wrote Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse, published in early 2007. Schiff said in August 2006, “The United States is like the Titanic, and I am here with the lifeboat trying to get people to leave the ship."
> 
> 
> •Investor Christopher Cole runs Artemis Capital, a hedge fund he says was “born out of the 2008 crisis.” The seed money for his fund came from gains he made a decade ago by betting correctly that a financial apocalypse loomed.
> 
> What do Shiller, Schiff and Cole see in their crystal balls?
> 
> They see a market distorted by low interest rates, one being driven higher by forces that could keep the rally going longer than many believe. They say that market will end badly once its key underpinnings — low rates, tame inflation and historically low volatility — head quickly in the other direction.
> 
> “Risks,” Schiff says, “have never been larger.”
> 
> “There’s an illusion of stability,” Cole says.
> 
> “I am worried about a correction.” Shiller says. "But my gut is it will keep going up for a while.”
> 
> *ROBERT SHILLER*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HIS TAKE ON STOCKS: A recent study by Shiller concluded, “The U.S. stock market today looks a lot like it did at the peaks before most of the country’s previous 13 bear markets.”
> 
> Though optimists shrug off high valuations and talk up the benefits of strong corporate earnings and market calm, Shiller’s review of the past depicts a more “vulnerable” market.
> 
> The valuation measure Shiller helped create — the CAPE ratio, a price-to-earnings ratio adjusted for inflation that smooths out earnings using a 10-year average — is above 30. It’s been above that level only twice before, in 1929 and 1997-2002. Both periods saw severe stock swoons: In 1929, the market crash ushered in the Great Depression, and in 2000, the Internet stock bubble burst. “A high CAPE implies potential vulnerability to a bear market, though it is by no means a perfect predictor,” he says.
> 
> Shiller says that although robust earnings seem to be good news, that doesn’t reduce the odds of a 20%-plus market drop, or bear market. The 13.2% earnings growth rate in the year that ended in June is above the average of 1.8% per year since 1881, his data show. Market peaks before past bear markets also came during similar periods of high earnings growth. Stock market volatility was also lower than average in the year leading up to market peaks in past bear markets.
> 
> *THE CALL:* He’s worried about a correction, but just because the market exhibits signs that were present before past selloffs, that doesn’t mean the bull run can’t continue. “These rallies can go on for a long time,” he says.
> 
> Investors are “impressionistic,” he says. They are in a bullish state, caught up in President Trump’s narrative of success. “He is a motivational speaker for capitalism,” Shiller says. “Trump could inspire more stock increases.”
> 
> Although Shiller says a crash could happen, he doesn’t see signs of impending doom like he saw in newspaper articles warning of market trouble before the crash of 1929 or the palpable wariness before the crash in 1987 when a reporter called him at his home the Sunday before Black Monday.
> 
> “There was breathless anticipation of something bad happening,” he says of the days before past market crises. “I just don’t see it now. (But) it could change fast.”
> 
> *THE TRIGGER:* It will be a change in the investor mindset that goes viral and causes a switch from bullishness to bearishness. “Some kind of trigger, some suggestion that other investors are changing their minds,” Shiller says. It could be North Korea. Or political instability. Or an indictment in Washington. “Some blowup,” he says.
> 
> *INVESTMENTS HE LIKES:* Shiller says he has lightened up on U.S. stocks in his personal portfolio and sees better opportunities and lower risk in foreign equity markets.
> 
> *PETER SCHIFF*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HIS TAKE ON STOCKS:* Schiff sees a market trading at very expensive prices at the same time that a Wall Street fear gauge, known as the VIX, is at record lows. That complacency spells trouble. “Nobody is worried that the good times will end,” he says. “History has shown that such periods of unfettered optimism have often presaged major market corrections.”
> 
> *THE CALL:* The market is the “mother-of-all-bubbles.” And it will pop, he warns.
> 
> The Federal Reserve, with its low-interest rate policies, created the tech stock bubble in 2000 and the real estate bubble in 2007, and now it has inflated another financial bubble, he says. Every time a bubble has popped since 2000, he says, the U.S. central bank has swooped in to rescue markets with ever larger doses of stimulus and created yet another bubble and caused debt loads to soar. If the current bubble bursts, the Fed won’t be able to revive the markets with fresh stimulus without causing a massive decline in the value of the U.S. dollar. That means U.S. consumers would face higher borrowing costs, higher prices and a lower standard of living.
> 
> “There will be a currency crisis and a sovereign debt (or government bond) crisis," he says.
> 
> *THE TRIGGER:* He says it will be a recession, which could come as early as next year. When the economy turns back down, "that is the end, it is over,” Schiff says. “We are headed for a major economic collapse, and the stock market could easily get cut in half again like 2000 and 2008.”
> 
> *INVESTMENTS HE LIKES:* The firm is heavily invested in foreign stocks and U.S. resource stocks, such as energy.
> 
> *CHRISTOPHER COLE *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HIS TAKE ON STOCKS:* Cole says today’s stock market has more parallels to the crash in 1987 than the financial crisis in 2008. As they were 30 years ago, investors have been lulled into complacency by the market calm, better known as low volatility, which has been underpinned by cheap borrowing costs. The problem is investors placed massive bets on the market remaining placid. Roughly $2 trillion of investor cash rides on strategies that “rely on the assumption of market stability to generate returns.”
> 
> The problem is volatility will spike, and all those trades could “unwind violently” in a negative feedback loop if the market suffers a shock. “It’s based on the idea that stability breads stability, until it doesn’t,” he says.
> 
> A reversal in the trade based on tranquil markets will “contribute to a violent feedback loop of hyper-volatility resulting in a hyper-crash,” he warned in a recent shareholder letter.
> 
> *THE CALL:* In theory, volatility has “nowhere to go but up,” but there’s no clear catalyst to spook markets as central bankers keep rates low, he says. That could stave off a major market fall. “This market rally can go on longer — much, much longer — as long as rates stay low and people remain complacent,” Cole says.
> 
> *THE TRIGGER:* A spike in inflation could cause rising interest rates. The longer the rally goes, the more violent the market's move to the downside could be if a spark starts the fire.
> 
> *INVESTMENTS HE LIKES:* According to its website, the firm is positioned for higher volatility in domestic equity markets and invests in derivatives that rise in value when the stock market becomes more turbulent.


A extremely interesting and important article here which has three economists who predicted the last financial crash talking about the implications for the current stock market bubble. I remember as early as the *beginning months of last year* we were all talking about the concerns of the policies of the Federal Reserve with the stock market concerning the issue of stock buybacks. A year later and we see a record numbers for the stock market under Trump. When Obama was in office, I paid special attention to the bonds and dividends market which seemed the most likely out of the various economic bubbles to burst but now with the continuing bull run in the stock market, there are a lot of signs that there will be a correction to the current trend of booming stocks.

This is why I'm not as excited as Trump supporters concerning the stock market boom. For one, as I have said numerous times, it's not indicative of how the whole economy is going, though I do believe overall there is a lot of upside for 2018. But the other reason is because the boom is based on artificial and shaky means. There's no real tangible value behind it.

Interested to know what you both think of the arguments presented by the economists in this article and what you think is realistically going to happen. I need to do some more reading into the current trend that is happening right now with the stock market and learn exactly what is causing this. Everything. Any insight would be greatly appreciated, especially in regards to the policies of the Federal Reserve (Deso  ).


----------



## FriedTofu

birthday_massacre said:


> Not to mention the reason we have storms like El Nino is because of climate change.
> 
> Also the 10 or 11 hottest years in history have all happened since 1998. And most of them in the past 10 years.


I think you need to read up on what is El Nino before sprouting more nonsense.


----------



## birthday_massacre

FriedTofu said:


> I think you need to read up on what is El Nino before sprouting more nonsense.


So El Nino isn't the reason for an increase in tropical storms in the Pacific? El Nino what is fucks with the weather patterns

OH also are you going to deny the 10 or 11 hottest years in history have all happened since 1998. And most of them in the past 10 years.?


----------



## FriedTofu

birthday_massacre said:


> So El Nino isn't the reason for an increase in tropical storms in the Pacific? El Nino what is fucks with the weather patterns
> 
> OH also are you going to deny the 10 or 11 hottest years in history have all happened since 1998. And most of them in the past 10 years.?


https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ninonina.html



> El Niño
> El Niño means The Little Boy, or Christ Child in Spanish. El Niño was originally recognized by fishermen off the coast of South America in the 1600s, with the appearance of unusually warm water in the Pacific Ocean. The name was chosen based on the time of year (around December) during which these warm waters events tended to occur.
> 
> The term El Niño refers to the large-scale ocean-atmosphere climate interaction linked to a periodic warming in sea surface temperatures across the central and east-central Equatorial Pacific.
> 
> Typical El Niño effects are likely to develop over North America during the upcoming winter season. Those include warmer-than-average temperatures over western and central Canada, and over the western and northern United States. Wetter-than-average conditions are likely over portions of the U.S. Gulf Coast and Florida, while drier-than-average conditions can be expected in the Ohio Valley and the Pacific Northwest. The presence of El Niño can significantly influence weather patterns, ocean conditions, and marine fisheries across large portions of the globe for an extended period of time.


You implying that climate change is causing El Nino or is the reason for an increase in tropical storms is wrong.

You seem to be mistaken that the general assumption by scientist that climate change is causing an increase in the intensity of the storms with an increase in the actual number of storms. In any case, there is no consensus on climate change effect on El Nino.


----------



## birthday_massacre

FriedTofu said:


> https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ninonina.html
> 
> 
> 
> You implying that climate change is causing El Nino or is the reason for an increase in tropical storms is wrong.
> 
> You seem to be mistaken that the general assumption by scientist that climate change is causing an increase in the intensity of the storms with an increase in the actual number of storms. In any case, there is no consensus on climate change effect on El Nino.


Oh ok, yeah, I had it backward, El Nino speeds up climate change not the other way around.


----------



## Vic Capri

Donald Trump is an idiot who masterminded an elaborate conspiracy with the Russians to steal a Presidential election that he didn't want to win.

For those keeping score at home.










- Vic


----------



## Arkham258

I've changed my mind on Trump. I'm glad he's in charge.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Vic Capri said:


> Donald Trump is an idiot who masterminded an elaborate conspiracy with the Russians to steal a Presidential election that he didn't want to win.
> 
> For those keeping score at home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


Trump is most likely going down for obstructing justice and/or money laundering two things even a moron like him could do.


----------



## Tater

draykorinee said:


> Obama was not the reason though, it was Clinton.





BlueSanta said:


> I would argue that Hilary was the greater reason for Trump becoming President.


If the Clinton vs Trump election happened in a bubble, yes. He won because she was a historically awful candidate. 

Overall though, the reason the Democrats are wiped out nationally is because of their shitty neoliberal policies. They'd already lost a thousand state seats, a majority of governorships and both houses of Congress during Obama's tenure before the 2016 election even happened. It was Obama who bankrupted the DNC with the intention of leaving it so broke that Hillary could buy it and her nomination. When she lost to Trump, it was just the cherry on top of a shit pie that had been building for quite some time.



Smarky Mark said:


> If Trump is just a puppet of the deep state then why put so much energy into tarnishing his image? How does that make any sense? If he and Obama serve the same master, then why aren't they being treated the same? To me it is obvious that there are multiple factions at work.


The Establishment wanted Hillary as president because she's a well established puppet. Trump was an unknown quantity and oligarchs don't like instability in their lackeys. Of course, Trump has done his best to prove himself to be a loyal little lapdog of the Deep State but he still puts an ugly face on all the same shit that has been happening for decades. Just because there is feuding amongst the ruling elite doesn't mean they aren't all serving the same empire.



Smarky Mark said:


> I don't believe Trump is a unifyer of people, that much is clear. That has been the biggest letdown for me overall. I am mostly a supporter of his but I wish he would make more of an effort to try and reach out to those on the other side. It would be so easy for him to silence the doubters but all he does is feed into it.
> 
> *It feels deliberate. Almost as if his 'sponsors' prefer it that way.*


Bingo!



Smarky Mark said:


> The democrats will not be running a male candidate, I am like 90% sure of that.
> 
> Without the gender card they are toast. At this point the extreme left (and Hollywood) all but 'expect' a female or ethnic minority to represent them.So much so that if a white male were selected it would probably upset a great deal of them.


The "extreme left", by definition, would either be communist (authoritarian left) or anarchist (libertarian left). There is nothing extreme leftist about the people you're describing. They are liberal authoritarian center right at best.



Smarky Mark said:


> But it doesn't look like they've learned from anything. They've doubled down since then. Both the *left news media* as well as Hollywood.


You're confusing right wing corporate MSM propaganda with left news media. If you wanna see what left news media looks like, watch Richard Wolff or Jimmy Dore some time. See if you can spot the difference between how they cover the news and how the MSM spews their garbage.



Makise Kurisu said:


> @DesolationRow @Tater
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...-3-stock-market-skeptics-see-ahead/847751001/
> 
> 
> 
> A extremely interesting and important article here which has three economists who predicted the last financial crash talking about the implications for the current stock market bubble. I remember as early as the *beginning months of last year* we were all talking about the concerns of the policies of the Federal Reserve with the stock market concerning the issue of stock buybacks. A year later and we see a record numbers for the stock market under Trump. When Obama was in office, I paid special attention to the bonds and dividends market which seemed the most likely out of the various economic bubbles to burst but now with the continuing bull run in the stock market, there are a lot of signs that there will be a correction to the current trend of booming stocks.
> 
> This is why I'm not as excited as Trump supporters concerning the stock market boom. For one, as I have said numerous times, it's not indicative of how the whole economy is going, though I do believe overall there is a lot of upside for 2018. But the other reason is because the boom is based on artificial and shaky means. There's no real tangible value behind it.
> 
> Interested to know what you both think of the arguments presented by the economists in this article and what you think is realistically going to happen. I need to do some more reading into the current trend that is happening right now with the stock market and learn exactly what is causing this. Everything. Any insight would be greatly appreciated, especially in regards to the policies of the Federal Reserve (Deso  ).


_The market is the “mother-of-all-bubbles.” And it will pop_

It's not a question of if the market will crash; only when. And when it does, it's going to make the 2007 crash look like a blip on the radar. People thought the good times would never end during the Roaring 20s either. The thing that will make this next crash so devastating for most people is the fact that the vast majority of gains have gone to the top since the last one. Most people still haven't recovered from then and likely never will. When you have an economy that is soaring for those at the very top while most of the consumer base is barely getting by and then you tank that economy, life is going to get very difficult for a lot of people. Those at the top will keep what they have and get supplemented by bailouts from a corrupt government. Everyone else is gonna be royally fucked. As bad as the last crash was, there was still a bit more wealth spread out amongst the base at that time, so there was at least a little bit of cushion for some folks to land on. That cushion is now gone. The government will be scrambling to take care of the donor base while the economy comes to a screeching halt because there won't be any spending power in the consumer base anymore.

I'm telling ya, shit's gonna get real ugly when this all goes down. Invest in pitchforks.


----------



## DesolationRow

I shall try to produce a post concerning the Federal Reserve in the near future, @Makise Kurisu. Thank you for bringing that excellent article to the table with some terrific analysis, too. 
@Mercy @CamillePunk @Beatles123 @Goku @Merry Reaper @Miss Sally @Pratchett

Steve Bannon was the "Judas" side all along. You broke our hearts, Steve. You broke our hearts. :mj2 :lol

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/08/politics/bannon-mercers-trump-document-2015/index.html



> Bannon group shopped anti-Trump document in 2015
> By Sara Murray, Evan Perez and Jeremy Diamond, CNN
> 
> Updated 3:27 PM ET, Mon January 8, 2018
> Bannon group once shopped anti-Trump document
> 
> Washington (CNN)Before Donald Trump and Steve Bannon were enemies, they were allies. And not long before that, Bannon was part of an effort to sink Trump's presidential hopes -- even if Trump didn't know it.
> 
> A conservative watchdog group led by Bannon tried to discredit Trump in the early stages of the 2016 Republican presidential primary by shopping a document alleging that Trump had ties to mobsters, according to conservative sources and a copy of the document reviewed by CNN.
> 
> The anti-Trump opposition research was the work of author Peter Schweizer for the Government Accountability Institute, which he cofounded with Bannon in 2012. It described years of alleged business connections between Trump companies and organized crime figures, allegations that have circulated among Trump detractors for years.
> 
> The New York Times reported on the document on Friday.
> 
> The GAI is backed by the Mercer family, one of the largest benefactors for Trump's campaign. Rebekah Mercer, the daughter of hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, is listed as the group's chairwoman on its website. But in 2015, when the document was produced, the Mercers were backing the campaign of one of Trump's rivals, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and Bannon had not yet joined the Trump campaign.
> 
> In early 2016, at the height of the Republican primary fight, Cruz cited possible mob ties as one reason for Trump to release his taxes. Cruz and his campaign cited published news accounts at the time as the basis for making the charge.
> 
> The document offers a glimpse at behind-the-scenes efforts by conservatives to derail Trump's presidential bid. The document is similar to opposition research produced for both Republicans and Democrats targeting Trump. The best known of those is one produced by the Washington firm Fusion GPS alleging ties between Trump and Russians, which now has helped spawn a broad investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller.
> 
> "We research political figures from all political parties and our basic premise is follow the money. That's what guides our research approach," Schweizer told CNN.
> A source familiar with GAI's work said the group conducted research on all Republican and Democratic candidates running in the 2016 election. Bannon and the Mercers were not involved in the "day to day machinations of the research," but the source said they were aware of the effort to drill down on candidates and share some of that research with news organizations.
> 
> A GOP operative provided CNN a copy of the anti-Trump document. Two sources confirmed that GAI shopped copies of the document to donors for Trump rivals during the GOP primary.
> 
> "We did not and would not share that with any candidates," the source familiar with GAI's work said. "There would be no sharing with candidates, with political operatives or anybody of that category."
> 
> Bannon declined to comment.
> 
> Bannon, Schweizer and the Mercers went on to curry favor with Trump when he became the GOP nominee and, later, the President.
> 
> Trump brought on Bannon as CEO of his presidential campaign in August 2016. But Bannon's subsequent West Wing tenure as Trump's chief political strategist was brief. He was fired in August 2017, but remained in contact with the President. Their friendship hit rocky times last week with the publication of comments by Bannon in Michael Wolff's book disparaging Trump and his family.
> 
> The President issued a blistering statement against his former political guru, saying Bannon has "lost his mind," and later slapped him with the nickname "Sloppy Steve" via Twitter.
> 
> Bannon said Sunday he regretted not responding sooner to comments attributed to him in Wolff's book that were critical of Donald Trump Jr.
> 
> It's not clear whether Trump knew of Bannon's and the Mercers' ties to the document aimed at discrediting him when they became his allies in 2016. However, the Mercers' prior support for Cruz was widely known.
> 
> Trump regularly cited some of Schweizer's other work on the campaign trail, notably that on Hillary Clinton and alleging corruption. He touted Schweizer's 2015 anti-Clinton book "Clinton Cash", which made use of research by GAI, and urged an investigation of allegations of corruption involving the Clinton Foundation.
> 
> The book's allegations formed at least part of the basis for some FBI field offices to open preliminary inquiries into the Clinton Foundation. Those investigations stalled in 2016 amid the election. But CNN reported Friday that the inquiries have been given new life and are now led by the FBI office in Little Rock, Arkansas.


----------



## Reaper

The stock market is always cyclical. This isn't anything new. It has nothing to do with the government or government policies. All government policies do is add to speculation and that's the entire stock market. Even a Company's female CEO becoming pregnant can impact the stock price of a company. It's so fluid that even the best speculators and smartest people on earth can't figure out what it'll do. Listen only to those smart economists who are willing to admit that they don't know what it'll do as opposed to those who claim to know exactly what it'll do. 

The stock market is based on gambling. You invest based on the assumption or a set of assumptions that predict growth. These assumptions are subject to changing conditions (and no fiscal policies don't impact the market as much because fiscal policies have a window of time where they become enacted therefore it mitigates any potential for a crash). Fiscal policy changes result in corrections. Corrections are not crashes. The gambling aspect is in the indeterminable outcomes. So of course it's volatile. Anyone who thinks otherwise is well ... dumb? How do you protect yourself from a stock market crash. Stay the fuck away from it and it won't impact you lol. Stock market crashes have almost a negligible impact on inflation and consumer prices. 

It's not always a bubble when it's getting ready to correct itself and not all corrections lead to crashes. 

The people who suffer are the idiots who buy late (hoping to make a profit) but then the early investors are the smart ones and they know when to sell so they start selling, which causes a panic and the idiot who invested late loses his money. The idiot who invests late is essentially that guy who goes to the casino trying to have a big pay off. That person is a gambler, he's not an investor. He's the guy seeing money where he doesn't know how to make money and puts his entire life's savings into something that he doesn't understand hoping that he'll be able to make money when he can't. 

Just like we saw with Bitcoin. The late investors into Bitcoin have lost a ton of money already. The day it went from 10,000 - 14,000 was when you were already too late to invest in Bitcoin if you already hadn't. It reached 19k and then crashed back to 14k. Anyone that invested after it reached 14k has lost a ton of money. This happens with other stocks too. As a smart guy whose inclination to be safe my personal advice is that the time for investing in the stock market is gone. Right now the market is primed for a correction. People looking at their 401k and seeing these giant numbers should already be mentally prepared to see it shrink because that is the nature of the beast. It does that. They should also be looking to move money from high risk investments to lower risk ones to mitigate the potential of any disaster that could happen. 

The people who bought late aren't smart investors. They aren't regular joes. They are no better than gamblers who put 400 bucks on a horse with a broken leg because he _believes _that that horse will win. It's faith-based investing and when you invest based on faith without doing your due diligence that's on you. 

We see this with everything. It goes up for a while and then people sell for profit. It's the nature of things. Stock market isn't an investment into your future (unless you're perfectly cool with a low risk / low return scenario and you invest in the biggest companies that offer complete financial security but don't promise high returns). It's a method to make money. Plan and simple. 

Everyone knows that their 401ks are just as likely to go down as they are to go up ... That's why people need to educate themselves about their 401ks and find out _how _they're invested. If your entire 401k is in high risk investments, of course you're going to be in trouble when the market corrects itself. Your 401k needs to be spread out between companies, in different stocks. You never put all your eggs in the same kind of stock. You need to spread it between low performers and high performers to ensure that nothing terrible happens to it. 

The thing here is that no one is FORCING anyone to put their 401k in high risk / max return stocks. You can mitigate your future by putting it in low performing but more secure stocks or even bonds. The little old lady down the street who has a financial adviser that puts her money in a movie studio by rando art student from Berkley is more likely to lose her money because rando art student's studio will fail and she will become a barista, rather than that smart college student who buys disney and AT&T stock the day he gets his first job. The little old lady however probably should have read a few books herself to learn how to be a smart investor. My wife's grandmother was that smart old lady and she survived the great recession despite being a single old lady in a townhouse with a small business. The diff was that she was smart, she didn't borrow on her mortgage, she didn't have debts and she invested in low risk investments. 

In the end, again we use the idiots who are idiots as an example of society as a whole because when idiots lose their money it makes for the perfect apocalypse / rapture panic.


----------



## Stephen90

birthday_massacre said:


> Hillion got 3 million more votes than Trump LOL
> 
> Trumps approval rating is in the low to mid 30s.
> 
> The country is moving left not right


Yet somehow Trump people think they're winning.


----------



## Stadhart02

Stephen90 said:


> Yet somehow Trump people think they're winning.


it is called a political system - in the UK; thanks to the way FPTP works, the Conservatives ALWAYS get more votes than Labour but can still lose the election


----------



## Vic Capri

> Hillion got 3 million more votes than Trump LOL


The popular vote has meant jack shit since 1824.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> The popular vote has meant jack shit since 1824.
> 
> - Vic


Nice deflecting to the point being made


----------



## Goku

As someone who has worked with stock (which isn't a qualification, anyone can do it), my opinion is that the entire market is far too derivative of conditioned buyer behaviour. There is no value addition in any part of the trade but for the initial IPO. The rest is qualified gambling. Let it crumble. Government managed money markets are the biggest hindrance to economic naturalism.

in short: fack gubment :cozy


----------



## deepelemblues

http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/08/l...ture-electoral-success/?utm_source=site-share

The American Left has conspired and is conspiring to bring in millions of illegal aliens, grant them citizenship, and win elections by their votes. It's all true

I see Tater is still on his fantasy tour of capitalism collapsing and socialism being ushered in by default :heston

Keep dreaming friend and no you aren't my friend, buddy

You'd think 100 years of socialism collapsing multiple times and capitalism not only surviving the one time it might have collapsed but going on to triumph after triumph, each a bigger triumph than the last, would turn the lightbulb on... but nope 

Just like peak oil, there are some fantasies that will never die


----------



## birthday_massacre

Trump doesn't even know the words to the national anthem FFS


----------



## Stephen90

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump doesn't even know the words to the national anthem FFS


I'm surprised he knew to put his hand on his heart this time.


----------



## virus21

> The Center For American Progress (CAP) Action Fund circulated a memo on Monday calling illegal immigrants brought here at a young age — so-called “Dreamers” — a “critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success.”
> The memo, co-authored by former Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri, was sent around to allies calling on Democrats to “refuse to offer any votes for Republican spending bills that do not offer a fix for Dreamers and instead appropriate funds to deport them.”
> President Donald Trump’s administration moved to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy in September, which former President Barack Obama instituted through executive order to keep immigrants who came here as children from being deported.
> Trump called on Congress to find a legislative fix for young immigrants, or “Dreamers,” facing deportation. House lawmakers recently put forward a bipartisan DACA compromise bill that also claims to address worries over chain migration. However, it’s unclear if the bill will pass.
> CAP Action’s memo says protecting DACA is not only a “moral imperative” for Democrats, it also key to getting votes.
> “The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” reads Palmieri’s memo, obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
> “If Democrats don’t try to do everything in their power to defend Dreamers, that will jeopardize Democrats’ electoral chances in 2018 and beyond,” reads the memo. “In short, the next few weeks will tell us a lot about the Democratic Party and its long-term electoral prospects.”
> Fox News Host Tucker Carlson confronted Center for American Progress senior fellow Henry Fernandez on the memo. CAP Action is the 501(c)(4) political group, a sister group of the think tank where Fernandez is technically employed.


http://archive.is/7OaKw#selection-1549.0-1603.230


----------



## Vic Capri

> Nice deflecting to the point being made


You can look in the mirror and keep saying popular vote all you want. It doesn't change anything.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> You can look in the mirror and keep saying popular vote all you want. It doesn't change anything.
> 
> - Vic


It just shows most of the country is against Trump, as does his terrible approval rating. You act like more people are for Trump than against him but its the exact opposite.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Vic Capri said:


> You can look in the mirror and keep saying popular vote all you want. It doesn't change anything.
> 
> - Vic


I have never seen someone defend a President as much as you defend Trump. I liked Obama but their is plenty I can call him out for. 

Do you even care for anyone who's life gets tougher under the decisions Trump as made through the people he has pushed to be judges or the EO he has signed, the tax bill he sighed into law?


----------



## Beatles123

The Hardcore Show said:


> I have never seen someone defend a President as much as you defend Trump. I liked Obama but their is plenty I can call him out for.
> 
> Do you even care for anyone who's life gets tougher under the decisions Trump as made through the people he has pushed to be judges or the EO he has signed, the tax bill he sighed into law?


There's not a single person from the oposing point of view of whatever president is in power that hasn't used this argument. You're gonna be Okay no more than I'd be Okay if your side won even though I believe your side would have done what you think trump is doing.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Beatles123 said:


> There's not a single person from the oposing point of view of whatever president is in power that hasn't used this argument. You're gonna be Okay no more than I'd be Okay if your side won even though I believe your side would have done what you think trump is doing.


This guy is not a GOP rep or senator he has been viewed as an untrustworthy businessman since the mid 1980's.


----------



## birthday_massacre

So it begins.




http://www.businessinsider.com/us-north-korea-bloody-nose-attack-2018-1

*The US is reportedly considering a 'bloody nose' attack to humiliate North Korea — here's how it could go down*

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un guides the launch of a Hwasong-12 missile in this undated photo released by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on September 16, 2017. KCNA via REUTERS

President Donald Trump is reportedly considering launching a "bloody nose" attack to batter and humiliate North Korea.
The strategy is incredibly risky and relies on Kim Jong Un correctly interpreting the attack as a limited, punitive strike, rather than the opening of the second Korean War.
If the US is determined to strike North Korea despite the risks, they have a few options, each with their own advantages and disadvantages.
But if the US did pull it off, they could put the fear in North Korea, which has killed hundreds of US and South Koreans with impunity since 1953.

As North Korea's nuclear and missile programs make leaps and bounds in advancement, the most powerful military on earth has sat just a few dozen miles away with little they could do about it — but that may be about to change.

Multiple reports out of the White House indicate an internal debate over a hot topic: Whether or not to strike North Korea.

Both The Telegraph and the Wall Street Journal have reported that President Donald Trump's administration is weighing a "bloody nose" strike to batter and humiliate North Korea as it illegally advances its weapons programs. The strategy calls for a limited strike on North Korea in response to some provocation, like a missile or nuclear test. 

The news that the Trump administration is seriously considering a strike has rattled international observers and experts on North Korea, as any attack on North Korea runs the enormous risk of starting an all out war.

If the US strikes North Korea, it then places its trust in the country's leader Kim Jong Un not to retaliate massively against South Korea or Japan. As North Korea demonstrates an ever-increasing nuclear capability, the prospect only becomes more dangerous.

But a cowed North Korea would lose enormous standing internationally and domestically, as putting the fear of repeated punishment in the belligerent country that has for decades killed US and South Korean citizens with impunity. 




Unlike the US' April 7 strike on a Syrian airbase in response to the regime's use of chemical weapons, the US couldn't just pull up a guided-missile destroyer to North Korea's coast and let 59 cruise missiles rip.

"Cruise missiles give a fair bit of warning," Justin Bronk, an expert in combat airpower at the Royal United Services Institute told Business Insider. Bronk pointed out that the missiles fly at subsonic speeds and that "North Korea is fairly careful to monitor their waters."

Using manned aircraft for an airstrike would require the US to attack North Korean air defenses, according to Bronk, or risk ending up with a " nightmare scenario where you have an aircraft down in North Korea and then you have to rescue or have them, or they're paraded around and probably executed."

"I wouldn't say there are any good options," Bronk said, but the "least risky one is trying to intercept a missile."

Bronk calls the US attempting to shoot down a North Korean missile launch a "potentially unsustainable challenge."

"It's a financially impossible position to keep pace with very cheap launches with very high-end missile interceptors," Bronk said.

The US would need a constant presence of ballistic missile defense platforms gathered off North Korea's coast. Keeping ships there would strain an already thin US Navy Pacific fleet and cost billions.

Then comes the more glaring question: Can the US even shoot down a North Korean missile launch? Even if the US had ships or even aircraft in place, shooting down a North Korean missile represents a truly dubious prospect.

In theory, the US could stop a North Korean launch, at tremendous cost, but if they miss even a single shot, the party leaving the encounter with a bloody nose would be the US.

If North Korea manages to evade a US intercept test, it grants them a "huge prestige value and a massive prestige loss for the US," according to Bronk.

Even with the best weapons systems in the world and the finest military, the US faces real danger in attempting to bloody North Korea's nose, as its unpredictable dictator may decide that he can't tolerate the humiliation associated with being beaten by his sworn enemy.


----------



## Beatles123

The Hardcore Show said:


> This guy is not a GOP rep or senator he has been viewed as an untrustworthy businessman since the mid 1980's.


YOU think that. Same way we thought Obama wasn't qualified. 

You'll be okay. Soon the shoe will be on the other foot, as is how politics always works, and we'll be the ones bitching.


----------



## virus21




----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> YOU think that. Same way we thought Obama wasn't qualified.
> 
> You'll be okay. Soon the shoe will be on the other foot, as is how politics always works, and we'll be the ones bitching.


Most people think that. The only ones who don't are blind Trump supporters


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Most people think that. The only ones who don't are blind Trump supporters


Why are you doing this again?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Why are you doing this again?


Doing what? Are people not allowed to refute your claims when you are right?


If you want to deny Trump is an untrustworthy businessman, then you need to be able to defend that its not just hardcore who thinks that and that everyone else thinks Trump is trustworthy.

You need to be able to defend your position and not complain when you are called out for it. Just look up what Trumps ghostwriter says about him or the people that Trump didn't pay for their work after it was completed


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Doing what? Are people not allowed to refute your claims when you are right?
> 
> 
> If you want to deny Trump is an untrustworthy businessman, then you need to be able to defend that its not just hardcore who thinks that and that everyone else thinks Trump is trustworthy.
> 
> You need to be able to defend your position and not complain when you are called out for it. Just look up what Trumps ghostwriter says about him or the people that Trump didn't pay for their work after it was completed


Stop direct messaging my family members. Then you can speak to me. You're the one always getting banned for what you do. I don't owe you shit.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

virus21 said:


>


Do people want Oprah as a President? All I've been hearing from the US for over a year is the loathing of celebrities...



Beatles123 said:


> Stop direct messaging my family members.


Is that legit? If so, that's creepy AS FUCK.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RavishingRickRules said:


> Do people want Oprah as a President? All I've been hearing from the US for over a year is the loathing of celebrities...


I sure as hell don't. She has zero qualification, it would make the US an even bigger joke, just having celebs running for president ..


----------



## deepelemblues

I didn't know the election was still going on what with all the repeated re-use of attacks on :trump that didn't work but are for some reason still being employed :draper2

The real and illusory clusterfuckery, this is the best presidency in a long time

Meanwhile the country keeps on keeping on with the government eating itself more and eating us less


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Stop direct messaging my family members. Then you can speak to me. You're the one always getting banned for what you do. I don't owe you shit.


WTF are you talking about direct messaging your family members? I am not doing any of that. Stop making shit up

I dont even know your family members nor do I care to




RavishingRickRules said:


> Is that legit? If so, that's creepy AS FUCK.


No he is making it up


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> WTF are you talking about direct messaging your family members? I am not doing any of that. Stop making shit up
> 
> I dont even know your family members nor do I care to


mhm. Right. You're just lucky you and your ghost negs and your attempts to slander me don't matter. I've already told you to leave me alone. I don't want to take this any further. Why did you even take me off ignore?


----------



## deepelemblues

RavishingRickRules said:


> Do people want Oprah as a President? All I've been hearing from the US for over a year is the loathing of celebrities...


If she wants to run, people would give her a chance even if :trump had not happened but I don't think people really want her right now

That could change if a well-run Oprah campaign happened though. I mean not many people really wanted :trump at first but he ran an excellent campaign and look what happened :draper2

I get the feeling that her running is definitely possible but I think she hasn't made that decision. Or even made the decision that she's serious about making a serious decision on the possibility

There's been quotes and stories published today sourced from people close to her and allegedly close to her that she either isn't really interested, or she hasn't made a decision and is not close to making a decision 

:trump vs. Oprah would be hilarious though they both know and like each other it would be so great them having a lovefest and acting nice until eventually one of them or one of their surrogates would let loose and the whole campaign would go nuclear in about 45 minutes


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> mhm. Right. You're just lucky you and your ghost negs and your attempts to slander me don't matter. I've already told you to leave me alone. I don't want to take this any further. Why did you even take me off ignore?


So you are going to make things up because you can't defend your position. You have sunken to a new low

And you can't tell someone to not apply to your posts. If you don't like it put me on ignoring


----------



## Stephen90

RavishingRickRules said:


> Do people want Oprah as a President? All I've been hearing from the US for over a year is the loathing of celebrities...
> 
> 
> 
> Is that legit? If so, that's creepy AS FUCK.


Bernie Sanders isn't a realistic president but Oprah is. Yeah I don't get that either.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> So you are going to make things up because you can't defend your position. You have sunken to a new low


Im not making it up. I've told you to stop for months.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Im not making it up. I've told you to stop for months.


what family member of yours am I direct messaging? Are you really going to claim I am contacting a family member off of this forum?

that is a pretty big allegation.


----------



## virus21

RavishingRickRules said:


> Do people want Oprah as a President? All I've been hearing from the US for over a year is the loathing of celebrities...
> 
> 
> 
> .


Dumb ass celebs do. Which is why we do loath them.


----------



## Beatles123

Im not trying to break any rules of this thread and im not trying to take this further than it has to. Just put me back on ignore the way you had me and let me live my life and nothing has to come of this.


----------



## deepelemblues

Stephen90 said:


> Bernie Sanders isn't a realistic president but Oprah is. Yeah I don't get that either.


Everybody knows what Bernie would try to do and what kind of people he would fill his government with. Unpleasant people like himself who yell at red clouds. People don't know what Oprah would try to do or who would be in the government trying to help her do it. Oprah still possesses the ability to be imagined as moderate

It's not about your opinion of what the level of public acceptance of angry unpleasant socialists in high office should be, it's about what that level of acceptability to the public actually is. He couldn't run a campaign capable of beating one of the most politically inept, generally corrupt politicians in the history of the Republic. Why are you so enamored of the incompetent buffoon that is Bernie Sanders? Find a more competent socialist to hang your hat on geez


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Im not trying to break any rules of this thread and im not trying to take this further than it has to. Just put me back on ignore the way you had me and let me live my life and nothing has to come of this.


You made the claim I am contacting your family members directly, which is not true. So are you going to admit you lied about that? You can't make that claim to try and discredit me, then just drop it.

That is a serious offense.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Bernie Sanders is a socialist? I always pegged him more as a centrist/centre-left from all the bajillions of videos people I know in the US share of him.


----------



## Stephen90

deepelemblues said:


> Everybody knows what Bernie would try to do and what kind of people he would fill his government with. Unpleasant people like himself who yell at red clouds. People don't know what Oprah would try to do or who would be in the government trying to help her do it. Oprah still possesses the ability to be imagined as moderate
> 
> It's not about your opinion of what the level of public acceptance of angry unpleasant socialists in high office should be, it's about what that level of acceptability to the public actually is. He couldn't run a campaign capable of beating one of the most politically inept, generally corrupt politicians in the history of the Republic. Why are you so enamored of the incompetent buffoon that is Bernie Sanders? Find a more competent socialist to hang your hat on geez


Oprah would be controlled by corporate democrats. Oprah has no experience in politics Bernie does.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RavishingRickRules said:


> Bernie Sanders is a socialist? I always pegged him more as a centrist/centre-left from all the bajillions of videos people I know in the US share of him.


He is a Democratic Socialist.


----------



## deepelemblues

Stephen90 said:


> Oprah would be controlled by corporate democrats. Oprah has no experience in politics Bernie does.


Guess who President Oprah would have at her right hand, held not-quite behind her back

A certain Mr. Barack Obama

Ain't nobody getting some backroom political intrigue dealing shit advantage on President Oprah with Barack watching her back and he would be

Look man Bernie is old and he's not taking America to the promised land 

He served his purpose, if he had any vision he'd find someone to succeed him and get that person ready. Doesn't look like he's doing that

It's all moot anyway if economic growth is maintained at current levels ain't nobody gonna be interested in socialism for a bit


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> Guess who President Oprah would have at her right hand, held not-quite behind her back
> 
> A certain Mr. Barack Obama
> 
> Ain't nobody getting some backroom political intrigue dealing shit advantage on President Oprah with Barack watching her back and he would be
> 
> Look man Bernie is old and he's not taking America to the promised land
> 
> He served his purpose, if he had any vision he'd find someone to succeed him and get that person ready. Doesn't look like he's doing that
> 
> It's all moot anyway if economic growth is maintained at current levels ain't nobody gonna be interested in socialism for a bit


Guess who wanted Oprah for his VP


----------



## RavishingRickRules

birthday_massacre said:


> He is a Democratic Socialist.


yeah just looked him up and found he's of a similar stance to the Nordic Model, soft-socialism with low regulation capitalism thrown in. Main issue is astronomically high taxes I guess, but hardly the extreme leftist he's painted to be. I'd say he'd sit centre-left in most places.


----------



## virus21




----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> *Guess who President Oprah would have at her right hand, held not-quite behind her back
> 
> A certain Mr. Barack Obama
> 
> Ain't nobody getting some backroom political intrigue dealing shit advantage on President Oprah with Barack watching her back and he would be*


Racist - not all black people stick together by default you know, Adolph.

And Big deal, as if every Prez since day dot hasn't had a whole team of advisers holding their hand and watching their back. Maybe not former Presidents but who cares if it did happen if it's GOOD FOR THE USA.

With Trump, his Yes-Staff are lucky if they last long enough before they've had enough of his buffonery; or they realise they're never going to be as important as the cast of Fox n Friends.


----------



## birthday_massacre

yeahbaby! said:


> Racist - not all black people stick together by default you know, Adolph.
> 
> And Big deal, as if every Prez since day dot hasn't had a whole team of advisers holding their hand and watching their back. Maybe not former Presidents but who cares if it did happen if it's GOOD FOR THE USA.
> 
> With Trump, his Yes-Staff are lucky if they last long enough before they've had enough of his buffonery; or they realise they're never going to be as important as the cast of Fox n Friends.


The biggest difference between Oprah and Trump would be if she was ever President and someone told her that her idea was not good, she would probably listen and not fire them like Trump does when they dont tell him what he wants to hear.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

I always find it really odd coming here and seeing Obama portrayed as some uber-villain. I never see that anywhere else, he seems like a fairly well-loved character all told. In fact this place comes across like Bizarro world in general because everyone worships Trump and sees Obama as some big evil where literally everywhere else I'm active online the entire reverse is true. I'm sure it's a policy thing because I'm not really that bothered by US politics to read that deep into that side of things but out of the two Obama is by far the more charismatic individual, and a much better public speaker. I never really heard an Obama speech and thought "wow this guy really doesn't seem to have a clue what he's saying, is he even making a point here?" Just found it interesting that this forum seems to have the entire opposite opinion to almost anybody else I've interacted with lol.


----------



## yeahbaby!

RavishingRickRules said:


> I always find it really odd coming here and seeing Obama portrayed as some uber-villain. I never see that anywhere else, he seems like a fairly well-loved character all told. In fact this place comes across like Bizarro world in general because everyone worships Trump and sees Obama as some big evil where literally everywhere else I'm active online the entire reverse is true. I'm sure it's a policy thing because I'm not really that bothered by US politics to read that deep into that side of things but out of the two Obama is by far the more charismatic individual, and a much better public speaker. I never really heard an Obama speech and thought "wow this guy really doesn't seem to have a clue what he's saying, is he even making a point here?" Just found it interesting that this forum seems to have the entire opposite opinion to almost anybody else I've interacted with lol.


I've never hated Obama, but then I'm a known leftie scum-of-the-earth in these parts so you're probably not talking about me anyway.

I think the attitude towards Obama comes partly from what you said, he was so well spoken, so charismatic, could be funny and cool etc, but underneath the sheen politically he was still an establishment President who bowed down to Corp. America, bombed the fuck out of the world while selling weapons to the other half - which appeared to be counter to his peace loving exterior.

So some peeps resent him because he presented such a cool and smart exterior, yet was pretty much a same old same old President in the end for the reasons I mentioned above - plus he introduced a form of public healthcare which appears to be akin to sacrificing babies in a satanic ritual according to Conservatives for some reason.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RavishingRickRules said:


> I always find it really odd coming here and seeing Obama portrayed as some uber-villain. I never see that anywhere else, he seems like a fairly well-loved character all told. In fact this place comes across like Bizarro world in general because everyone worships Trump and sees Obama as some big evil where literally everywhere else I'm active online the entire reverse is true. I'm sure it's a policy thing because I'm not really that bothered by US politics to read that deep into that side of things but out of the two Obama is by far the more charismatic individual, and a much better public speaker. I never really heard an Obama speech and thought "wow this guy really doesn't seem to have a clue what he's saying, is he even making a point here?" Just found it interesting that this forum seems to have the entire opposite opinion to almost anybody else I've interacted with lol.


The only knock I have on Obama is he was not a true progressive like he claimed to be.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

yeahbaby! said:


> I've never hated Obama, but then I'm a known leftie scum-of-the-earth in these parts so you're probably not talking about me anyway.
> 
> I think the attitude towards Obama comes partly from what you said, he was so well spoken, so charismatic, could be funny and cool etc, but underneath the sheen politically he was still an establishment President who bowed down to Corp. America, bombed the fuck out of the world while selling weapons to the other half - which appeared to be counter to his peace loving exterior.
> 
> So some peeps resent him because he presented such a cool and smart exterior, yet was pretty much a same old same old President in the end for the reasons I mentioned above - plus he introduced a form of public healthcare which appears to be akin to sacrificing babies in a satanic ritual according to Conservatives for some reason.


Fair enough I guess. The healthcare thing I'm not convinced on, I saw far too many Trump posters going apeshit when they found out they were losing their healthcare because they didn't have a clue what "Obamacare" really was. I'd say that last one is more about a stupid electorate being easily lead by their leaders lmao.


----------



## FriedTofu

Steve Bannon is out of even Breitbart. :yes


----------



## birthday_massacre

FriedTofu said:


> Steve Bannon is out of even Breitbart. :yes


LOL good to see him fall. Next up is Trump then Sessions


----------



## Pratchett

virus21 said:


>


There is also this...


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> Racist - not all black people stick together by default you know, Adolph.
> 
> And Big deal, as if every Prez since day dot hasn't had a whole team of advisers holding their hand and watching their back. Maybe not former Presidents but who cares if it did happen if it's GOOD FOR THE USA.
> 
> With Trump, his Yes-Staff are lucky if they last long enough before they've had enough of his buffonery; or they realise they're never going to be as important as the cast of Fox n Friends.


It's not my fault if you're not informed enough about American politics to know what I'm talking about silly

You don't try to fuck over or fuck with Barack Obama if you're in the mainstream political Left in this country. Simple as that. He is King of Democrats any time he feels like acting like he is. Who are these 'corporate Democrats' or Democrat-friendly companies and political organizations or anybody of the mainstream American Left that has the balls or even the inclination to try to cross Barack Obama? They are nobody, that's who. The Clintons and their machine are done. All that's left is hating :trump, and Barack Obama. He's got the cachet, he's got the connections, he's still got the organization. That's not going to change for some time to come. He steps into the arena, even behind the scenes, to actively safeguard a President Oprah, then ain't nobody on the Left going to control President Oprah. Except, perhaps, Barack Obama. 



RavishingRickRules said:


> I always find it really odd coming here and seeing Obama portrayed as some uber-villain. I never see that anywhere else, he seems like a fairly well-loved character all told. In fact this place comes across like Bizarro world in general because everyone worships Trump and sees Obama as some big evil where literally everywhere else I'm active online the entire reverse is true. I'm sure it's a policy thing because I'm not really that bothered by US politics to read that deep into that side of things but out of the two Obama is by far the more charismatic individual, and a much better public speaker. I never really heard an Obama speech and thought "wow this guy really doesn't seem to have a clue what he's saying, is he even making a point here?" Just found it interesting that this forum seems to have the entire opposite opinion to almost anybody else I've interacted with lol.


Is that you Pauline Kael, are we back in 1972 or something

Obama is the main reason :trump is President. That goes to show just how charismatic and how much of a clue Obama had. You've really got something going if you can get a man like :trump elected to the presidency, but it isn't something laudatory 

Understanding that half the country actually didn't adhere to slobbering Obama's balls 24/7, and not blithely dismissing that nonadherence as the great unwasheds' stupidity and racism would have made beating :trump much more likely, but it's a little bit late for that now isn't it


----------



## virus21

> Alabama will be the site of a new $1.6 billion Toyota Motor Corp and Mazda Motor Corp auto plant, a victory for President Donald Trump who had prodded manufacturers to build new U.S. facilities and threatened tariffs on foreign production, sources said on Tuesday.
> The plant, which will employ up to 4,000 people and produce about 300,000 vehicles a year, will be located in Huntsville, Alabama, and is a boon for the state, where Toyota has a large engine plant and an existing network of automotive suppliers.
> A formal announcement by company and state officials is expected on Wednesday in Montgomery, sources briefed on the matter said.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/exclusive-toyota-mazda-to-build-dollar16-billion-plant-in-alabama-sources/ar-BBIb114?OCID=ansmsnnews11


----------



## yeahbaby!

virus21 said:


> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/exclusive-toyota-mazda-to-build-dollar16-billion-plant-in-alabama-sources/ar-BBIb114?OCID=ansmsnnews11


A victory for the new Democratic Moore-Defeating warrior of Alabama!


----------



## RavishingRickRules

deepelemblues said:


> Is that you Pauline Kael, are we back in 1972 or something
> 
> Obama is the main reason :trump is President. That goes to show just how charismatic and how much of a clue Obama had. You've really got something going if you can get a man like :trump elected to the presidency, but it isn't something laudatory
> 
> Understanding that half the country actually didn't adhere to slobbering Obama's balls 24/7, and not blithely dismissing that nonadherence as the great unwasheds' stupidity and racism would have made beating :trump much more likely, but it's a little bit late for that now isn't it


Or you know, you could read what I actually wrote and stop trying to drag me into your paranoid delusions? Like it or dislike it, the public perception of Obama for the most part is far more favourable than Trump. My comment was regarding what I observe outside of this forum, if you have trouble dealing with that it's really not my problem.


----------



## Tater

deepelemblues said:


> http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/08/l...ture-electoral-success/?utm_source=site-share
> 
> The American Left has conspired and is conspiring to bring in millions of illegal aliens, grant them citizenship, and win elections by their votes. It's all true
> 
> I see Tater is still on his fantasy tour of capitalism collapsing and socialism being ushered in by default :heston
> 
> Keep dreaming friend and no you aren't my friend, buddy
> 
> You'd think 100 years of socialism collapsing multiple times and capitalism not only surviving the one time it might have collapsed but going on to triumph after triumph, each a bigger triumph than the last, would turn the lightbulb on... but nope
> 
> Just like peak oil, there are some fantasies that will never die


Have the cojones to tag me when you invoke my name, boy.

Also,

:ha



RavishingRickRules said:


> Bernie Sanders is a socialist? I always pegged him more as a centrist/centre-left from all the bajillions of videos people I know in the US share of him.


Bernie calls himself a democratic socialist. His policies are middle of the road centrist social democrat. It's only amongst brainwashed American sheep that he gets called a far left socialist. You can thank decades of corporate MSM propaganda for that.



RavishingRickRules said:


> I always find it really odd coming here and seeing Obama portrayed as some uber-villain. I never see that anywhere else, he seems like a fairly well-loved character all told. In fact this place comes across like Bizarro world in general because everyone worships Trump and sees Obama as some big evil where literally everywhere else I'm active online the entire reverse is true. I'm sure it's a policy thing because I'm not really that bothered by US politics to read that deep into that side of things but out of the two Obama is by far the more charismatic individual, and a much better public speaker. I never really heard an Obama speech and thought "wow this guy really doesn't seem to have a clue what he's saying, is he even making a point here?" Just found it interesting that this forum seems to have the entire opposite opinion to almost anybody else I've interacted with lol.


I consider *both* to be uber-villains.

:saul


----------



## Reaper

Love how a leftist anarchist is destroyed by a Republican in this conversation :lmao 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/950927553153282048
"If you don't trust the government, then don't vote to make it bigger." Words that I can always get behind - even if they come from a republican. 

There's room for left libertarianism in this world, but if you've got shitheads using the word and haven't actually thought through their position clearly, this is what they end up sounding like.



RavishingRickRules said:


> Or you know, you could read what I actually wrote and stop trying to drag me into your paranoid delusions? Like it or dislike it, the public perception of Obama for the most part is far more favourable than Trump. My comment was regarding what I observe outside of this forum, if you have trouble dealing with that it's really not my problem.


Public perception of Kim Kong Un is very favorable in North Korea. It means jack all. 

Public perception of the Pope is very favorable amongst Catholics. It means jack all. 

Public perception of Charles Manson was very favorable amongst his band of followers. It means jack all. 

This is why people need to criticize policies. Not people.

---------

http://www.foreigndesknews.com/news...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer



> South Korea’s Moon says Trump deserves ‘big’ credit for North Korea talks
> 
> SEOUL (Reuters) - *South Korean President Moon Jae-in credited U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday for helping to spark the first inter-Korean talks in more than two years, and warned that Pyongyang would face stronger sanctions if provocations continued.*
> 
> The talks were held on Tuesday on the South Korean side of the demilitarized zone, which has divided the two Koreas since 1953, after a prolonged period of tension on the Korean peninsula over the North's missile and nuclear programs.
> 
> North Korea ramped up its missile launches last year and also conducted its sixth and most powerful nuclear test, resulting in some of the strongest international sanctions yet.
> 
> The latest sanctions sought to drastically cut the North's access to refined petroleum imports and earnings from workers abroad. Pyongyang called the steps an "act of war".
> 
> Seoul and Pyongyang agreed at Tuesday's talks, the first since December 2015, to resolve all problems between them through dialogue and also to revive military consultations so that accidental conflict could be averted.
> 
> *"I think President Trump deserves big credit for bringing about the inter-Korean talks, I want to show my gratitude," Moon told reporters at his New Year's news conference. "It could be a resulting work of the U.S.-led sanctions and pressure."
> *
> Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un exchanged threats and insults over the past year, raising fears of a new war on the peninsula. South Korea and the United States are technically still at war with the North after the 1950-53 Korean conflict ended with a truce, not a peace treaty.
> 
> *Washington had raised concerns that the overtures by North Korea could drive a wedge between it and Seoul, but Moon said his government did not differ with the United States over how to respond to the threats posed by Pyongyang.
> *
> "This initial round of talks is for the improvement of relations between North and South Korea. Our task going forward is to draw North Korea to talks aimed at the denuclearization of the North," Moon said. "(It's) our basic stance that will never be given up."
> 
> Moon said he was open to meeting North Korea's leader at any time to improve bilateral ties, and if the conditions were right and "certain achievements are guaranteed".
> 
> "The purpose of it shouldn’t be talks for the sake of talks," he said.
> 
> However, Pyongyang said it would not discuss its nuclear weapons with Seoul because they were only aimed at the United States, not its "brethren" in South Korea, nor Russia or China, showing that a diplomatic breakthrough remained far off.
> 
> North Korea's Rodong Sinmun newspaper said all problems would be resolved through efforts by the Korean people alone.
> 
> "If the North and South abandon external forces and cooperate together, we will be able to fully solve all problems to match our people's needs and our joint prosperity," it said.
> 
> Washington still welcomed Tuesday's talks as a first step toward solving the North Korean nuclear crisis. The U.S. State Department said it would be interested in joining future talks, with the aim of denuclearizing the North.
> 
> The United States, which still has 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea, initially responded coolly to the idea of inter-Korean meetings. Trump later called them "a good thing" and said he would be willing to speak to Kim.
> 
> Lee Woo-young, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul, said it was wise of Moon to praise Trump, his sanctions and pressure campaign.
> 
> "By doing that, he can help the U.S. build logic for moving toward negotiations and turning around the state of affairs in the future, so when they were ready to talk to the North, they can say the North came out of isolation because the sanctions were effective."
> 
> The United States and Canada are set to host a conference of about 20 foreign ministers on Jan. 16 in Vancouver to discuss North Korea, without the participation of China, Pyongyang's sole major ally and biggest trade partner.
> 
> China would not attend the meeting and is resolutely opposed to it, said foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang.
> 
> "It will only create divisions within the international community and harm joint efforts to appropriately resolve the Korean peninsula nuclear issue," he told a regular briefing on Wednesday.


----------



## virus21

> WASHINGTON, Jan 10 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump said on Wednesday his primary concern with the Paris climate accord was that it treated the United States unfairly and that if a better deal could be reached, Washington might be persuaded to rejoin the agreement.
> "It treated the United States very unfairly," Trump said during a news conference with Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg.
> He said he had no problem with agreeing to a climate deal but the Paris accord was "a bad deal. So we could conceivably go back in."
> (Reporting by Jeff Mason; Writing by David Alexander)


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-says-fairer-deal-might-coax-us-back-into-the-paris-climate-accord/ar-BBIdpS1?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp&ffid=gz


----------



## birthday_massacre

virus21 said:


> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-says-fairer-deal-might-coax-us-back-into-the-paris-climate-accord/ar-BBIdpS1?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp&ffid=gz


its things like this that show how stupid and uninformed Trump is. The reason the US has to pay more is because they are one of the top CO2 emitters. Of could they should have to pay more


----------



## virus21




----------



## Vic Capri

The haters are going into panic mode that Trump might get The Wall approved to be improved. :lol

- Vic


----------



## RavishingRickRules

birthday_massacre said:


> its things like this that show how stupid and uninformed Trump is. The reason the US has to pay more is because they are one of the top CO2 emitters. Of could they should have to pay more


You have a point, but I will also add that you need to acknowledge that the man is unequivocally saying he's open to renegotiation for a better deal. That's not "we're walking away and fuck the environment" that's "I didn't like the deal, so let's have another look and try to make a better one." I dislike Trump massively (and I don't think I've made a secret of that,) but you have to see the positive here in that he's willing to talk about it. If this leads to a new climate deal that helps protect the environment whilst also appeasing those on the right who're not so keen on the idea by negotiating a more favourable one, that's a win, right?


----------



## Reaper

Name one problem that has been solved by tossing money at it without creating other problems that had the solution "let's toss money at this too!" without creating more problems that had a solution of ... You guessed it .. let's toss money at it and it'll fix it .. without creating more problems ... With the solution ... 

I'm bored already.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Vic Capri said:


> The haters are going into panic mode that Trump might get The Wall approved to be improved. :lol
> 
> - Vic


The Wall might get approved.... to be improved.... que? 

The wall is never getting made, friend. It's a black hole that will suck money and resources down the drain forever. Never ever. I don't care if it starts even, it will never be finished.


----------



## virus21

Vic Capri said:


> The haters are going into panic mode that Trump might get The Wall approved to be improved. :lol
> 
> - Vic


At this point, most of haters come off more unstable than him. Trump Derangement Syndrome is not a mental illness, but something that brings them out in the open.

I will say, it would be more economic of they just use drone stations to monitor the border


----------



## birthday_massacre

RavishingRickRules said:


> You have a point, but I will also add that you need to acknowledge that the man is unequivocally saying he's open to renegotiation for a better deal. That's not "we're walking away and fuck the environment" that's "I didn't like the deal, so let's have another look and try to make a better one." I dislike Trump massively (and I don't think I've made a secret of that,) but you have to see the positive here in that he's willing to talk about it. If this leads to a new climate deal that helps protect the environment whilst also appeasing those on the right who're not so keen on the idea by negotiating a more favourable one, that's a win, right?


Yeah that is why Trump is taking all of the climate change info off of the EPA and other Govt webpages.

Trump thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax , not to mention all the regulations he has repealed so companies can pollute again.

Not sure how any of that helps the environment.


----------



## virus21

> Catalyzed by efforts from leftists, including actresses Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin, to raise the minimum wage but in the process eliminate the tip credit, some full-service restaurant workers have struck back, announcing the creation of Restaurant Workers of America (RWA), which is devoted to preserving restaurant servers' tip income.
> 
> The creation of RWA was triggered in 2017 when thousands of restaurant servers organized in Maine to restore the state's tip credit after it had been terminated as part of a minimum wage ballot measure. RWA is battling an organization called the Restaurant Opportunities Center, which wants to eliminate tipping.
> 
> AS RWA explains on their website:
> 
> Federal law and most states allow tipped workers to be paid a lower minimum wage, as long as they earn at least the full minimum wage when tips are included. (The difference between the tipped wage and the full minimum wage is called the "tip credit.") Service workers are guaranteed to earn at least the minimum wage per hour during any pay period; if tips plus the tipped wage does not equal at least the current minimum wage, then businesses are legally required to make up that amount. With the current model, most servers and bartenders make well above the minimum wage when their tips are included.
> 
> The capacity to utilize the tip credit permits owners to keep labor costs down, thus making it cheaper for people to eat out. A study released in April 2017, coauthored by professor Michael Luca of Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca of Mathematica Policy Research, found that for every dollar the minimum wage goes up, the chance of a median restaurant closing increases as much as 14%.
> 
> Joshua Chaisson, one of the founding members of RWA, noted that restaurant workers do better when the tip credit is left in place. “When organizations like ROC and its spokespeople advocate for 'One Fair Wage,' what it means is they want everyone working for the same wage: The minimum wage. … People who don’t work in the industry are attempting to speak for servers. Maybe they should start by speaking to us. Then they would understand that we like what we do, and we wouldn’t do it for minimum wage,” he wrote


https://www.dailywire.com/news/25632/fighting-minimum-wage-activists-restaurant-workers-hank-berrien


----------



## RavishingRickRules

birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah that is why Trump is taking all of the climate change info off of the EPA and other Govt webpages.
> 
> Trump thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax , not to mention all the regulations he has repealed so companies can pollute again.
> 
> Not sure how any of that helps the environment.


Irrelevant, address the point I made and stop playing the baby games, I don't give enough of a fuck about all this shit to get ensnared by the eternal war you guys have here. No straw men, no bullshit, respond to what was posted or shut the fuck up because it's worthless. You're getting no points across and making yourself look like a crazy person when you quote something and talk about something totally different.


----------



## virus21

> The University of California-San Diego is now embroiled in a personal injury lawsuit after an election protest gone wrong.
> 
> Mariana Flores, a sophomore at UCSD, was demonstrating against Donald Trump’s victory on a busy San Diego freeway when a vehicle hit her. The accident crushed her pelvis, fractured her leg, and caused other serious injuries, reported The Guardian campus newspaper.
> 
> Flores, in her suit filed in late November, partly blames campus officials for her injury, arguing they should have stopped the protest before it got dangerous, according to news reports.
> 
> Flores’ attorney did not respond to requests from The College Fix seeking comment. A UC San Diego spokesperson said that the university could not comment on pending litigation.
> 
> The Nov. 2016 protest had began at “Library Walk” and journeyed through campus. Next, demonstrators ended up on the I-5, a very large and busy eight-laned freeway that cuts through San Diego.
> 
> The car that stuck Flores had gotten around an emergency vehicle that had been attempting to block traffic so authorities could shut down the freeway, according to the Los Angeles Times.
> 
> In an interview with The Guardian, Gene Sullivan, Flores’s lawyer, asserted that the university planned, organized and knew the protest was happening for hours and did nothing to stop it.
> 
> “According to Sullivan, not doing anything and failing to act is legally the same thing as supporting the protest,” the newspaper reported. “Sullivan further alleged that the protest was encouraged by people in positions of authority at the university, and that ‘if anyone that is in authority with the university – a [Residential Advisor] – says ‘let’s go,’ the university would be responsible.’”
> 
> The complaint also lists the University of California Regents, the city and county of San Diego, the state of California, and the driver of the vehicle as defendants in the lawsuit.
> 
> When asked about the lawsuit by the Los Angeles Times, Sullivan said “We think it’s a case of shared responsibility of the school, Maria and the driver, and we’re not saying that anybody is without fault or fault-free. We think other people bear some responsibility as well.”
> 
> In addition, Sullivan explained that if any person representing the university, even if that person is simply a Residential Advisor, encouraged students to go to the protest, then the university would bear responsibility.
> 
> While Sullivan admits that Flores is partially responsible for her injuries, he claims that, under the doctrine of comparative responsibility, the jury will get to decide what percentage of the injury is the fault of the plaintiff and what percentage of the injury is the fault of the defendant. Damages will be levied based on percentage.
> 
> The lawsuit seeks attorneys’ fees, court costs, and unspecified damages, the Times reports.


https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/40580/
And this is what gets into Universities these days


----------



## birthday_massacre

RavishingRickRules said:


> Irrelevant, address the point I made and stop playing the baby games, I don't give enough of a fuck about all this shit to get ensnared by the eternal war you guys have here. No straw men, no bullshit, respond to what was posted or shut the fuck up because it's worthless. You're getting no points across and making yourself look like a crazy person when you quote something and talk about something totally different.


It's not irrelevant. I addressed your point. You claimed Trump and was walking away and saying fuck the environment and I showed you how he is doing exactly that.


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> You have a point, but I will also add that you need to acknowledge that the man is unequivocally saying he's open to renegotiation for a better deal. That's not "we're walking away and fuck the environment" that's "I didn't like the deal, so let's have another look and try to make a better one." I dislike Trump massively (and I don't think I've made a secret of that,) but you have to see the positive here in that he's willing to talk about it. If this leads to a new climate deal that helps protect the environment whilst also appeasing those on the right who're not so keen on the idea by negotiating a more favourable one, that's a win, right?


The initial Paris Agreement was already a fuck the environment lip service deal to begin with. Trump renegotiating a weaker deal or even sticking with the original deal will still leave us with a fucked environment.


----------



## birthday_massacre

If he does this and does not renogiate another NAFTA, I can actually say Trump did something good.



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ed-trump-will-pull-out-of-nafta-idUSKBN1EZ2K4

*Exclusive: Canada increasingly convinced Trump will pull out of NAFTA*


LONDON, Ontario (Reuters) - Canada is increasingly convinced that President Donald Trump will soon announce the United States intends to pull out of NAFTA, two government sources said on Wednesday, sending the Canadian and Mexican currencies lower and hurting stocks.

he comments cast further doubt on prospects for talks to modernize the trilateral North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which Trump has repeatedly threatened to abandon unless major changes are made.

Officials are due to hold a sixth and penultimate round of negotiations in Montreal from Jan. 23-28 as time runs out to bridge major differences.

SPONSORED

It is not certain the United States would quit NAFTA even if Trump gave the required six months’ notice, since he is not obliged to act once the deadline runs out. Notice of withdrawal could also raise opposition in Congress.

One of the Canadian government sources also said later it was not certain that Trump would move against the treaty and that Ottawa was prepared for many scenarios.

But even the prospect of potential damage to the three nations’ integrated economies sparked market concerns.

Wall Street’s major stock indexes ended lower on Wednesday, partly due to those worries. [.N]

The Canadian dollar weakened to its lowest this year against the greenback on Wednesday as the NAFTA concerns tempered bets that the Bank of Canada will raise interest rates next week.

Mike Archibald, associate portfolio manager at AGF Investments in Toronto, cited “a tremendous amount of uncertainty on the horizon”.

Canadian government bond prices rose across the yield curve and railway, pipeline and other trade-sensitive stocks weighed on the country’s main index.

Mexico’s currency also weakened and stocks extended losses. The S&P/BM IPC stock index fell about 1.8 percent.

“There’s been chatter in the market going into this week that it was coming up,” Quincy Krosby, chief market strategist at Prudential Financial in Newark, New Jersey.

Royal Bank of Canada’s Chief Executive Dave McKay said on Tuesday he believed there was now a greater chance that NAFTA could be scrapped.

“The government is increasingly sure about this ... it is now planning for Trump to announce a withdrawal,” one of the sources, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the situation, said.

Separately, a U.S. source close to the White House quoted Trump as saying “I want out” as the talks drag on with little sign of progress.

A White House spokesman said “there has been no change in the president’s position on NAFTA”.

ALARMED

Trump has long called the 1994 treaty a bad deal that hurts American workers. His negotiating team has set proposals that have alarmed their Canadian and Mexican counterparts.

Among the most divisive are plans to establish rules of origin for NAFTA goods that would set minimum levels of U.S. content for autos, a sunset clause that would terminate the trade deal if it is not renegotiated every five years, and ending the so-called Chapter 19 dispute mechanism.

The head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said that economic gains made through tax cuts and the lifting of business regulations would be undone if the U.S. canceled trade deals, including NAFTA.

General Motors Co shares fell 2.4 percent. The Detroit automaker has 14 manufacturing facilities in Mexico, including one that builds large pickup trucks, among the automaker’s most profitable vehicles. Trucks built there could be subject to a 25 percent tariff if the U.S. exits NAFTA.

”We have always said that this is a possibility,” a Mexican government source with knowledge of the talks told Reuters, referring to the prospect of a U.S. withdrawal.

Mexico’s Economy Ministry declined to comment on the report, a ministry spokesman said.

Scott Minerd, Global Chief Investment Officer at Guggenheim Partners, said “if Trump were to announce a NAFTA exit, the stock market would probably pull back by 5 percent or so before advancing to new highs. Most likely the Canadians are reacting to the President’s negotiating posture.”

The Canadian sources said that if Trump did announce the United States was pulling out, Canada would stay at the table, since the talks would continue at a lower level. Mexico has previously said it would walk away if Trump formally announced Washington intended to quit.

Canadian officials say if Trump does announce a U.S. withdrawal, it could be a negotiating tactic designed to win concessions. The talks are scheduled to wrap up by the end of March.

The news broke as the cabinet of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau began gathering in the southwestern Ontario town of London ahead of a scheduled two-day meeting where NAFTA is one of the items on the agenda.

A spokesman for Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland - in overall charge of U.S.-Canada relations and the NAFTA file - was not immediately available for comment.

Separately, Canada launched a wide-ranging trade complaint against the United States, the World Trade Organization said on Wednesday, in a dispute that Washington said would damage Canada’s own interests and play into China’s hands.

Additional reporting by Steve Holland in Washington, Joe White in Detroit, Caroline Valetkevitch and Jennifer Ablan in New York, Fergal Smith and Alastair Sharp in Toronto and Ana Isabel Martinez and Dave Graham in Mexico City; Editing by Susan Thomas
Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Vic Capri

The AP said:


> President Trump deserves “big credit” for kicking off the first talks between Pyongyang and Seoul in more than two years, South Korean President Moon Jae-in said Wednesday.


Trump's Big Stick foreign policy paid off.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

The environment is fine and going to be fine. 

Anyways, this is a developing story out of Missouri with a good take on the issue of deviancy added in:


> *Missouri Governor Greitens Accused Of Blindfolding Mistress, Photographing Her Naked, And Blackmailing Her. What Happened To Our Politicians?
> *
> Republican gubernatorial candidate Eric Greitens and wife Sheena hold their children, Jacob (left) and Joshua, while addressing the media after casting their vote on Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2016. Cristina M. Fletes/St. Louis Post-Dispatch/TNS via Getty Images
> ByBEN SHAPIRO
> @benshapiro
> January 11, 2018
> Late on Wednesday evening, news broke that will likely end the career of Missouri Governor Eric Greitens: the ex-husband of Greitens’ ex-mistress came forward with evidence that not only did Greitens engage in an extra-marital affair with that woman, but that he blindfolded her, taped her to rings hanging from a doorway, and took a picture of her naked. The ex-husband alleges that Greitens then blackmailed his wife to keep the story quiet.
> 
> Greitens, for his part, acknowledges the affair but denies the blackmail part of the story:
> 
> The governor has now seen the TV report that ran tonight. The station declined to provide the tape or transcript in advance of running their story, which contained multiple false allegations. The claim that this nearly three-year old story has generated or should generate law enforcement interest is completely false. There was no blackmail and that claim is false.
> 
> So, here’s the question: if Greitens had engaged in the affair, we’d all likely shrug and move on with our lives. It’s only the element of alleged threatened blackmail that makes us take notice. Isn’t that an effect of defining deviancy down?
> 
> Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) coined that phrase back in 1993, when he argued thusly regarding crime:
> 
> [O]ver the past generation, the amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the community can 'afford to recognize' and that, accordingly, we have been redefining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the 'normal' level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard.
> 
> That logic doesn’t just apply to crime. It applies to the behavior of our politicians.
> 
> Thirty years ago, Greitens would have been forced from office for his obvious immorality; today, we all say that such behavior is unpleasant, but not a barrier to holding high office. That's thanks to the Kennedy family, Bill Clinton, and now Donald Trump.
> 
> The natural next step: we only get exercised if something worse happens.
> 
> But how long will it be before we define deviancy down again? Both parties now accept that their politicians can utterly lack character and still earn votes. Why, then, are we shocked that those with severe shortcomings in character seem to be outpacing people of character in politics? We can’t have it both ways: either we have standards, or we don’t. Once we don’t, are we surprised that character-less people seem to become more and more common in positions of power?
> 
> Critics will respond that our politicians always engaged in nasty behavior, they just hid it. But that’s the point: they had to hide it. Hiding it meant that society didn’t normalize such behavior, lowering the standard of decency still further. Perhaps bad men can govern well. But that’s an exception to the rule, not the rule itself. If not, we should at least stop pretending to care about the personal character defects of the people we elect. Or perhaps we already have.


How low is the bar going to get?


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951498077923348481


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> The haters are going into panic mode that Trump might get The Wall approved to be improved. :lol
> 
> - Vic


You still believe in that wall crap.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*FISA fiasco shows 'Fox & Friends' controls Trump*

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...a-trump-tweets-fox-huppke-20180111-story.html

I have some bad news, folks: The fate of our country rests in the hands of a Fox News morning show called “Fox and Friends.”

It’s President Donald Trump’s favorite show — probably because the hosts share his aversion to facts — and he often spends his mornings watching it and tweeting out quotes from the program or responses to issues being discussed.

Having the leader of the free world engage in daily stream-of-consciousness tweets based on low-bar cable television news chatter might seem like a good idea — it’s like improvisational jazz, only with a higher probability of starting a nuclear war — but sometimes it causes problems.

Like Thursday morning, when Trump heard someone on “Fox & Friends” raising questions about a government surveillance bill up for reauthorization, suggesting it was a bad idea. Logically, the president of the United States of America listened to the person on his TV and sent a tweet that contradicted the position his own White House and national security team have taken on the bill.

The tweet read: “‘House votes on controversial FISA ACT today.’ This is the act that may have been used, with the help of the discredited and phony Dossier, to so badly surveil and abuse the Trump Campaign by the previous administration and others?”

Aside from that being a bunch of unrelated and conspiratorial jibber-jabber, it also contradicted a statement the White House issued Wednesday night strongly supporting reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Trump’s early morning tweet sowed chaos in Congress as Democrats who want greater privacy measures in the bill tried to get it pulled from consideration.

About an hour later, Trump sent another tweet, reversing course back to support for FISA: “With that being said, I have personally directed the fix to the unmasking process since taking office and today’s vote is about foreign surveillance of foreign bad guys on foreign land. We need it! Get smart!”

Yes, get smart, you people doing what the White House fully supported right up until a guy on “Fox and Friends” told the president not to support it!

(The House went on to pass the legislation Thursday morning, after the confusion subsided.)

What we’ve learned from this episode — one I’m sure Republican lawmakers who have spent months working to pass the reauthorization really enjoyed — is that “Fox and Friends” can get President Trump to do whatever it wants.

If hosts Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade, and Ainsley Earhardt did a segment on how trains cause cancer, the president would immediately tweet: “TRAINS ARE KILLING HARDWORKING AMERICANS! I will fix this, and FAST. Amtrak is officially BANNED and I’m closing all subway systems until further notice. #MAGA”

If they talked about the lack of chimpanzees on Broadway, Trump would tweet: “The LOSERS on Broadway do not listen to Americans, who have a right to see more chimpanzees on stage. Why no chimps? We will be looking very closely at strengthening chimpanzee actor employment laws. CRAZY!”

So I’m calling on the “Fox and Friends” crew to recognize the awesome power it wields and use it for good.

For example: Consider a lengthy segment on how President Barack Obama never sent every American an envelope full of money, and explain how polling suggests that any president who sent every American an envelope full of money would be highly respected. Then stare into the camera and wink.

Or perhaps do a piece on “self-impeachment,” then turn to the camera and say: “Mr. President, you could be the first-ever president to take this bold step. Imagine what an honor that would be.”

The possibilities are endless, but so far you all seem to be focusing more on the crazy/loony stuff that makes it likely we won’t live to see 2019.

So please, “Fox and Friends” — or, if I may, President Cable Morning Show — help make America great by sensibly guiding the president you control.

Our fate is in your hands.

God help us all.

[email protected]


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951528124730179585
Give 'em hell, Rand!


----------



## virus21




----------



## Stephen90

birthday_massacre said:


> *FISA fiasco shows 'Fox & Friends' controls Trump*
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...a-trump-tweets-fox-huppke-20180111-story.html
> 
> I have some bad news, folks: The fate of our country rests in the hands of a Fox News morning show called “Fox and Friends.”
> 
> It’s President Donald Trump’s favorite show — probably because the hosts share his aversion to facts — and he often spends his mornings watching it and tweeting out quotes from the program or responses to issues being discussed.
> 
> Having the leader of the free world engage in daily stream-of-consciousness tweets based on low-bar cable television news chatter might seem like a good idea — it’s like improvisational jazz, only with a higher probability of starting a nuclear war — but sometimes it causes problems.
> 
> Like Thursday morning, when Trump heard someone on “Fox & Friends” raising questions about a government surveillance bill up for reauthorization, suggesting it was a bad idea. Logically, the president of the United States of America listened to the person on his TV and sent a tweet that contradicted the position his own White House and national security team have taken on the bill.
> 
> The tweet read: “‘House votes on controversial FISA ACT today.’ This is the act that may have been used, with the help of the discredited and phony Dossier, to so badly surveil and abuse the Trump Campaign by the previous administration and others?”
> 
> Aside from that being a bunch of unrelated and conspiratorial jibber-jabber, it also contradicted a statement the White House issued Wednesday night strongly supporting reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
> 
> Trump’s early morning tweet sowed chaos in Congress as Democrats who want greater privacy measures in the bill tried to get it pulled from consideration.
> 
> About an hour later, Trump sent another tweet, reversing course back to support for FISA: “With that being said, I have personally directed the fix to the unmasking process since taking office and today’s vote is about foreign surveillance of foreign bad guys on foreign land. We need it! Get smart!”
> 
> Yes, get smart, you people doing what the White House fully supported right up until a guy on “Fox and Friends” told the president not to support it!
> 
> (The House went on to pass the legislation Thursday morning, after the confusion subsided.)
> 
> What we’ve learned from this episode — one I’m sure Republican lawmakers who have spent months working to pass the reauthorization really enjoyed — is that “Fox and Friends” can get President Trump to do whatever it wants.
> 
> If hosts Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade, and Ainsley Earhardt did a segment on how trains cause cancer, the president would immediately tweet: “TRAINS ARE KILLING HARDWORKING AMERICANS! I will fix this, and FAST. Amtrak is officially BANNED and I’m closing all subway systems until further notice. #MAGA”
> 
> If they talked about the lack of chimpanzees on Broadway, Trump would tweet: “The LOSERS on Broadway do not listen to Americans, who have a right to see more chimpanzees on stage. Why no chimps? We will be looking very closely at strengthening chimpanzee actor employment laws. CRAZY!”
> 
> So I’m calling on the “Fox and Friends” crew to recognize the awesome power it wields and use it for good.
> 
> For example: Consider a lengthy segment on how President Barack Obama never sent every American an envelope full of money, and explain how polling suggests that any president who sent every American an envelope full of money would be highly respected. Then stare into the camera and wink.
> 
> Or perhaps do a piece on “self-impeachment,” then turn to the camera and say: “Mr. President, you could be the first-ever president to take this bold step. Imagine what an honor that would be.”
> 
> The possibilities are endless, but so far you all seem to be focusing more on the crazy/loony stuff that makes it likely we won’t live to see 2019.
> 
> So please, “Fox and Friends” — or, if I may, President Cable Morning Show — help make America great by sensibly guiding the president you control.
> 
> Our fate is in your hands.
> 
> God help us all.
> 
> [email protected]


Of course Trump would love fox and friends since they suck up to him all the time.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stephen90 said:


> Of course Trump would love fox and friends since they suck up to him all the time.


It also shows how stupid Trump is and how easily influenced he is. He is like Bush where the last person he hears speaks, that person influences him. It a joke he tweets out what Fox and friends tells him, then the WH has to sit him down and say, now Donny, that is not your position, it should be this, then Trump has to make another tweet contradicting himself.

But of course, Trump supporters claim he is playing 4D chess LOL


----------



## yeahbaby!

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951498077923348481


Good grief - the REAL stuff to be worried about gets swept through without a whimper from both sides, while we continue to lose our minds over stupid sideshow shit like transgenders using toilets (sorry couldn't think of anything topical - Oprah?).

We're so easily distracted by flashing lights while we get bent over it's depressing.


----------



## DOPA

http://rare.us/rare-politics/rare-l...am-senator-rand-paul-says-he-will-filibuster/



> After a bill focused on surveillance reform failed in the House, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said he will keep his promise to filibuster long term reauthorization of Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act.
> 
> 
> “No American should have their right to privacy taken away! #FILIBUSTER,” Paul tweeted.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951495411981803520
> Rep. Justin Amash’s (R-Mich.) House amendment would have replaced standalone reauthorization with the USA Rights Act (H.R. 4124), a FISA reform bill introduced by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.).
> 
> “I will oppose #S139 and have introduced a substitute amendment consisting of the #USARIGHTSAct. Unlike #S139, it limits the mass collection and broad use of Americans’ data, and requires a warrant to search for it—as the #4thAmendment requires,” Amash tweeted on Monday.
> 
> The House of Representatives instead passed legislation reauthorizing the FISA in a 256-164 vote. The reauthorization now goes to the Senate for a vote.
> 
> Paul also promptly responded with a press release, immediately announcing his intention to filibuster long-term reauthorization in the Senate.
> 
> “Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a flawed bill that will continue the warrantless surveillance of innocent Americans. No American should have their right to privacy taken away,” Paul said. “I will keep doing everything in my power, including filibuster, to oppose this legislation and to speak out and stand up for forcing the government to get a warrant based on probable cause, as required by the Constitution.”
> 
> Sen. Paul has been adamant in his opposition to long-term reauthorization, promising to filibuster any legislation that does not require a warrant to spy on American citizens under the FISA Amendments Act. Under Section 702 of the FISA Amendment Act, the FBI may conduct “backdoor” searches of American communications with foreign targets of suspicion without a warrant.
> 
> In October 2017, Sens. Paul and Wyden (D-Oreg.) introduced the USA Rights Act in the Senate, seeking to end warrantless backdoor searches of Americans’ communications that are “routinely swept up under a program designed to spy on foreign targets.”
> 
> Paul conducted a 10-hour filibuster over NSA spying programs in 2015.



Looks like we're getting a Rand Paul Filibuster over the FISA bill and the continual breach of the 4th amendment. Nice to see bipartisan opposition to the program without reform by the way.


----------



## Reaper

https://thinkprogress.org/irs-private-debt-collectors-47da9d18ab06/

I usually dislike the shit think progress posts but this is news everyone should see. The sheer stupidity and even worse ... Callousness of the government on display for specifically targetng low income earners. 



> IRS paid private debt collectors $20 million to recoup $6.7 million from low-income Americans
> 
> The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) spent millions of dollars over the past financial year to contract private debt collectors that targeted some of Americas poorest citizens for unpaid taxes and only recovered a small fraction of the funds they were supposed to return to the agency, a.new report.released on Wednesday found.
> 
> The report, by the independent Taxpayer Advocate Service, found that the debt collectors had cost the IRS $20 million but had only brought in $6.7 million — less than one percent of the total amount targeted for collection. In some cases, the private agencies received commissions for work they hadn’t actually carried out.
> 
> But perhaps more damning was the Americans that the debt collection firms targeted. Congress directed the beleaguered IRS to use private contractors in 2015 in an attempt to make some headway into the.$450 billion of unpaid taxes.owed to the federal government. The contractors, however, were expected to adhere to the IRS rule that is supposed to ensure that taxpayers “have adequate means to provide for basic expenses.” But as.USA Today reports, of the 4,141 taxpayers assigned to the private contractors, 19 percent had a medium income below the federal poverty level and an additional 25 percent had income below 250 percent of the federal poverty level — a common indicator of low income.
> 
> The report concluded that the use of private debt collectors was one of the agency’s “most serious problems.”
> 
> “The program as implemented has not generated net revenues and results in the IRS improperly paying commissions to [private collection agencies] for work the did not perform,”.the report read. “In the meantime, the most vulnerable taxpayers are making payments and entering into installment agreements they cannot afford, according to the IRS’s own measures.” The report also added that the IRS is aware that’s it’s paying debt collection agencies commissions for work already carried out by the IRS but has “no plans to change its procedures.”
> 
> Republicans have.consistently advocated.for using private companies to collect money owed to the IRS. As the New York Times reported, when Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin was asked about private debt collectors to recoup money owed to the government during his confirmation hearing he said “it seems like a very obvious thing to do.”
> 
> Democrats also bear responsibility for the shoddy state of the IRS’ funding — since 2010 its funding has shrunk by a fifth. A good example of the IRS’ funding woes can be seen with its telephone assistance program, which the Taxpayer Advocate Service described as a “dying relic.” The agency currently only expects to be able to answer half of the 95 million calls it receives per year.


But yeah ... TAXES WILL TAKE CARE OF ALL PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD ... INCLUDING FIX THE PLANET Y'ALL!!!

I bet if someone does the digging they'll find that these debt collectors have powerful friends in government and this is more corruption. 

Givis us more. And more and more.


----------



## DELETE

So I was doing work while my Mom was watching Rachel Macdow (or whatever the fuck her name is) and I heard Trump call a plane he "Sold' the F-52 which turned out to be a fucking CoD plane.


Fucking laughed my shit off holy shit.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951528124730179585
> Give 'em hell, Rand!


It's too bad Obama isn't still President, he'd have prevented legal or illegal spying on people!


----------



## yeahbaby!

Why ARE we letting shit people from shithole countries in?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-...rtain-countries-protection-immigrants/9323050

I say we limit our contact with ShitHole Countries to bombing, invading, selling weapons and liberating resources. But taking their people in? No way.


----------



## FriedTofu

yeahbaby! said:


> Why ARE we letting shit people from shithole countries in?
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-...rtain-countries-protection-immigrants/9323050
> 
> I say we limit our contact with ShitHole Countries to bombing, invading, selling weapons and liberating resources. But taking their people in? No way.


Only Central American and African countries are shitholes. There's still hope for me from Asia!


----------



## Reaper

I really should become Trump's advisor ... I've been using the word shithole to describe shitholes before it was cool to describe them as shitholes.

:trump


----------



## GOON

I elected Trump to slander shithole countries. God bless.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951651994388791296
:move

I <3 Trump


----------



## Tater

Makise Kurisu said:


> http://rare.us/rare-politics/rare-l...am-senator-rand-paul-says-he-will-filibuster/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like we're getting a Rand Paul Filibuster over the FISA bill and the continual breach of the 4th amendment. Nice to see bipartisan opposition to the program without reform by the way.


A majority of the time, Rand Paul sides with typical horrendous Republican policies but when he's on the correct side of an issue, it's usually something really important like trying to reform the criminal justice system, protecting our right to privacy and keeping us out of more wars. That's why I like the guy. There are very few Republicans I can say that about.

Sadly, even though this issue had bipartisan support on the correct side of the issue, it had even more bipartisan support on the wrong side of the issue; in the House, that is. Hopefully Rand can kill this in the Senate.

You'd think the government trashing the Constitution and wiping it's ass with the 4th amendment would be something that would have people outraged. It's funny how certain people can get so up in arms about other amendments but are painfully silent when it comes to something as important as protecting our rights against unreasonable search and seizure.


----------



## Stadhart02

Merry Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951651994388791296
> :move
> 
> I <3 Trump


so true

and of course Trump is 100% correct. I would say to any liberals to have some of the scum that come from over there living in their neighbourhoods and see how they like it

most of this crap comes from upper middle class, white liberals who live far away from the consequences of their political beliefs


----------



## samizayn

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ssy-opening-latest-news-updates-a8154716.html

re: cancelled visit to UK


> Reports last night had said the president would not be attending because he was concerned about a hostile reception, a lack of "bells and whistles" and the fact he would not be able to meet the Queen.


Plus some whining about things he misattributed to the Obama administration. 

Inspiring to see the will of the people accomplishing what so-called leaders failed to. Britain first, indeed.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951785587765280768
shitholes

Just filling in the blanks there :banderas


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951791221076262912
:clap

---

From my FB. Figured I'll just paste it here.


----------



## Draykorinee

Thats wacist!

Sorry but no, they're shithole countries. In the same way Moulsecoomb in Brighton is a shithole are of Brighton. 

Although I think the clamouring to claim the 'left' are saying "These countries aren't shitholes" is bullshit, unless someone has proof of more than one or two loons on the left saying this? All I see is tweets with no basis for them.

Edit: supposedly he didnt say it acording to a Trump tweet.

And now he's saying the Dems don't want to pay the military, seems like lies or misinformation.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Although I think the clamouring to claim the 'left' are saying "These countries aren't shitholes" is bullshit, unless someone has proof of more than one or two loons on the left saying this? All I see is tweets with no basis for them.


No one used the word left on here at least. 



> Edit: supposedly he didnt say it acording to a Trump tweet.
> 
> And now he's saying the Dems don't want to pay the military, seems like lies or misinformation.


The Dems have been slashing military funding since the Obama years. I'm not pro-military anyways so that doesn't bother me. 

But why so quick to believe the Dems over someone else? It's not like the Dems have ever been honest about anything. 

Be careful in calling the Dems "the left" or lending support to them.

---


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951800196488466433
Matt Walsh is one of the best out there. And he's not even a Trump supporter. He is another never-Trumper being forced to defend him given the histrionics of anti-Trumpers :lol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951703901543133184
:mj4 

Twitter has been great this morning.


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> Why ARE we letting shit people from shithole countries in?
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-...rtain-countries-protection-immigrants/9323050
> 
> I say we limit our contact with ShitHole Countries to bombing, invading, selling weapons and liberating resources. But taking their people in? No way.


To be fair even their own home countries and neighbors don't tend to want them either. :laugh:


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> To be fair even their own home countries and neighbors don't tend to want them either. :laugh:


Ironically, the people who are whining the loudest about the "shithole" comment would NEVER willingly CHOOSE to live in a ghetto or a shithole if they were given the choice to leave. I mean, people didn't even move to Canada after whining all year about doing so if Trump got elected :lol 

Sure, when there's no choice people are forced to live in shitholes. But no one does it willingly. Anyone that has the resources and opportunity moves out.

---

Matt Walsh's take on the latest:



> *WALSH: The Folks Who Wear Vagina Hats And Call Us "Teabaggers" Are Offended By Trump's Vulgarity*
> 
> You have no doubt heard about the latest Donald Trump Outrage. It is reported that Trump, during negotiations over the immigration deal, referred to certain African countries and Haiti as "shithole countries." He then asked, allegedly, "why we need more Haitians" to come here as immigrants.
> 
> The White House rather noticeably refused to deny these reports at first. Finally, this morning, Trump issued a vague denial, claiming that he used "tough language" but "this was not the language used." So it seems apparent that he either said "shithole" or something similar to it.
> 
> Predictably, the Left, the media, and some on the Right have been, shall we say, extremely displeased with the President. CNN went to full on Apocalyptic Freak Out Mode, calling Trump a "shithole" on air, and declaring him racist. These were news anchors, by the way, making these unbiased proclamations. A law professor at Yale even suggested that Trump could be impeached for his salty language because he committed "an offense against the spirit animating the Reconstruction Amendments." And on and on it goes. You know the drill by now.
> 
> Here is what I'll say about the whole thing. Three points:
> 
> 1) The Left obviously is in no position to lecture anyone for "vulgar and offensive" language. These are the same people who spent eight years calling their political opponents "teabaggers." "Shithole" is a PG-13 term. "Teabagger" is X-rated. It's also a personal attack on actual people, as opposed to an attack on the general conditions of a country. And let's not forget the time they donned vagina hats and marched through the streets with signs referring rather explicitly to their "p*ssies." I could go on at great length citing examples of the gleeful vulgarity that has spewed from the mouths of the people now so scandalized by the "s" word.
> 
> I've seen many on the Left lament that Trump has "coarsened the culture" to such an extent that our children can't even watch the news anymore. A reporter for the Washington Post worried that "shithole" will be "all over the schoolyard tomorrow" because our kids will have learned of the term, for the first time, from Donald Trump.
> 
> I agree that the culture is too coarse and our children are too exposed to it. But "shit" is the least of our problems, I'm afraid to say. Your child is far more scandalized by the pop songs you let her listen to all day than she is by the words the President uses in a closed door meeting at the White House. Yet if I were to point out that pop music is inappropriate, you'd scoff at me and call me a Puritan. Something doesn't add up here.
> 
> I grew up during the Clinton years. I was not allowed to be in the room when my Dad watched the news; precautions that, sadly, had little effect. I still heard all about Clinton's vulgar exploits in school the next day. Before I graduated elementary school I had learned about dress stains and creative uses for cigars, among other tidbits. "Shithole" would have been laughably tame compared to the moral corruption I suffered as a young boy thanks to the degenerate these Leftists, with their virgin ears, placed in the White House.
> 
> 2) I don't think Trump's comments were racist, and I don't think the point he was making was particularly incredible or shocking. In his untactful way, he seemed to be communicating two facts: First, that third world countries are dilapidated and miserable. "Shithole" is an uncharitable way of referring to them, but there is no pleasant way to describe a nation like Haiti. Would "hellhole" be better? Whatever word you use, the point remains. These are awful places.
> 
> Second, our immigration system should favor those immigrants who will add something useful to society. The media can faint like wilting flowers all they want, but a great many people in the United States agree with the President. They see that we are deep in debt, the Welfare State is bankrupting our children, our cities are overrun with crime and poverty, and they do not want to import immigrants who will contribute to any of those problems. White or black or in between. The race is not the concern here. The concern is far more practical and logical, and it's exactly the concern that should be primary for the President of the United States.
> 
> I believe that we should reach out and help the poor and unfortunate. But we cannot invite all of them here to live with us, because, after a while, we will become just like the places they left. My family does what it can to help the homeless in our community, but we have never welcomed them into our house to sleep in the guest bedroom. That's because our first job is to protect our own children. We must help the less fortunate in a way that does not jeopardize our ability to perform our first and most essential duty. This really is not a radical concept.
> 
> 3) With all of this said, the real issue still remains: the immigration deal itself. The irony is that liberals may well get an immigration deal they want, but they'll still be angry because of the language Trump used. And conservatives may be backstabbed in the deal, but they won't notice because they'll be too busy defending Trump's language. Both parties would do well to keep their eyes on the real prize. And conservatives should not allow themselves to be so swept off their feet by Trump's un-PC approach that they let him get away with betraying his campaign promises.


He is absolutely right about what happens after inviting people to come live with us. A lot of western countries that had very good economic and cultural standing have turned into shitholes and many of those locations have large immigrant populations. 

Trump actually clarified what happened. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951813216291708928


----------



## Draykorinee

Merry Reaper said:


> No one used the word left on here at least.


One of your shared tweets specifically said left which was what I was referring to, not you specifically or the posters on the forum.

I don't think Budget cuts are the same as Trump saying the dems don't want to pay the military. 

His wording was too specific, he may have meant budget cuts but he specifically said "the democrats want to stop paying our troops and government workers". Bullshit meter is going way off. No one wants to do that, its just pandering to the MAGA crowd.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> One of your shared tweets specifically said left which was what I was referring to, not you specifically or the posters on the forum.
> 
> I don't think Budget cuts are the same as Trump saying the dems don't want to pay the military.
> 
> His wording was too specific, he may have meant budget cuts but he specifically said "the democrats want to stop paying our troops and government workers". Bullshit meter is going way off. No one wants to do that, its just pandering to the MAGA crowd.


Trump uses hyperbole a lot.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

draykorinee said:


> Thats wacist!
> 
> Sorry but no, they're shithole countries. In the same way Moulsecoomb in Brighton is a shithole are of Brighton.
> 
> Although I think the clamouring to claim the 'left' are saying "These countries aren't shitholes" is bullshit, unless someone has proof of more than one or two loons on the left saying this? All I see is tweets with no basis for them.
> 
> Edit: supposedly he didnt say it acording to a Trump tweet.
> 
> And now he's saying the Dems don't want to pay the military, seems like lies or misinformation.



Even if one concedes some of these countries are places one doesn't want to live,it's still racist as fuck to believe people from these people as human beings are inferior and less than and do not deserve to come to America. People who immigrate here from Nigeria for example graduate college at a higher rate then the median American and are on whole a huge net positive to our country. Trump saying let's bring people from Norway cause the others live in shitholes is at worst a Nativist pander to people like Richard Spender and his ilk and at best a cynical anti American political calculaiton to lower the amount of Black and Brown people who come here based on the likely political party they vote for,which is wrong. If a natural disaster say hit Poland and displaced 100,000 people and a Democrat was President I would hope they would be willing to allow some of them to live here and not cynically think,they are white and from a Eastern European Homophobic country let's keep them out because they are statistically more likely to vote Republican.


----------



## Vic Capri

*REMINDER*: All the haters wanted to move to Canada instead of Mexico after the 2016 election.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Even if one concedes some of these countries are places one doesn't want to live,it's still racist as fuck to believe people from these people as human beings are inferior and less than and do not deserve to come to America. People who immigrate here from Nigeria for example graduate college at a higher rate then the median American and are on whole a huge net positive to our country. Trump saying let's bring people from Norway cause the others live in shitholes is at worst a Nativist pander to people like Richard Spender and his ilk and at best a cynical anti American political calculaiton to lower the amount of Black and Brown people who come here based on the likely political party they vote for,which is wrong. If a natural disaster say hit Poland and displaced 100,000 people and a Democrat was President I would hope they would be willing to allow some of them to live here and not cynically think,they are white and from a Eastern European Homophobic country let's keep them out because they are statistically more likely to vote Republican.


I don't hear anyone from America wanting to immigrate to Nigeria or Haiti, or even Mexico let alone other parts of Africa. I don't know many black people who are even comfortable or made comfortable in their visits to non-white countries either. In fact, a lot of blacks simply don't like to travel much beyond the white dominated countries either. 

Plenty of anecdotes of black tourists being treated like trash in middle-eastern, african and far eastern asian countries. If America was such a racist shithole with racist shitheads why isn't there a mass exodus of blacks from America to other countries? I mean, the rate of non-whites who want to come to white countries is completely disporportionate to the number of minorities from white countries who want to go back to their home countries. 

I do however see plenty of leftists wanting to move to the very, very, very white dominated Euro-zone though. Even when leftists flee from one country they deem dangerous, they flee to another predominately white country. 

There is however, no movement of people from predominately white countries to non-white countries unless their jobs take them there for short periods of time - and yes, that includes minorities as well. No one is falling over themselves to live in shitholes like Venezuela, Mexico, most of Africa, the middle-east. So please, spare me the bullshit about immigration as a whole. 

On the flip, there's plenty of movement of non-whites to white countries irrespective of whether those are war torn countries or not. That in and of itself is more than enough to understand the dynamics of the globe.

It's not racist to understand how global dynamics work and what it means to import people without vetting from shitholes. You want people here from shitholes, then they need to prove that they're not shitheads themselves. All countries including good old Canada has a point/merit based system of immigration and they definitely discriminate based on country of origin. Some countries are given preference over others. They do that through prioritizing which files get processed earlier and which are delayed. They also have specific country-based restrictions and vetting processes. Every country does. 

But yeah, America isn't allowed to do it even though not all people are the same. It's funny how it's racist to say that not all people are the same when you say bad stuff about them, but it's not racist to say that all people are the same as long as you pretend that they're all good and good stuff is said in generalization. It's still fucking stereotyping. 

Just like there was mass hysteria on twitter from idiot immigrants who while they left their home countries because they're shitholes are whining because someone said they're shitholes.


----------



## skypod

I realise it's hard for people with personality disorders to have a basic discussion about humanity, so instead they want to pivot to economic facts about Haiti, but I really don't think people are saying these countries are economically thriving. The point is you don't walk down the street saying "wow, you're fucking really fat. Wow, you have a really big nose. Wow look at you in that wheelchair! How do you go to the bathroom?" And you don't write people off from countries and call their areas shitholes if you're the President. Can only think people that have no filter have either been sheltered in a basement their whole lives or are completely unaware what cancerous cunts they are to society. Anyone even remotely like that I cut out of my life. Like Jesus Christ who would want to be around or trust that kind of person?


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*I lol'd at Breaking News: The President of The United States is racist. BREAKING NEWS TO WHO?! :mj4*


----------



## Reaper

skypod said:


> I realise it's hard for people with personality disorders to have a basic discussion about humanity, so instead they want to pivot to economic facts about Haiti, but I really don't think people are saying these countries are economically thriving. The point is you don't walk down the street saying "wow, you're fucking really fat. Wow, you have a really big nose. Wow look at you in that wheelchair! How do you go to the bathroom?" And you don't write people off from countries and call their areas shitholes if you're the President. Can only think people that have no filter have either been sheltered in a basement their whole lives or are completely unaware what cancerous cunts they are to society. Anyone even remotely like that I cut out of my life. Like Jesus Christ who would want to be around or trust that kind of person?


^This is exactly what Matt Walsh was saying. 

Don't put yourself on a moral high horse about vulgarity when the stuff that comes out of your mouth isn't any different.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Merry Reaper said:


> It's not racist to understand how global dynamics work and what it means to import people without vetting from shitholes. You want people here from shitholes, then they need to prove that they're not shitheads themselves.



Good thing people with a Trump like mindset were not around when many Irish and Italian immigrants came here in the 1800's. Because by the same metric people are just calling Africa,Haiti,Central America etc shithole's those countries were one when most American's ancestors immigrated here. I am not even sure what metric someone from Haiti or Nigeria would be able to show that proves to someone like Trump they are "worthy" of being American citizens. Vetting people to keep out violent criminals or terrorists is a good thing,but based on a lot of White Nationalist's nothing will never be enough cause they just don't like the changing demographics.


----------



## Reaper

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Good thing people with a Trump like mindset were not around *when many Irish and Italian immigrants came here in the 1800's*. Because by the same metric people are just calling Africa,Haiti,Central America etc shithole's those countries were one when most American's ancestors immigrated here. I am not even sure what metric someone from Haiti or Nigeria would be able to show that proves to someone like Trump they are "worthy" of being American citizens. Vetting people to keep out violent criminals or terrorists is a good thing,but based on a lot of White Nationalist's nothing will never be enough cause they just don't like the changing demographics.


The conditions 200 years ago are not the same as the conditions 200 years later. This isn't even an argument. The condition of America 200 years ago was very different from the conditions today. The conditions outside of America are very different from the conditions today. This is a non-argument. 

That's like saying that we shouldn't take anti-biotics today nor wear seatbelts today because 200 years ago we didn't need either and humanity still survived.

White nationalism works. White dominated and white-led western culture has shown itself to produce more education, more innovation, more scientific discovery than the vast majority of the world. So white culture works and I'm ok with whites and those who understand white culture to create policies that will continue to work. 

Apparently the countries with the highest level of tolerance and acceptance that millions of people are literally dying to get into are white dominated. I'm sorry, but at this point in time, the world's best countries with the highest standards of living are majority white and dominated by whites. I would rather live with white nationalists (if that's what you want to call white people irrespective of whether they are than not) than barbarians anywhere else in the world. 

That's why i came here. To get away from the Barbarians who would kill me if they found out I left their barbaric religion. I don't want them or anyone that has shitty views as a consequence of being raised in cultural sinkoles to follow me. Considering that white people have created the most tolerant societies in the world, I'm ok with them finding ways to decide the future of their own country because I trust them more than people from other countries. They've got history and the present in their favor .. why wouldn't they continue to progress into the future? 

Please go and live in a shithole first and then whine about white nationalism. There are FAR worse things in the world than white nationalism. Far worse. You haven't experienced any and it's obvious.


----------



## MrMister

Matt Walsh said:


> And let's not forget the time they donned vagina hats


Did they though? Their hats were pink but looked nothing at all like vaginas. Calling them vagina hats was always a stretch.

Unless the hat itself was a physical metaphor for a vagina but lol that's retarded.

brb I gotta get my Rangers vagina to put on my head imo.


----------



## Reaper

MrMister said:


> Did they though? Their hats were pink but looked nothing at all like vaginas. Calling them vagina hats was always a stretch.
> 
> Unless the hat itself was a physical metaphor for a vagina but lol that's retarded.
> 
> brb I gotta get my Rangers vagina to put on my head imo.


Don't go all nitpikcy on me. They were vaginas metaphorically but there were actually a ton of actual vagina costumes in the crowds as well. 



Spoiler: Vaginas















So yeah, he's right. People who are morally depraved and vulgar can't really claim someone else shouldn't be. They've lost their moral superiority over preaching ways of public decorum. 

For example, this pastor here clearly has not read Matthew 










BTW, this pastor just happens to be black. I didn't intentionally pick a black pastor. I believe I have to make this disclaimer because we're living in an age where if we accidentally criticize a black man it's only because we're racists :mj

Another example of a very leftist, very liberal event: 








(BTW, I'm ok with public displays like this, but I'm also not going around whining about political leaders hurting my fee fees either). 

Another one: 






And I'm sorry, these are the same people who are whining about the word "shithole" now. I'm not buying the fucking outrage and faked "we need to be decent" bullshit from them. Enough of their garbage opinions. These people lost their moral authority over language policing and ideals of "decorum" a long time ago.


----------



## MrMister

There is nothing wrong with displaying female genitalia. It's not inherently vulgar.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

MrMister said:


> There is nothing wrong with displaying female genitalia. It's not inherently vulgar.


Sounds like imported societal ideals from a shithole country to me, best get him deported


----------



## MrMister

Also I was more talking about how the women couldn't even wear something that looks like an actual vagina on their head more than I was saying Matt Walsh was wrong. I don't care if Matt Walsh is offended by the sight of the thing that brings us all into the world. 

I care that women can't wear a more accurate representation of this thing on their head.


----------



## Reaper

MrMister said:


> There is nothing wrong with displaying female genitalia. It's not inherently vulgar.


I believe you're missing the point. Of course what's vulgar to someone isn't vulgar to someone else since we have different definitions of each. However, the point is and I'm sure you're aware of it is that the group that goes around spouting ad hominems shouldn't be preaching to others to not do it. 



MrMister said:


> Also I was more talking about how the women couldn't even wear something that looks like an actual vagina on their head more than I was saying Matt Walsh was wrong. I don't care if Matt Walsh is offended by the sight of the thing that brings us all into the world.
> 
> I care that women can't wear a more accurate representation of this thing on their head.


But they did wear vagina costumes. 

Of course it's not that the _vagina _that is vulgar. What's vulgar is reducing it to a politicized _object_. 



RavishingRickRules said:


> Sounds like imported societal ideals from a shithole country to me, best get him deported


I give you more credit than you deserve sometimes but it's usually in my head. 

The point is not that I think the vagina displayed is vulgar. The point is its reduction to an object is vulgar, and also pointing out the liberal hypocrisy of their actual vulgarity vs whining about someone else's lack of decorum. I'm OK with public displays of what people consider vulgar. I'm a libertarian. I'm even ok with people flying Nazi and Confederate flags if they want. 

But I'm also not going to whine about the President's lack of decorum and demanding him to be more discrete. That's just not how I roll. That would be hypocritical. 

Making it simple: Pot kettle black. I hope you get it now.


----------



## virus21

You know the funny part? An actual vagina looks less gross than those costumes.


----------



## GOON

BoFreakinDallas said:


> If a natural disaster say hit Poland and displaced 100,000 people and a Democrat was President I would hope they would be willing to allow some of them to live here and not cynically think,they are white and from a Eastern European Homophobic country let's keep them out because they are statistically more likely to vote Republican.


A Democrat president would deny them entry solely because of politics. Why would you want to import people who not only would vote against you but tend to breed more than the national average, cumulatively creating millions of new voters for the opposition party over the course of a few generations?

A Republican president should do the same.


----------



## Vic Capri

> And let's not forget the time they donned vagina hats


Its being phased out already for offending themselves

:lol

- Vic


----------



## MrMister

Yeah I get all that Reaper. What you're missing and it's probably on me for not being clear but I'm not going to be clear all the time is that I have an issue with women proclaiming to be strong and independent but they can't bring themselves to wear a somewhat accurate depiction of their own anatomy on their heads. That was what my post was always about.

I actually agree with Walsh's premise, but it's irrelevant to what I was going for. I just quoted him to get it started.


----------



## GOON

Also I think part of the problem is that we're not taking the "best" people from said "shitholes" to use Trump's words. Take El Salvador as an example. If truly the "best" El Salvadorans were immigrating here, we wouldn't have gangs like MS-13 in this country. Those who come here to study don't join street gangs. But America wasn't selective and now American citizens are being killed by a gang that was essentially imported into this country. 

MS-13 is a prime example of how just allowing anyone to immigrate, especially from nations that have severe domestic problems, is a braindead approach to immigration.


----------



## Stephen90

BOSS of Bel-Air said:


> *I lol'd at Breaking News: The President of The United States is racist. BREAKING NEWS TO WHO?! :mj4*


Of course @Merry Reaper and @Vic Capri ignore this.


----------



## GOON

Stephen90 said:


> Of course @Merry Reaper and @Vic Capri ignore this.


There's nothing to address. I watched the first two minutes and he calls Don Lemon a "reputable source" and speaks the run-of-the-mill meaningless platitude "build bridges instead of walls." As if that is supposed to mean something. I stopped watching after that, knowing that he had nothing meaningful to add to the debate.

But he did make a point about how Trump's supporters are bigoted. Why should an American worker in the Rust Belt care if Trump calls Haiti a shithole? Why should they break with Trump over that? Should they turn to neoliberal shills like Elizabeth Warren (showed her true colors by endorsing Hillary) or Kamala Harris? Or perhaps old man Bernie.

The American left has made no effort to understand *why* Trump won. Are the workers in Michigan and Pennsylvania "deplorable" or "racist" for wanting their livelihoods back? So long as Trump brings back their jobs, why should they care if he insults Haiti? Nobody cares if a few "woke" leftists are offended on their radio show.

Read Thomas Frank's "Listen Liberal" before you post again. Frank isn't a conservative but a true leftist.


----------



## Stephen90

GOON said:


> There's nothing to address. I watched the first two minutes and he calls Don Lemon a "reputable source" and speaks the run-of-the-mill meaningless platitude "build bridges instead of walls." As if that is supposed to mean something. I stopped watching after that, knowing that he had nothing meaningful to add to the debate.
> 
> But he did make a point about how Trump's supporters are bigoted. Why should an American worker in the Rust Belt care if Trump calls Haiti a shithole? Why should they break with Trump over that? Should they turn to neoliberal shills like Elizabeth Warren (showed her true colors by endorsing Hillary) or Kamala Harris? Or perhaps old man Bernie.
> 
> The American left has made no effort to understand *why* Trump won. Are the workers in Michigan and Pennsylvania "deplorable" or "racist" for wanting their livelihoods back? So long as Trump brings back their jobs, why should they care if he insults Haiti? Nobody cares if a few "woke" leftists are offended on their radio show.
> 
> Read Thomas Frank's "Listen Liberal" before you post again. Frank isn't a conservative but a true leftist.


----------



## GOON

Stephen90 said:


>


Are you implying that foreigners should be allowed to sue the President for truthful statements?


----------



## Stephen90

GOON said:


> Are you implying that foreigners should be allowed to sue the President for truthful statements?


Are you implying that Trump is actually honest? Read fire and fury well you?


----------



## GOON

Stephen90 said:


> Are you implying that Trump is actually honest? Read fire and fury well you?


I did and it was hilarious. Trump is a hoot and MY President.


----------



## virus21

So what if he did? Many of them are. Its a sad fact, but thats the way it is. Better question to the MSM bitching about this: How about the person who helped keep Haiti a shithole and was very helpful in turning one of those African nations into a shithole. You know, the woman you wanted to be president.


----------



## Stephen90

GOON said:


> I did and it was hilarious. Trump is a hoot and MY President.


Good you're in his small 34 percent approval rating.


----------



## GOON

Stephen90 said:


> Good you're in his small 34 percent approval rating.


Still going to win because the urban leftists have done nothing to appeal to the Rust Belt except calling them racists for wanting their factories back.


----------



## virus21

> Stories have converged to give simultaneous coverage to Oprah and The Golden Globes, “Fire and Fury” and the 25th Amendment, Tom Steyer and an impeachment plea, and even a physical this week for a certain “very stable genius.”
> But Democratic daydreams of end-stage scenarios for the Trump presidency could prove a distraction the party can’t afford.
> Focusing on President Donald Trump’s fitness for office means a little less energy expended on what he’s actually doing in office. The wheels of the regulatory state are turning, even as battles loom with broad implications for immigration, spending, and health care.
> Speculating about Oprah Winfrey’s presidential prospects doesn’t help Democrats solve their identity crisis, or do anything to slow – much less unwind – the Trump presidency.
> Democrats may want to remember the words of Sen. Lindsey Graham. Graham was on “The View” Monday, and recalled referring to candidate Trump as “a xenophobic, race-baiting, religious bigot.”
> “Guess what,” Graham continued. “He’s our president.”
> The RUNDOWN with MaryAlice Parks
> It can be hard to play the game if the rules keep changing.
> While perhaps the Trump administration’s decision to discontinue Temporary Protective Status for many El Salvadorans in the country should have not surprised bipartisan negotiators working on immigration deals this week, it definitely threw the lives of another 262,000 human beings into the mix.
> The Trump administration has been consistently ending these temporary programs as deadlines come up, but the deadlines themselves are largely arbitrary and the White House could have easily punted and extended this one (as other Rs and Ds have in the past) while deal-making regarding the future of DREAMers continues and looks to be pushed to the brink.
> Today's meeting at the White House is the first time the president's team has signaled the commander-in-chief is meeting with a group of bipartisan members to specifically discuss immigration legislation.
> Democrats could use this latest move to demand other White House concessions or maybe the other way around. Maybe putting another piece of immigration policy on the table encourages everyone to back away from the notion of something comprehensive right now and instead focus selectively on DREAMers and border security.
> Either way, the timing means the lives of thousands of people who live in the U.S. currently will likely be used as bargaining chips. If not now, then down the road.
> The TIP with Ali Rogin
> With only eight working days left to avoid yet another government shutdown, Democrats and Republicans at tomorrow’s White House meeting will attempt to jolt the virtual standstill over negotiations to fund the government—as well as score a deal on DREAMers.
> Leaders are trying to achieve a funding deal that sets spending caps, reauthorizes the Children's Health Insurance Program, does disaster funding and deals with DACA.
> Here's where both sides are digging in their heels right now: Republicans: Spending caps. Democrats are insistent that spending levels for both military and domestic expenses be raised the same amount. Republicans argue that this notion of "parity" is a non-starter and that military spending should not trigger equal spending amounts on the domestic side. And of course, it's hard to move any of the other pieces on the chessboard if you haven't established spending levels. This issue seems to be a matter of who blinks first.
> Democrats: Wall funding. Many Democrats think the Department of Homeland Security’s expected request for $18 billion in wall funding poisoned the well for discussions over DACA. But they're curious as to whether this is really the number Trump is pushing for, or whether it's just an opening flare from the president behind “The Art of the Deal.” Democrats will head into today’s meeting trying to feel the administration out and looking for room to negotiate.
> While today’s meeting might not lead to a hashed-out, bipartisan deal, it will provide a better sense of where the parties and the White House are digging in their trench lines.


http://archive.is/O9HH6#selection-2411.1-2625.30


----------



## Arya Dark

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951880135585574912


----------



## FriedTofu

I don't know which is funnier, conservatives trying to rationalise away the racist sentiment from Trump's remarks or liberals exposing their own hypocrisy defending flawed governments in response to it.


----------



## GOON

President Trump confirmed to be in peak physical shape. http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ouse-physician-says-trump-in-excellent-health


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Merry Reaper said:


> I give you more credit than you deserve sometimes but it's usually in my head.


Or you know, maybe it was a lighthearted joke lol. You guys really need to lighten up sometimes.


----------



## Smarky Mark

Libs are only offended when you call OTHER countries shitholes... didn't you know?


----------



## GOON

Leftists have no problem referring to the Rust Belt and Appalachia as "shitholes" but recoil once you insult another country. These people aren't Americans.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

GOON said:


> A Democrat president would deny them entry solely because of politics.


Except Democratic President Bill Clinton let in Eastern European and Yugo's in during the 90's even if statistically over time they would be more likely to vote Republican because he was President of the Usa first and Leader of his political party 2nd. I guess that's the biggest problem with Trump is he watches cable news all day so he see's most thing's through the narrow scope of politic's and R vs D in a way Obama,Bush,Reagan,Bubba etc never did even if they were party leaders and politicians. The f off to the other side game is never over with Trump


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Smarky Mark said:


> Libs are only offended when you call OTHER countries shitholes... didn't you know?


Or maybe they could care less about the actual govt's of those countries and see him shit talking actual citizens of those countries in yet another example of him at the very least pandering to Richard Spencer's of the world. He never accused the Haitian govt of having Aids he made a blanket statement about the people. If he wants to call out Shitty Middle Eastern or African Dictator's it wouldn't really offend anyone.


----------



## Rugrat

Merry Reaper said:


> And I'm sorry, these are the same people who are whining about the word "shithole" now. I'm not buying the fucking outrage and faked "we need to be decent" bullshit from them. Enough of their garbage opinions. These people lost their moral authority over language policing and ideals of "decorum" a long time ago.


These weren't the only people who took issue with it. It is a little disingenuous to suggest that only militant SJW's thought it was poor on his part.

It isn't the sort of comment that should be used by someone of his stature. It was very unprofessional and completely pointless given the context. Whilst it's factually correct, it's a snide and myopic comment which has no purpose. His whole campaign was based on "telling it how it is", so it doesn't surprise me that his comments are being defended.


----------



## Reaper

I don't care about your highly posh and upper class attitude towards how leaders should speak.

I'm shocked that we're now wilfully living in a society where high and mighty upper class language and mannerisms are defended. 

Our leaders must be these uppity elitests who can't even say what they have on their mind because that's the only way to govern. They must keep up this posh and dfake exterior all the time because it makes fucking peassnts sleep comfortably at night because otherwise the sky will fall and the gods will doom us to death. 

In sorry, but I'm a peasant who doesn't worship nobles and monarchs and I don't give a fuck about appearances. That shit is for monarchs and dictators.


----------



## Tater

GOON said:


> There's nothing to address. I watched the first two minutes and he calls Don Lemon a "reputable source" and speaks the run-of-the-mill meaningless platitude "build bridges instead of walls." As if that is supposed to mean something. I stopped watching after that, knowing that he had nothing meaningful to add to the debate.
> 
> But he did make a point about how Trump's supporters are bigoted. Why should an American worker in the Rust Belt care if Trump calls Haiti a shithole? Why should they break with Trump over that? Should they turn to neoliberal shills like Elizabeth Warren (showed her true colors by endorsing Hillary) or Kamala Harris? Or perhaps old man Bernie.
> 
> The American left has made no effort to understand *why* Trump won. Are the workers in Michigan and Pennsylvania "deplorable" or "racist" for wanting their livelihoods back? So long as Trump brings back their jobs, why should they care if he insults Haiti? Nobody cares if a few "woke" leftists are offended on their radio show.
> 
> Read Thomas Frank's "Listen Liberal" before you post again. Frank isn't a conservative but a true leftist.





GOON said:


> Still going to win because the urban leftists have done nothing to appeal to the Rust Belt except calling them racists for wanting their factories back.


The problem with the "American left" is that they are not leftists. The point about the Rust Belt is a good one. An actual leftist would either want the government to put the factory workers back to work (authoritarian left) or would make the workers themselves the owners of the factories (libertarian left). Instead, what we get in the USA is liberals masquerading as leftists. They beat you over the head with social issues and call you a racist or a sexist if you don't support them while they ship your jobs overseas.

I'm a libertarian leftist borderline anarchist myself but I was raised in super duper right wing conservative Alabama. It's true that in an environment like that, there are a lot of so-called deplorable Trump supporters. There's also a lot of people who just want to live their lives and be left the fuck alone by the SJW crowd. You go up to a small government conservative and tell them that they have to bake gay wedding cakes, they're probably going to tell you to fuck off. You go up to them and offer them financial independence, then you might get their vote, even if you are socially liberal.

There's many Republican voters out there who know they are getting fucked by both parties but they still vote Republican because if they are going to get fucked economically, at least they can vote for the social issues they prefer. The reason why Democrats are wiped out nationally is because all they really have to offer is socially liberal policies. America just got done with 8 years of a Democrat president and people are still suffering. They've seen the effects of those policies and it wasn't good enough, so they voted for change. And when life keeps getting worse under Trump, they'll vote for change again. They'll keep voting for change until they actually get it. As long as the Establishment duopoly remains in power, that change will never come and it's the USA that will be ever increasingly turning into the shithole country.


----------



## Rugrat

It’s not highly posh or upper class to suggest that presidents should avoid calling other countries shitholes, that’s a ridiculous statement. If you literally can’t think of any other way to describe them, then read a dictionary or something. 

It also shouldn’t be hard to not insult a country when you’re in charge of one yourself. It doesn’t require a “fake exterior” either, but if it’s literally impossible to not insult countries then a fake exterior may be best.

All you’ve really done is straw man. You seem to think that because I’m of the opinion that pointless insults should be a avoided that I expect all leaders to be aristocrats.


----------



## nucklehead88

Merry Reaper said:


> I don't care about your highly posh and upper class attitude towards how leaders should speak.
> 
> I'm shocked that we're now wilfully living in a society where high and mighty upper class language and mannerisms are defended.
> 
> Our leaders must be these uppity elitests who can't even say what they have on their mind because that's the only way to govern. They must keep up this posh and dfake exterior all the time because it makes fucking peassnts sleep comfortably at night because otherwise the sky will fall and the gods will doom us to death.
> 
> In sorry, but I'm a peasant who doesn't worship nobles and monarchs and I don't give a fuck about appearances. That shit is for monarchs and dictators.


It's called dignity. Respect. A foreign concept to you, clearly.


----------



## Reaper

A Rugrats Kwanzaa said:


> It’s not highly posh or upper class to suggest that presidents should avoid calling other countries shitholes, that’s a ridiculous statement. If you literally can’t think of any other way to describe them, then read a dictionary or something.
> 
> It also shouldn’t be hard to not insult a country when you’re in charge of one yourself. It doesn’t require a “fake exterior” either, but if it’s literally impossible to not insult countries then a fake exterior may be best.
> 
> All you’ve really done is straw man. You seem to think that because I’m of the opinion that pointless insults should be a avoided that I expect all leaders to be aristocrats.


Elitist speech is a Hallmark of aristocracy. 

Pains me to see that normal working class folk want to bring back nobility as their masters.


----------



## Rugrat

Merry Reaper said:


> Elitist speech is a Hallmark of aristocracy.
> 
> Pains me to see that normal working class folk want to bring back nobility as their masters.


When did I say the president or leader had to speak like a member of the elite? You keep making things up that have never been said to defend a silly viewpoint.


----------



## Reaper

A Rugrats Kwanzaa said:


> When did I say the president or leader had to speak like a member of the elite? You keep making things up that have never been said to defend a silly viewpoint.


You are opposed to a leader using certain words even when they feel like they're off the record. 

Only the nobility and aristocracy has ever held themselves up to that kind of standard. In fact I don't think even they have held their tongue that tightly. 

This is tabloid fodder. C'mon now.

---


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951887002764480512
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## virus21

> Former vice-president Joe Biden let his inner Baby Boomer shine during an event at which he derided millennials for not having it all that bad.
> When speaking to Los Angeles Times journalist Patt Morrison, he touched upon public service and how difficult it was growing up during a war and at a time when “women were still viewed as second-class citizens.” (Two things that millennials certainly have no experience with!)
> “The younger generation now tells me how tough things are. Give me a break. No, no I have no empathy for it — give me a break,” he began, before adding that his generation managed to fix everything. “Because here’s the deal, guys. We decided that we were going to change the world and we did. We did. We finished the civil rights movement to the first stage. The women’s movement came into being.”
> Way to appeal to that young voter base for 2020!


http://archive.is/og8tE#selection-621.0-653.1


----------



## Rugrat

Merry Reaper said:


> You are opposed to a leader using certain words even when they feel like they're off the record.
> 
> Only the nobility and aristocracy has ever held themselves up to that kind of standard. In fact I don't think even they have held their tongue that tightly.


He was in a meeting with lawmakers, it’s not as though he was in his own home.


----------



## virus21

> MSNBC star Chris Matthews has apologized for making fun of Hillary Clinton and joking about a “Bill Cosby pill” in network footage that was obtained by The Cut.
> Matthews was gearing up for an interview with Clinton in January 2016 during the Democratic primary season and his behind-the-scenes comments were captured by an MSNBC camera. The footage kicks off with Matthews asking: “Can I have some of the queen’s waters? Precious waters?”
> The “Hardball” host then asked, “Where’s that Bill Cosby pill I brought with me?”
> The Cut’s Noreen Malone, who uncovered the footage, noted that Matthews “then laughs, delighted with the line” and staffers are seen reacting “with disbelief, clearly uncomfortable.” Malone did not mention how she obtained the footage.
> The footage takes place in an Iowa fire station and features two different camera angles. Back in September, video was leaked of fellow MSNBC star Lawrence O'Donnell launching into profanity-laced tirades at his staff during a taping of his show. He complained about "insanity in my earpiece" and begging someone to "stop the hammering!"
> O'Donnell's tirades were first reported by Mediaite, which posted a stitched-together video of the outbursts that lasted more than eight minutes, resulted in the liberal host becoming a punchline for his outburst. While the footage of O'Donnell was embarrassing, it’s far from making a joke about alleged serial rapist Bill Cosby – and it appears Matthews is aware of his wrongdoing.
> Matthews issued a statement to The Cut: “This was a terrible comment I made in poor taste during the height of the Bill Cosby headlines. I realize that’s no excuse. I deeply regret it and I’m sorry.”
> The Cut said Matthews has a long history of derogatory comments about Clinton, and he once called her witchy," "anti-male" and "uppity," according to Jezebel.
> MSNBC recently admitted that Matthews had settled with a former producer who accused him of sexual harassment. In fact, NBC News and MSNBC have dealt with a variety of other high-profile issues lately.
> Among them, longtime “Today” star Matt Lauer was fired for sexual misconduct; NBC News fired Senior Vice President Matt Zimmerman after he had “engaged in inappropriate conduct with more than one woman” at the network; and the MSNBC fired “Morning Joe” regular Mark Halperin for sexual misconduct and suspended contributors Glenn Thrush and Harold Ford Jr., who had also been accused of inappropriate behavior with women.
> MSNBC declined comment.


http://archive.is/6VAXt#selection-1329.0-1405.24


----------



## Reaper

A Rugrats Kwanzaa said:


> He was in a meeting with lawmakers, it’s not as though he was in his own home.


So it wasn't a media event. What does that tell you about the scum at the other end of the table?


----------



## Vic Capri

Even CNN thinks Michael Wolff is full of it, :lol

- Vic


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/952243723525677056
I got this text too. I'm watching the local news and apparently there's been a bit of mass panic. There weren't any sirens though, so I suspected it might be bullshit. Of course, if there really was a nuke about to hit, there's not much of shit I could do about it anyways.


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> Even CNN thinks Michael Wolff is full of it, :lol
> 
> - Vic


Trump doesn't judging by his tweets. He never shuts up about the book on Twitter.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Donald Trump is a brash dude who will just say whatever on his mind most of the time, without having much of a filter. At this stage, him saying stuff like this really isn't all that surprising, and I barely batted an eye when I heard about it. In my eyes I wouldn't have been so blunt about it and I think they're better ways to call a country a shithole, mostly because technically he does represent the entire country when he says things like that. 

However, he's not wrong. Haiti is a 3rd world country full of economic problems, corruption, and poverty, which you could easily label as being a shithole when you really think about it. With regards to immigration of people from such a country, I mean anybody could easily say that their "best" citizens, the ones who actually have a high intellectual ability or great skill despite their lacking education system or prospects of a high skilled job, should stay and help their country. But they also have every right to try and immigrate to somewhere like the US or elsewhere because it might be one of the only chances they have to any decent sort of life. And if they do work hard and want to genuinely embrace the culture of the place they decide to immigrate to, I haven no problem with it. 

But this shouldn't just be a lottery system. We shouldn't have to accept "x" amount of migrants from a problem riddled 3rd world nation like Haiti just because we're a 1st world nation, although being philanthropic isn't a bad thing. We still have plenty of our own blood who currently suffer from homelessness and other issues to take care of as well. And we defintely shouldn't have to bother with migrants who simply just want to escape their problem countries but show zero respect for the countries they choose to migrant from, much less choose to not work as hard even when they get the opportunities that millions wished they could have.


----------



## ElTerrible

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/952243723525677056
> I got this text too. I'm watching the local news and apparently there's been a bit of mass panic. There weren't any sirens though, so I suspected it might be bullshit. Of course, if there really was a nuke about to hit, there's not much of shit I could do about it anyways.


It´s all good. Trump hit the red button on the wrong remote control in the morning.


----------



## Stephen90

GOON said:


> Still going to win because the urban leftists have done nothing to appeal to the Rust Belt except calling them racists for wanting their factories back.


Doubt it


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> Donald Trump is a brash dude who will just say whatever on his mind most of the time, without having much of a filter. At this stage, him saying stuff like this really isn't all that surprising, and I barely batted an eye when I heard about it. In my eyes I wouldn't have been so blunt about it and I think they're better ways to call a country a shithole, mostly because technically he does represent the entire country when he says things like that.
> 
> However, he's not wrong. Haiti is a 3rd world country full of economic problems, corruption, and poverty, which you could easily label as being a shithole when you really think about it. With regards to immigration of people from such a country, I mean anybody could easily say that their "best" citizens, the ones who actually have a high intellectual ability or great skill despite their lacking education system or prospects of a high skilled job, should stay and help their country. But they also have every right to try and immigrate to somewhere like the US or elsewhere because it might be one of the only chances they have to any decent sort of life. And if they do work hard and want to genuinely embrace the culture of the place they decide to immigrate to, I haven no problem with it.
> 
> But this shouldn't just be a lottery system. We shouldn't have to accept "x" amount of migrants from a problem riddled 3rd world nation like Haiti just because we're a 1st world nation, although being philanthropic isn't a bad thing. We still have plenty of our own blood who currently suffer from homelessness and other issues to take care of as well. And we defintely shouldn't have to bother with migrants who simply just want to escape their problem countries but show zero respect for the countries they choose to migrant from, much less choose to not work as hard even when they get the opportunities that millions wished they could have.


Yeah well. If they weren't shitholes they would have people dying to live there and not dying to leave. 

There are now clips surfacing of many government officials making similar statements in the past. So we're back at another 0 sum game and another round of faked Pearl clutching histrionics.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Merry Reaper said:


> Yeah well. If they weren't shitholes they would have people dying to live there and not dying to leave.
> 
> There are now clips surfacing of many government officials making similar statements in the past. So we're back at another 0 sum game and another round of faked Pearl clutching histrionics.


I don't deny how terrible to live in these countries are. Just remarked that maybe if would behoove him to not use it when he knows that it could be something else people will get into hysterics about (then again anything he says could be twisted anyway)

That and in a way he still is the man representing the US to the entire world when he does make remarks like that, so his word is a lot more significant than a government official.


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> I don't deny how terrible to live in these countries are. Just remarked that maybe if would behoove him to not use it when he knows that it could be something else people will get into hysterics about (then again anything he says could be twisted anyway)
> 
> That and in a way he still is the man representing the US to the entire world when he does make remarks like that, so his word is a lot more significant than a government official.


You mean like Barrack Hussein Obama who called Libya a shitshow after his administration was the one that turned it into a shitshow?


----------



## American_Nightmare

Well.... Now he's gonna be the first blamed for the Hawaii ballistic missile threat.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Merry Reaper said:


> You mean like Barrack Hussein Obama who called Libya a shitshow after his administration was the one that turned it into a shitshow?


I don't remember that (tbf, I barely followed any politics at that point), but he shouldn't have said that either. I just think any president should treat their job with eloquence and class, no matter who it is.


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> I don't remember that (tbf, I barely followed any politics at that point), but he shouldn't have said that either. I just think any president should treat their job with eloquence and class, no matter who it is.


I don't remember either because no one lost their panties back then and the media was always more gentle with Obama than anyone else. I only know this because it was brought out recently after the shitholes comment.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Merry Reaper said:


> I don't remember either because no one lost their panties back then and the media was always more gentle with Obama than anyone else. I only know this because it was brought out recently after the shitholes comment.


I hate whole media frenzy thing myself. I mean, I'll never like Trump myself, but I'm not going to witch hunt everything he says. It's annoying to see so many programs devolve into Trump bashing, especially programs like late night TV. I can't even watch most of them now because the entire show (Colbert's for example) revolves around the following dialogue:

Colbert: _*makes joke about how Trump is terrible*_
Audience: _*uproarious cheering*_
Colbert: _*mentions something positive about Trump*_
Audience: _*silence*_
Colbert _*Takes positive aspect and makes it about how Trump is terrible*_
Audience: _*aggressive applause and cheering*_

I think I watch less TV now than ever because of stuff like this. It's just infuriating and so cheap, yet people still watch it and buy into it, so they keep on with the hysterics. It's sad.


----------



## Reaper

American_Nightmare said:


> Well.... Now he's gonna be the first blamed for the Hawaii ballistic missile threat.


Forbes already had a hysterical article about how this relates to Trump starting a war with North Korea.


To say that people are hysterical is not enough anymore. They're downright schizos.


----------



## virus21

Merry Reaper said:


> Forbes already had a hysterical article about how this relates to Trump starting a war with North Korea.
> 
> 
> To say that people are hysterical is not enough anymore. They're downright schizos.


You know, when Orson Wells caused a panic, it was an honest mistake. These people want the population to go into a complete panic for "reasons"


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/952275076346388481
Trump Derangement Syndrome.


----------



## virus21

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/952275076346388481
> Trump Derangement Syndrome.


Funny I don't recall Trump ordering nuke test off the coast of sovergen nation, not do I believe he wrote articles like the above one, nor the media fear mongering.


----------



## Arkham258

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/952275076346388481












Seriously, Trump is fun. He's good at exposing a lot of bullshit. It's sad I've only just recently realized this. Now I'm just like


----------



## CamillePunk

Arkham258 said:


> Seriously, Trump is fun. He's good at exposing a lot of bullshit. It's sad I've only just recently realized this. Now I'm just like


Welcome to the other movie. :trump2 Things are much more fun and less stressful over here.


----------



## MOX

country roads take me home to the place i belong


----------



## Arya Dark

Arkham258 said:


> Seriously, Trump is fun. He's good at exposing a lot of bullshit. It's sad I've only just recently realized this. Now I'm just like


*Yep. He's always been a troll. I'm convinced he never intended to win the election and was a shocked as everyone else and said fuck it I'm gonna continue to be myself and troll the fuck out of this. And he earned that right by winning the election. I've always hated the guy, still do but watching him troll people from the office of the President of the United States brings a smile to my face because I hate government. Fuck 'em. 

Also he's destroying the GOP and that also brings a smile to my face. So I have a lot to be thankful to the magnanimous prick for. *


----------



## virus21

Mercy said:


> *Yep. He's always been a troll. I'm convinced he never intended to win the election and was a shocked as everyone else and said fuck it I'm gonna continue to be myself and troll the fuck out of this. And he earned that right by winning the election. I've always hated the guy, still do but watching him troll people from the office of the President of the United States brings a smile to my face because I hate government. Fuck 'em.
> 
> Also he's destroying the GOP and that also brings a smile to my face. So I have a lot to be thankful to the magnanimous prick for. *


And he's causing the DNC, MSM and Hollywood to self-destruct, which is both hilarious and well-deserved for them


----------



## Arya Dark

*yep that's absolutely another positive.*


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/952297726045249541
:applause


----------



## BruiserKC

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/952297726045249541
> :applause


Can’t meet your maker on an empty stomach. Make sure you got more covfefe also. :lol


----------



## Arkham258

virus21 said:


> And he's causing the DNC, MSM and Hollywood to self-destruct, which is both hilarious and well-deserved for them


It's pretty amazing isn't it?


----------



## GOON

Stephen90 said:


> Doubt it


You have zero understanding of the Rust Belt if you think this. Read a book.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

GOON said:


> You have zero understanding of the Rust Belt if you think this. Read a book.


Your life get better with Trump being President or do you care about seeing others you can't stand suffer? That seems to be a trend among the intense Trump supporters. They care more about liberals being driven to put a gun in their mouths then anything else.


----------



## GOON

The Hardcore Show said:


> Your life get better with Trump being President or do you care about seeing others you can't stand suffer? That seems to be a trend among the intense Trump supporters. They care more about liberals being driven to put a gun in their mouths then anything else.


Both


----------



## Reaper

The Hardcore Show said:


> They care more about liberals being driven to put a gun in their mouths then anything else.


:lmao 

Emotional blackmail isn't an argument. It's manipulative.


----------



## Stephen90

GOON said:


> You have zero understanding of the Rust Belt if you think this. Read a book.


You don't seem to understand about the lowest voter turnout in 20 year's.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/10/13587462/trump-election-2016-voter-turnout
Before making sweeping statements about what Donald Trump’s Election Day victory says about everyday Americans, you might want to consider one fact: Only about one-fourth of Americans eligible to vote actually voted for him.


According to the US Elections Project’s count so far, only about 56.9 percent of the voting-eligible population cast a ballot on Election Day. That means 43.1 percent of people eligible to vote just didn’t. (The voter turnout rate will increase over the next few days as the final votes are tallied.)

It also means that Hillary Clinton, based on the latest estimates, got a little more than 27 percent of the voting-eligible population’s vote, while Trump got just 27 percent. (Trump won the Electoral College but may have lost the popular vote.) So a little more than a quarter of the voting-eligible population chose the next president.

This isn’t a total anomaly in US elections. Voter turnout has been fairly stable over the past few elections, hitting 55.3 percent in 2000, 60.7 percent in 2004, 62.2 percent in 2008, and 58.6 percent in 2012, according to the US Elections Project. So President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush also won their last elections with around 30 percent of the voting-eligible population — not a huge difference from 27 percent.

FROM OUR SPONSOR - ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW

Love to doodle? You can do it guilt-free now
Love to doodle? You can do it guilt-free now
Advertiser Content FromMicrosoft Corporation
Not every democracy deals with voter turnout this low. According to the Pew Research Center (which estimates voter turnout a bit differently than the US Elections Project), the US actually has below-average turnout among countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD): About 53.6 percent of the US voting-age population turned out to vote in 2012, while 87.2 percent did in a recent election in Belgium, 66 percent did in Germany, and 61.1 percent did in the UK.

A chart of voter turnout by country.
Pew Research Center
In the aftermath of Clinton’s loss, some Democrats have argued that the low voter turnout was driven by Republicans’ voter suppression efforts, such as strict voter ID laws and early voting cuts. But the research shows that these types of efforts have little to no impact on voter turnout. And, again, US voter turnout has been fairly stable in presidential elections — typically fluctuating between around 55 and 60 percent.

FROM OUR SPONSOR - ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW

They’ve got the skills on the football field, but what about in the kitchen? 
They’ve got the skills on the football field, but what about in the kitchen?
Advertiser Content FromPepsi

Still, there are some policies that may explain the difference between the US and other countries. Unlike most wealthy countries, the US doesn’t automatically register voters (as Germany and Sweden do), and it doesn’t seek them out aggressively to push them to register (as the UK does). And the US definitely doesn’t go as far as Belgium or Australia, which make voting compulsory — an idea with some merit, as Dylan Matthews explained for Vox.

But a lot of the problem seems to be enthusiasm. As MIT political science professor Adam Berinsky wrote for the Stanford Social Innovation Review, “The more significant costs of participation are the cognitive costs of becoming involved with and informed about the political world. … Political interest and engagement, after all, determine to a large extent who votes and who does not.”

Easing barriers might help a little, then, but they’re not going to make up the entire difference. People just need to get interested in what’s happening around them.

Until then, around a quarter of Americans who are eligible to vote will be deciding the president of the United States.

Watch: Trump’s election “was a white lash”

Was this article helpful? 
IN THIS STORYSTREAM
Election results 2016: Donald Trump wins the presidency, Republicans control House and Senate
Donald Trump now commands nearly complete loyalty from congressional Republicans
Trump was elected by a little more than a quarter of eligible voters
These 2 charts explain how racism helped fuel Trump’s victory
VIEW ALL 114 STORIES
NEXT UP IN POLITICS & POLICY
Here’s how immigrants from countries Trump slammed really do in the US
Bannon’s Breitbart is dead. But Breitbart will live on.
Gamer who made “swatting” call over video game dispute now facing manslaughter charges
False ballistic missile alert spreads panic in Hawaii
The Supreme Court is about to decide how your online purchases are taxed
Trump was reportedly surprised black lawmakers didn’t personally know fellow black person Ben Carson


Recommended
[Gallery] Man Finally Goes To Check On 82-Year-Old Relative With Alzheimer’s, Finds This Living With Him
[Gallery] Man Finally Goes To Check On 82-Year-Old Relative With Alzheimer’s, Finds This Living With Him
Ice Pop
The #1 Subscription Box Celebrities Are Obsessed With
The #1 Subscription Box Celebrities Are Obsessed With
Popdust
15 Tough Trucks That Will Last 200,000+ Miles
15 Tough Trucks That Will Last 200,000+ Miles
DriveZing
Cornel West’s attacks on Ta-Nehisi Coates, explained
Cornel West’s attacks on Ta-Nehisi Coates, explained
The single biggest reason America is failing in its response to the opioid epidemic
The single biggest reason America is failing in its response to the opioid epidemic
Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens’s sexual blackmail scandal, explained
Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens’s sexual blackmail scandal, explained
Recommended by
Terms of Use Privacy Policy Communications Preferences
Contact Send Us a Tip Masthead About Us
All Systems Operational Check out our status page for more details.
Advertise with us
Jobs @ Vox Media
© 2018 Vox Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved
TWEET


----------



## birthday_massacre

American_Nightmare said:


> Well.... Now he's gonna be the first blamed for the Hawaii ballistic missile threat.


What is scary is the WH had no clue what to do when it happened. Trump has no plan for what would happen if a real missile threat was to hit the US. It shows what a disaster Trumps WH is

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/13/hawaii-missile-warning-white-house-339520

White House scrambles after false missile warning in Hawaii
The erroneous alert triggered reminders inside the administration about long-delayed plans to prepare for a domestic missile attack.

A false warning of a missile threat in Hawaii sent White House aides scrambling Saturday, frantically phoning agencies to determine a response and triggering worries about their preparedness almost a year into the Trump administration.

President Donald Trump's Cabinet has yet to test formal plans for how to respond to a domestic missile attack, according to a senior administration official. John Kelly, while serving as secretary of Homeland Security through last July, planned to conduct the exercise. But he left his post to become White House chief of staff before it was conducted, and acting Secretary Elaine Duke never carried it out.

The administration ran the exercise on Dec. 19 at the deputies level, at the behest of Kelly and newly sworn-in Homeland Security chief Kirstjen Nielsen. But as of Saturday, when Hawaii residents were taking cover, the federal government had yet to play out the same scenario with Cabinet secretaries at what is known as the principals level.

"The U.S. government hasn't tested these plans in 30 years,” said the senior administration official involved in the White House response. “All the fresh faces sitting around the table in the situation room have little idea what their roles would be in this scenario. The bottom line is that without a principals level exercise, we shouldn’t have any confidence that the Cabinet would know what to do in an attack scenario."


The White House press office did not respond to a request for comment about the exercises.

Saturday morning Hawaii time, people in the state received an emergency alert notification about an incoming missile that read, "BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII. SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL." The state's governor, Democrat David Ige, attributed the error to a "wrong button" pressed during a shift change — but it took a full 38 minutes for the state to advise residents of the error.

The president, who is in Florida for the weekend, was at his golf course in West Palm Beach during much of the incident, according to a press pool report. His motorcade left the golf course and returned to his nearby private club, Mar-a-Lago, just as Hawaii residents were being told it was a false alarm.

The administration official said there was no military response around the president during the incident — as would be expected during an actual missile attack — because there was no actual threat detected by the military. National security adviser H.R. McMaster later briefed the president on the events, and Trump tasked him with overseeing the administration's response, the official said.

Even though Hawaii’s governor called it a human error during a shift change, a White House spokeswoman said the incident was part of the state of Hawaii's emergency management exercise. "This was purely a state exercise," she said in a statement.

Cable news channels were focused on the false alarm, but the president did not react publicly. Hours after the incident, he sent a tweet focused on “fake news,” the mainstream media and Michael Wolff’s new book about him.


----------



## virus21




----------



## GOON

Stephen90 said:


> FROM OUR SPONSOR - ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
> 
> Love to doodle? You can do it guilt-free now
> Love to doodle? You can do it guilt-free now
> Advertiser Content FromMicrosoft Corporation
> 
> 
> FROM OUR SPONSOR - ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
> 
> They’ve got the skills on the football field, but what about in the kitchen?
> They’ve got the skills on the football field, but what about in the kitchen?
> Advertiser Content FromPepsi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch: Trump’s election “was a white lash”
> 
> Was this article helpful?
> IN THIS STORYSTREAM
> Election results 2016: Donald Trump wins the presidency, Republicans control House and Senate
> Donald Trump now commands nearly complete loyalty from congressional Republicans
> Trump was elected by a little more than a quarter of eligible voters
> These 2 charts explain how racism helped fuel Trump’s victory
> VIEW ALL 114 STORIES
> NEXT UP IN POLITICS & POLICY
> Here’s how immigrants from countries Trump slammed really do in the US
> Bannon’s Breitbart is dead. But Breitbart will live on.
> Gamer who made “swatting” call over video game dispute now facing manslaughter charges
> False ballistic missile alert spreads panic in Hawaii
> The Supreme Court is about to decide how your online purchases are taxed
> Trump was reportedly surprised black lawmakers didn’t personally know fellow black person Ben Carson
> 
> 
> Recommended
> [Gallery] Man Finally Goes To Check On 82-Year-Old Relative With Alzheimer’s, Finds This Living With Him
> [Gallery] Man Finally Goes To Check On 82-Year-Old Relative With Alzheimer’s, Finds This Living With Him
> Ice Pop
> The #1 Subscription Box Celebrities Are Obsessed With
> The #1 Subscription Box Celebrities Are Obsessed With
> Popdust
> 15 Tough Trucks That Will Last 200,000+ Miles
> 15 Tough Trucks That Will Last 200,000+ Miles
> DriveZing
> Cornel West’s attacks on Ta-Nehisi Coates, explained
> Cornel West’s attacks on Ta-Nehisi Coates, explained
> The single biggest reason America is failing in its response to the opioid epidemic
> The single biggest reason America is failing in its response to the opioid epidemic
> Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens’s sexual blackmail scandal, explained
> Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens’s sexual blackmail scandal, explained
> Recommended by
> Terms of Use Privacy Policy Communications Preferences
> Contact Send Us a Tip Masthead About Us
> All Systems Operational Check out our status page for more details.
> Advertise with us
> Jobs @ Vox Media
> © 2018 Vox Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved
> TWEET


You shouldn't be allowed to vote if you can't copy+paste an article correctly. The absolute state of this.


----------



## birthday_massacre

GOON said:


> You shouldn't be allowed to vote if you can't copy+paste an article correctly. The absolute state of this.


And Trump should not be allowed to be President since he can't put together coherent sentences


----------



## Stephen90

GOON said:


> You shouldn't be allowed to vote if you can't copy+paste an article correctly. The absolute state of this.


Neither should Trump since he says things like covfefe. Let alone be president. Tell me what does covfefe mean?


----------



## Stephen90

virus21 said:


> And he's causing the DNC, MSM and Hollywood to self-destruct, which is both hilarious and well-deserved for them


Didn't Trump want to be apart of Hollywood?


----------



## birthday_massacre

virus21 said:


> And he's causing the DNC, MSM and Hollywood to self-destruct, which is both hilarious and well-deserved for them


Trump is self-destructing mentally before our very eyes.


----------



## virus21

Stephen90 said:


> Didn't Trump want to be apart of Hollywood?


Yes. He was buddy buddy with a lot of them until he ran against Mama Hilary.


----------



## Stephen90

virus21 said:


> Yes. He was buddy buddy with a lot of them until he ran against Mama Hilary.


 He also praised Hillary Clinton once

In a 2012 interview with Fox News, Trump called Clinton a “terrific woman” and spoke highly of her work as secretary of state. When asked if he supported her, Trump said, “I don’t want to get into this because I’ll get myself in trouble.” He went on to say, “I just like her. I like her and I like her husband
Here he is praising Oprah


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Stephen90 said:


> Neither should Trump since he says things like covfefe. Let alone be president. Tell me what does covfefe mean?


Covfefe is love and covfefe is life, duh. That was made quite obvious when it brought the country together, albeit briefly, in a celebration of Trump's tendency to be the "endearingly bumbling dad" kind of guy.

:trump3


----------



## GOON

birthday_massacre said:


> And Trump should not be allowed to be President since he can't put together coherent sentences


His tweets are perfectly fine. They are coherent and well written.



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is self-destructing mentally before our very eyes.


You people have been saying this everyday since June 2015. He's not acting any different than he has in the past.



Stephen90 said:


> Neither should Trump since he says things like covfefe. Let alone be president. Tell me what does covfefe mean?


It means leftists are evil. It's code that only 120+ IQ people can decipher.


----------



## Stephen90

GOON said:


> His tweets are perfectly fine. They are coherent and well written.
> 
> 
> 
> You people have been saying this everyday since June 2015. He's not acting any different than he has in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> It means leftists are evil. It's code that only 120+ IQ people can decipher.


You have no answer and just a snarky remark. Don't worry Donald loves you


----------



## GOON

Stephen90 said:


> You have no answer and just a snarky remark. Don't worry Donald loves you


You've proven yourself unable to do anything outside of posting played out left-wing memes and poorly-pasted Vox articles. You don't have a point to anything you say outside of "haha Drumpf!"


----------



## Stephen90

GOON said:


> You've proven yourself unable to do anything outside of posting played out left-wing memes and poorly-pasted Vox articles. You don't have a point to anything you say outside of "haha Drumpf!"


So you have nothing great. A typical Trump supporter living in his own world. Couldn't even tell me what Covfefe was. Is Covfefe just Trump's own language?


----------



## GOON

Stephen90 said:


> So you have nothing great. A typical Trump supporter living in his own world. Couldn't even tell me what Covfefe was. Is Covfefe just Trump's own language?


I asked you about the Rust Belt and you responded with a Vox article (that I could hardly read because you seemed to have copied the entire page, including the ads and related articles) and "hahahah covfefe."

Who cares what covfefe is?


----------



## Stephen90

GOON said:


> I asked you about the Rust Belt and you responded with a Vox article (that I could hardly read because you seemed to have copied the entire page, including the ads and related articles) and "hahahah covfefe."
> 
> Who cares what covfefe is?


You mean the article that said it was the lowest turnout in 20 years for an presidential election? Well Trump's tweeting Covfefe out.


----------



## GOON

Stephen90 said:


> You mean the article that said it was the lowest turnout in 20 years for an presidential election? Well Trump's tweeting Covfefe out.


Oh man, low turnout. People like you will continue to promote the turnout meme, as if it means anything. Anything to ignore the fact that liberalism (neo and otherwise) has pillaged the working-class.

Trump flipped the Rust Belt because he was (and still is, apparently) the only person who represented their interests as working-class collectives. Liberals like you tweet about Covfefe as opposed to thinking of solutions for the plight of the working-class. This is why you'll lose in 2020 and the left will have another (well-deserved) collective mental breakdown because you once again failed the working-class.

Read Thomas Frank's "Listen Liberal" and you might understand.


----------



## Stephen90

GOON said:


> Oh man, low turnout. People like you will continue to promote the turnout meme, as if it means anything. Anything to ignore the fact that liberalism (neo and otherwise) has pillaged the working-class.
> 
> Trump flipped the Rust Belt because he was (and still is, apparently) the only person who represented their interests as working-class collectives. Liberals like you tweet about Covfefe as opposed to thinking of solutions for the plight of the working-class. This is why you'll lose in 2020 and the left will have another (well-deserved) collective mental breakdown because you once again failed the working-class.
> 
> Read Thomas Frank's "Listen Liberal" and you might understand.


LOL Trump despises the working middle class. There's a good special about his family on Netflix. Why is it that the ghost writer from art of the deal hates Trump? By the way I said the dems screwed up by picking Hillary.


----------



## GOON

Stephen90 said:


> LOL Trump despises the working middle class. There's a good special about his family on Netflix. By the way why is it that the ghost writer from art of the deal hates Trump?


Again you're proving my point about left-wing memes. Who cares if the Art of the Deal's ghostwriter hates Trump? What does this have to do with anything? You don't have to like someone to ghostwrite a book for them. But if anything, he's using his status to signal against Trump in order to promote neoliberalism, so he's a piece of shit.

Yes, Trump totally hates the working-class, which is why he ran a campaign whose rhetoric was entirely geared towards them. Factories are coming back but unless you're willing to promote nationalization of every industry (and then you'd call him Stalin), it will take time for it to happen. 

If the likes of Hillary cared, why didn't they run on it? Why didn't she campaign in Wisconsin? Why do leftists continue to insist upon platitudes that are nothing but modified Ted Talks? There is no genuine left in America anymore and you probably see yourself as a leftist but you're just a neoliberal shill who cites Vox.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Ironic that Trump had such low voter turnout yet had the highest ever turnout to his inauguration. That must be another part of his other 4D chess movie - Covfefe Edition.


----------



## Stephen90

GOON said:


> Again you're proving my point about left-wing memes. Who cares if the Art of the Deal's ghostwriter hates Trump? What does this have to do with anything? You don't have to like someone to ghostwrite a book for them. But if anything, he's using his status to signal against Trump in order to promote neoliberalism, so he's a piece of shit.
> 
> Yes, Trump totally hates the working-class, which is why he ran a campaign whose rhetoric was entirely geared towards them. Factories are coming back but unless you're willing to promote nationalization of every industry (and then you'd call him Stalin), it will take time for it to happen.
> 
> If the likes of Hillary cared, why didn't they run on it? Why didn't she campaign in Wisconsin? Why do leftists continue to insist upon platitudes that are nothing but modified Ted Talks? There is no genuine left in America anymore and you probably see yourself as a leftist but you're just a neoliberal shill who cites Vox.


I never liked Hillary but yes Trump loves the American working man

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/...legal-immigrant-workers-union-settlement.html

In 1980, under pressure to begin construction on what would become his signature project, Donald J. Trump employed a crew of 200 undocumented Polish workers who worked in 12-hour shifts, without gloves, hard hats or masks, to demolish the Bonwit Teller building on Fifth Avenue, where the 58-story, golden-hued Trump Tower now stands.

The workers were paid as little as $4 an hour for their dangerous labor, less than half the union wage, if they got paid at all.

Their treatment led to years of litigation over Mr. Trump’s labor practices, and in 1998, despite frequent claims that he never settles lawsuits, Mr. Trump quietly reached an agreement to end a class-action suit over the Bonwit Teller demolition in which he was a defendant.

For almost 20 years, the terms of that settlement have remained a secret. But last week, the settlement documents were unsealed by Loretta A. Preska, a United States District Court judge for the Southern District, in response to a 2016 motion filed by Time Inc. and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Judge Preska found that the public’s right to know of court proceedings in a class-action case was strengthened by the involvement of the “now-president of the United States.”


In a 21-page finding, Judge Preska wrote that “the Trump Parties have failed to identify any interests that can overcome the common law and First Amendment presumptions of access to the four documents at issue.”

On the campaign trail and as president, Mr. Trump has made curbing immigration one of his top priorities, seeking to close the borders to people from certain Muslim-majority countries and to deport immigrants who are here illegally. The settlement serves as a reminder that as an employer he relied on illegal immigrants to get a dangerous and dirty job done.

Katie Townsend, litigation director of the Reporters Committee, called the decision a major victory that goes beyond this one case. “It makes clear that both the First Amendment and common law rights of public access apply to settlement-related documents in class actions,” she said.

Lawyers for Mr. Trump were not immediately available for comment.

The documents show that Mr. Trump paid a total of $1.375 million to settle the case, known as Hardy v. Kaszycki, with $500,000 of it going to a union benefits fund and the rest to pay lawyers’ fees and expenses. According to the documents, one of the union lawyers involved asked the judge to ensure “prompt payment” from Mr. Trump, suggesting “within two weeks after the settlement date.

Mr. Trump jumped in to object. “Thirty days is normal,” he said.

At the time of the settlement, the court papers note, “this case has been litigated for 15 years and has already required three rounds of discovery, extensive motion practice, a 16-day trial and two appeals.”

Trump Tower was Mr. Trump’s second solo project after leaving his father’s real estate company, which developed working- and middle-class housing in Queens and Brooklyn. But before he could build a glassy condominium tower on what he considered to be a “Tiffany” of locations, Fifth Avenue and 56th Street, Mr. Trump had to demolish a venerable department store, the 12-story Bonwit Teller building.

For the demolition work, Mr. Trump hired an inexperienced contractor, William Kaszycki of Kaszycki & Sons, for $775,000. Mr. Kaszycki specialized in window and job-site cleaning. His company was renovating an adjoining building for Bonwit Teller, where he employed undocumented Polish workers.

Mr. Trump would later testify that he never walked into the adjoining building or noticed the Polish workers. But a foreman on the job, Zbignew Goryn, testified that Mr. Trump visited the site, marveling to him about the Polish crew.

He liked the way the men were working on 57th Street,” Mr. Goryn said. “He said, ‘Those Polish guys are good, hard workers.’”

The demolition began in January 1980. It was hard, dirty work, breaking up concrete floors, ripping out electrical wiring and cutting pipes while laboring in a cloud of dust and asbestos.

A smaller group of union demolition workers, who were paid much higher wages and, unlike the Poles, overtime, often made fun of their Polish co-workers, according to the testimony of Adam Mrowiec, one of the Polish laborers. “They told me and my friends that we are stupid Poles and we are working for such low money,” he said.

In 1998, Wojciech Kozak described to The New York Times the backbreaking labor on the job.

“We worked in horrid, terrible conditions,” Mr. Kozak said. “We were frightened illegal immigrants and did not know enough about our rights

Today, Mr. Kozak, now 75, lives at the O’Donnell-Dempsey Senior Housing building in Elizabeth, N.J.

He has blue eyes and a strong handshake, but speaks through a special device because he had a tracheotomy for cancer. He proudly showed off his citizenship papers, dated Nov. 3, 1995.

Mr. Kozak still recalls the work, and seeing Mr. Trump at the site in 1980.

“We were working, 12, 16 hours a day and were paid $4 an hour,” he said. “Because I worked with an acetylene torch, I got $5 an hour. We worked without masks. Nobody knew what asbestos was. I was an immigrant. I worked very hard.”

But Mr. Kaszycki stopped paying the men, and they eventually took their complaints to a lawyer named John Szabo. Mr. Szabo went to Thomas Macari, a vice president of the Trump Organization, threatening to place a mechanic’s lien on the property if the men weren’t paid.

According to testimony, Mr. Macari began paying the men in cash himself. The delays and disruptions were adding to the pressure on the Trump Organization to meet its deadlines.

One evening, Joseph Dabrowski testified, Mr. Trump arrived on site to tell the workers that he was taking charge.

“I am telling you for the last time that Trump told us, ‘If you finish this fast and I will pay for it,’” Mr. Dabrowski recalled in court.

Still, there were problems. Mr. Szabo filed the lien, prompting Mr. Trump to ask for help from Daniel Sullivan, a labor consultant. Mr. Sullivan later testified that Mr. Trump described his “difficulties,” and “that he had some illegal Polish employees.”

Mr. Trump, however, testified that he did he not remember that there were undocumented Polish workers on the job, or signing paychecks for the crew. “I really still don’t know that there were illegal aliens,” Mr. Trump said on the stand


Mr. Trump did, according to Mr. Szabo, have his lawyer call Mr. Szabo with a threat to call Immigration and Naturalization Service to have the men deported.

Mr. Szabo got the Labor Department to open a wages-and-hours case for the men, which ultimately won a judgment of $254,000 against Mr. Kaszycki.

Mr. Kaszycki had signed a contract with Local 79 of the House Wreckers Union. But while Mr. Kaszycki or Mr. Trump paid into the union welfare funds for the handful of union workers on the job, they had not done so for the bulk of the work force, the undocumented, nonunion Poles.

A union dissident and former boxer, Harry Diduck, brought a case in federal court in 1983 against Mr. Kaszycki and, eventually, Mr. Trump and others, claiming that Mr. Kaszycki, the union president and Mr. Trump had colluded to deprive the welfare funds of about $600,000.

A judge ruled that Mr. Trump was a legal employer of the Poles, but both sides appealed elements of his decision, with the total the welfare funds could get reduced to $500,000. On the eve of a second trial, Mr. Trump settled.

Most of the records of the litigation were placed in a federal storage building where Time Inc. unearthed them in 2016. But the settlement documents remained under seal. After Judge Preska ordered them released, it turned out that two of the documents had been destroyed in routine housecleaning at the court.

Wendy Sloan, a now-retired lawyer who represented the plaintiffs in the original case, had retained them, and provided them to the court. In one of them, Ms. Sloan noted that “in light of the unusually high profile of defendant Donald Trump, plaintiffs have agreed to confidentiality.”

Now that the documents have been released, Ms. Sloan said that “the settlement we obtained recovered 100 percent of the maximum amount plaintiffs could recover,” plus lawyers fees and costs.

“When you get one hundred cents on the dollar in a settlement, that is a great settlement,” Ms. Sloan and Lewis M. Steel, another of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, said in an email.


----------



## Stephen90

@GOON

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/na...great-again/Ge68WgqS6ljwXtwjSpDTYI/story.html

WASHINGTON — One American politician is currently dominating the cultural landscape, from social media to late-night television. His poll numbers look great, his Twitter posts are often among the most read in the world, and with every utterance, his impassioned base of supporters reacts with a fervor more typical for celebrities than former civil servants.

Meet Barack Obama.

The former president left office last January with favorable approval ratings, but historians, former staffers, and political observers now say his societal standing has reached a new echelon — and it’s partly due to his successor.

Donald Trump spent much of his first year in office attempting to erase Obama’s policy legacy, but experts, backed by loads of anecdotal evidence, say Trump’s unconventional and often divisive conduct has actually deepened the connection to Obama for liberals and independents. As the current president spent 2017 buffeted by scandals and igniting Twitter controversies, Obama seemed to increasing numbers a throwback to simpler political times, more deeply admired by those who find Trump ever more deeply objectionable.

Most presidents — even the most unpopular ones — tend to grow in public esteem after they leave office. But only one of them may score an invite to the upcoming royal wedding in England; rumor has it that Obama may make the coveted list. Trump, after a string of tweets and remarks ill-received in post-Brexit Britain, may not.

“Obama’s legacy is being bolstered by Trump,” said Michael Days, author of an Obama biography called “Obama’s Legacy: What He Accomplished as President.”

“People are waking up every morning to tweets that some find upsetting and frightening. And they’re realizing whether they liked or didn’t like Obama, people know they were rarely embarrassed by him,” Days said.

The former president’s enhanced public profile could, however, be a double-edged sword for Democrats. While Obama provides them a ready counterpoint to Trump’s chaotic presidency, he also represents the past, not the still-forming future of the party.

In 2016, the party, without Obama topping the ticket, failed to excite key constituencies — especially black Americans and other minorities — and many party operatives acknowledge that this remains a threat going forward. An adviser close to Obama said that he wants to help empower the next generation of Democrats, not overshadow them, but the party still lacks a singular figure who can energize the party.

Douglas Heye, a GOP strategist and former spokesman at the Republican National Committee, said Democrats are now seeing Obama through “rose colored glasses.”

“It’s as if Democrats are turning the 1992 Clinton slogan on its head and are singing ‘Don’t stop thinking about yesterday,’ ” Heye said. “But while it may be a nostalgic diversion from today’s reality, it won’t help Democrats address why they lost to Trump and how they can beat him in 2020.”

On Twitter, Obama’s growth in popularity can be quantified. When he wished the country a Merry Christmas in his last year as president, the message was retweeted about 100,000 times. But when Private Citizen Obama wrote an almost identical message in 2017, it was retweeted 250,000 times, dwarfing his previous total and the response to Trump’s holiday greeting.

The same is true for well-wishes for Senator John McCain, who has cancer, or posts about the new year. When Trump and Obama tweet about the same topic, it’s Obama — not Trump — whose messages resonate more. And it’s not just because he has almost twice as many Twitter followers — 98 million to 46 million — as Trump, whose presidential image has been shaped, as Obama’s never was, by his many, often scalding, tweets.

“He represents a different type of presidency,” Robert Shrum, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC, said of Obama. “And it’s one that resonates more and more with people when they’re constantly reminded of the type of person he is, and the type of person Trump is.”

Polling shows Obama’s favorability rating has hit heights unseen since his first inauguration. The latest polling compiled by HuffPost had Obama’s favorability rating near 60 percent, up almost 15 points from when he entered his final year in office. A Gallup survey last month found Obama was the man that Americans admired most in the world, marking one of the few years the sitting president didn’t win (Trump came in second in the survey of American adults). He was recently serenaded on “Saturday Night Live” with a song titled “Come Back Barack,” which became so popular the network reportedly contemplated a commercial release. His end-of-the-year favorite songs list was the talk of music blogs, and he was just announced as the first guest for late-night TV host David Letterman’s highly anticipated return broadcast.

A part of this post-presidential bloom is the natural outgrowth of leaving the Oval Office and the role of national lightning rod. Most presidents experience a popularity jump after leaving the presidency, and June data from Gallup showed George W. Bush, who polled at near-record lows near the end of his second term, has also experienced a significant popularity boost in retirement. Even the last two one-term presidents — George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter — are now seen in a favorable light by the majority of Americans, polling shows.


Since bursting onto the political scene in 2004, Obama has long been reviled by Republicans — a backlash that helped energize Trump’s conservative base — but there are also some signs that even that opposition is growing softer. A survey done for Fox News in November found that among registered voters in Alabama — a state that Obama lost by more than 20 points in 2008 and 2012 — the former president had a higher favorability rating than Trump, 52 percent to 50 percent.

But in some ways, all the ex-presidents look better when measured against the current occupant of the White House, whose fervent base has remained steady but who has done little to try to appeal to the majority of Americans who did not vote for him.

David Blight, a Yale professor and presidential historian, called it a “surging nostalgia for a hopeful, more honest era of meaningfulness. . . . Trump breeds toxicity in all directions. Obama’s legacy can only grow while we have a president who does not read books.”

Like Blight, other historians also said they see the legacies of Obama and Trump as inextricably tied. There’s the race aspect, because Obama was the first African-American president and Trump has at times borrowed language from white nationalists and has often been accused of stoking racial resentment during his first year in office. But it’s also about personality, considering that the public images of the two men couldn’t be more different.

Obama ran a White House that was sometimes criticized for being too methodical and centralized, while Trump’s administration is the opposite.

In the past week alone, he has engaged in a public feud with former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, compared nuclear arsenals with North Korea over Twitter, and announced a “Fake News” awards show to be held Monday.

“While the Fake News loves to talk about my so-called low approval rating, @Foxandfriends just showed that my rating on Dec. 28, 2017, was approximately the same as President Obama on Dec. 28, 2009, which was 47% . . . and this despite massive negative Trump coverage & Russia hoax!” Trump tweeted in late December 2017

Except, of course, it wasn’t quite true. Or rather it was only true of one poll, and not of the flood of others. According to Gallup’s daily tracking poll, Obama’s approval rating was at 51 percent on Dec. 28, 2009. Eight years later, Trump was at a 38 percent approval rating, a full 13 points below his predecessor. Trump’s preferred polling service, Rasmussen, did have Trump and Obama about equal on that December date, but even it often has Trump lagging behind Obama’s approval numbers.

Favreau, the former Obama staffer, was not surprised by those numbers. He said Obama has always held more cultural significance than polls can capture.

“It’s partly due to the Trump backlash, and partly true because Obama’s personal popularity has always outpaced his job approval,” he said.

Beyond the nation’s shores, there are some places around the world, though not many, where Trump is more popular than Obama. A 2017 Pew Research Center survey polled 37 nations across the world about their opinions of the two presidents, and all but two countries rated Obama higher.

The ones that preferred Trump? Israel by 7 percentage points and Russia by 42


----------



## GOON

Are you capable of posting your own arguments or do I have to debate journalists?


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/952715874192027648
Fake News Propagandist: Was it a mistake for the United States to take out Gaddafi and Hussein?

Balls of Steel Tulsi: It was. Absolutely. *interview over*

That's how you answer a fucking question. It's amazing how few politicians can answer a question firmly and directly without a bunch of rambling platitudes and bullshit. There's even fewer than that who are willing to stand up to the military industrial complex and call the USA out for it's war mongering. I'd love to see this woman be president some day.


----------



## Stephen90

GOON said:


> Are you capable of posting your own arguments or do I have to debate journalists?


Just like how you're using a book. Or wanting to talk about the rust belt and not college kids,Women or minorities. You go on facebook and Twitter you'll see people shitting on Trump non stop but only rust belt people count.


----------



## Vic Capri

https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21734406-meanwhile-economy-booming-donald-trumps-economic-policy-has-not-been-bad

Oh hey, look at that!

- Vic


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21734406-meanwhile-economy-booming-donald-trumps-economic-policy-has-not-been-bad
> 
> Oh hey, look at that!
> 
> - Vic


http://www.newsweek.com/trump-tweets-poll-credits-obama-777940


----------



## Reaper

GOON said:


> Are you capable of posting your own arguments or do I have to debate journalists?


The shit some of these people post isn't even related to what they're asked because government schooling never taught them how to actually answer questions. 

---

meanwhile ...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/952732216462856192
Of course, no matter how incompetent government employees can possibly get, there are no consequences to their ineptness. But it's Hawaii. At least it's not Peurto Rico so it's not that bad I suppose.


----------



## Stephen90

Merry Reaper said:


> The shit some of these people post isn't even related to what they're asked. He's not the first one to follow in this trend. There's like 4-5 of them that have no thoughts of their own and just troll this thread like they're on some sort of a crusade against Trump - and that they're actually winning or something like that :lol
> 
> ---
> 
> meanwhile ...
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/952732216462856192
> Of course, no matter how incompetent government employees can possibly get, there are no consequences to their ineptness.


You called me a troll yet you're the one that's been banned. Also you don't believe in global warming which makes you lose credibility.


----------



## Reaper

:lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> The shit some of these people post isn't even related to what they're asked because government schooling never taught them how to actually answer questions.
> 
> ---
> 
> meanwhile ...
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/952732216462856192
> *Of course, no matter how incompetent government employees can possibly get, there are no consequences to their ineptness*. But it's Hawaii. At least it's not Peurto Rico so it's not that bad I suppose.


You are exactly right, just look at Trump. No one is more inept in Govt than Trump. He is an embarrassment.


----------



## Stephen90

birthday_massacre said:


> You are exactly right, just look at Trump. No one is more inept in Govt than Trump. He is an embarrassment.


I guess he's winning according to @Merry Reaper @GOON and @Vic Capri


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stephen90 said:


> I guess he's winning according to @Merry Reaper @GOON and @Vic Capri


He is winning at being the most embarrassing and inept person ever to be president. That is for sure


----------



## Stephen90

birthday_massacre said:


> He is winning at being the most embarrassing and inept person ever to be president. That is for sure


That's sad too especially since we had Dubya. Trump makes him look like Einstein.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stephen90 said:


> That's sad too especially since we had Dubya. Trump makes him look like Einstein.


The biggest difference between Dubya and Trump is, Dubya knew he was not that bright whereas Trump keeps claiming he is genius or like a smart person.


----------



## Reaper

:lol


----------



## Tater

Fuck Jeff Sessions. This is not a left vs right issue. This is liberty and freedom vs authoritarianism.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/952715874192027648
> Fake News Propagandist: Was it a mistake for the United States to take out Gaddafi and Hussein?
> 
> Balls of Steel Tulsi: It was. Absolutely. *interview over*
> 
> That's how you answer a fucking question. It's amazing how few politicians can answer a question firmly and directly without a bunch of rambling platitudes and bullshit. There's even fewer than that who are willing to stand up to the military industrial complex and call the USA out for it's war mongering. I'd love to see this woman be president some day.


Considering Democrats love war too I doubt she'll get elected. It doesn't take a genius to figure out Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya were mistakes. That and ISIS gaining loads of weapons and money or the Syrian nonsense which has caused a clusterfuck migration issue and given Turkey a crazy Islamist Government leverage over Europe.


----------



## GOON

Stephen90 said:


> Just like how you're using a book. Or wanting to talk about the rust belt and not college kids,Women or minorities. You go on facebook and Twitter you'll see people shitting on Trump non stop but only rust belt people count.


Yeah because the Rust Belt is what decides the election. So long as Trump keeps those states he wins regardless of how many college kids, women, and minorities vote against him in already blue states.



Stephen90 said:


> That's sad too especially since we had Dubya. Trump makes him look like Einstein.


One of the most amazing results of Trump's victory was how quickly leftists began to support neocons.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Considering Democrats love war too I doubt she'll get elected. It doesn't take a genius to figure out Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya were mistakes. That and ISIS gaining loads of weapons and money or the Syrian nonsense which has caused a clusterfuck migration issue and given Turkey a crazy Islamist Government leverage over Europe.


Tulsi has no chance. The DNC wants war. There's no question about it now. There's a reason why no anti-war campaigner in the DNC holds any position of prominence in their hierarchy. It only took a few months quite literally for Obama to not only turn on his anti-war rhetoric but create new wars that were never highlighted the way they should have been. At least with Trump we knew that he wanted to take a hard stance against ISIS. Other than Tulsi, I don't even see any democrats now claim that they will pull Americans out of wars. 

I've seen a lot of Obama's early speeches recently and honestly he sounded a lot like Trump as the anti-war, anti-illegal immigration guy that was voted in in 2008. He was not as abrasive, but his policies that actually got him elected were a lot like Trump's. 

Americans are anti-war and anti-illegal immigration. They will always vote for the person who claims that he's against both. Unfortunately, that changes every time after the actual election.


----------



## Stephen90

GOON said:


> Yeah because the Rust Belt is what decides the election. So long as Trump keeps those states he wins regardless of how many college kids, women, and minorities vote against him in already blue states.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most amazing results of Trump's victory was how quickly leftists began to support neocons.


When did I say I like Dubya? I just said he was smarter than Trump.


----------



## Vic Capri

The Atlantic said:


> Black men are one of the few groups for which Trump’s 2017 average approval rating significantly exceeds his 2016 vote share.


Man, what a complete and total racist!

- Vic


----------



## Stephen90

GOON said:


> Yeah because the Rust Belt is what decides the election. So long as Trump keeps those states he wins regardless of how many college kids, women, and minorities vote against him in already blue states.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most amazing results of Trump's victory was how quickly leftists began to support neocons.


 @GOONhttp://www.businessinsider.com/pittsburgh-trump-supporters-focus-group-2017-8
Business Insider, Inc.

GET - On Google Play.


POLITICS

'He's let me down': Supporters from a key Rust Belt city are turning on Trump
Allan Smith Aug. 30, 2017, 2:43 PM 11,778
Donald Trump
Donald Trump.Carlos Barria/Getty Images
A focus group in a key Rust Belt city hammered away at President Donald Trump on Tuesday night, tossing around words and phrases such as "contemptible" and "disastrous," and an "abject disappointment," Politico reported.

The Pittsburgh focus group, made up of voters who cast ballots for either Trump, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, or a third-party candidate, came down hard on the president, with some of his supporters offering the most brutal assessments.

Trump won Pennsylvania last year by roughly 44,000 votes after a recount was conducted in the Keystone State. Prior to that recount, he was leading in the state by about 70,000 votes and had won the seven-county Pittsburgh metro area by nearly 60,000 votes. Within the city limits and in Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh is located, Clinton finished well ahead of Trump.

Registered Republican Brian Rush said Trump was not his first choice, but he voted for him anyway because of his discontent with the status quo.

"I look at a president to be presidential, someone who is calm, focused," Rush said. "Ronald Reagan came in as an actor, but he goes down as one of our better presidents. He came in not as a politician. In some aspects, [Trump is] almost turning into a politician in a different way, saying things he thinks his base wants to hear. He's let me down."

The focus group was put together by Emory University and conducted by Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster. While two people in the group expressed optimism because of improved business, the remainder of the group used words like "embarrassing" and "scary" to describe the presidency.

"I traditionally am in the 'give the guy a chance' group," David Turner, who works in construction, told the group. "His learning curve has been a little disappointing, meaning he hasn't caught on like everyone has said here, 'If he did this, he'd be OK.'"

Christina Lees, a Republican who leans independent, expressed exasperation with Trump.

"We know he's a nut," she said. "Everyone knew he was a nut. But there comes a point in time when you have to become professional. He's not professional, forget about presidential."

Republican voter Russell Stit said he was a big supporter of the "make America great again" message, but is now confused as to where Trump is trying to go with it.

"I guess I question what he's trying to do," he said. "I don't fully understand it. The philosophy, give the guy a chance, is only the first 200 days to try to right the ship."

Markets Insider

Business Insider, Inc.

GET - On Google Play.


POLITICS

'He's let me down': Supporters from a key Rust Belt city are turning on Trump
Allan Smith Aug. 30, 2017, 2:43 PM 11,778
Donald Trump
Donald Trump.Carlos Barria/Getty Images
A focus group in a key Rust Belt city hammered away at President Donald Trump on Tuesday night, tossing around words and phrases such as "contemptible" and "disastrous," and an "abject disappointment," Politico reported.

The Pittsburgh focus group, made up of voters who cast ballots for either Trump, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, or a third-party candidate, came down hard on the president, with some of his supporters offering the most brutal assessments.

Trump won Pennsylvania last year by roughly 44,000 votes after a recount was conducted in the Keystone State. Prior to that recount, he was leading in the state by about 70,000 votes and had won the seven-county Pittsburgh metro area by nearly 60,000 votes. Within the city limits and in Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh is located, Clinton finished well ahead of Trump.

Registered Republican Brian Rush said Trump was not his first choice, but he voted for him anyway because of his discontent with the status quo.

"I look at a president to be presidential, someone who is calm, focused," Rush said. "Ronald Reagan came in as an actor, but he goes down as one of our better presidents. He came in not as a politician. In some aspects, [Trump is] almost turning into a politician in a different way, saying things he thinks his base wants to hear. He's let me down."


The focus group was put together by Emory University and conducted by Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster. While two people in the group expressed optimism because of improved business, the remainder of the group used words like "embarrassing" and "scary" to describe the presidency.

"I traditionally am in the 'give the guy a chance' group," David Turner, who works in construction, told the group. "His learning curve has been a little disappointing, meaning he hasn't caught on like everyone has said here, 'If he did this, he'd be OK.'"

Christina Lees, a Republican who leans independent, expressed exasperation with Trump.

"We know he's a nut," she said. "Everyone knew he was a nut. But there comes a point in time when you have to become professional. He's not professional, forget about presidential."

Republican voter Russell Stit said he was a big supporter of the "make America great again" message, but is now confused as to where Trump is trying to go with it.

"I guess I question what he's trying to do," he said. "I don't fully understand it. The philosophy, give the guy a chance, is only the first 200 days to try to right the ship."

ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads

Tony Sciullo, a Republican-leaning independent who voted for Trump, said he is praying the president "will make a paradigm shift."

"He is our president until and if he gets impeached," he said.

Trump has repeatedly used Pittsburgh as a metaphor for the people he is fighting for in office.

When announcing that he would pull out of the Paris climate agreement in June, Trump said he "was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris" in a Rose Garden announcement. During a speech to the American Legion in Reno, Nevada last week, Trump promised that he would soon be bringing new jobs to places such as Pittsburgh and Detroit


----------



## virus21

> Chelsea Manning: Ex-army leaker to run for US senate
> 
> Chelsea Manning, pictured being interviewed on stage at New Yorker Festival event in September 2017 Image copyright Getty Images
> Image caption Manning had her sentence commuted by Barrack Obama in his final days of office
> Chelsea Manning, the former US intelligence analyst who was jailed for leaking classified documents, is seeking the Democratic Party nomination to run for the US senate in Maryland.
> In 2013 Manning was sentenced to 35 years after being found guilty of 20 charges, including espionage.
> But former US President Barack Obama commuted her sentence.
> The 30-year-old, who was born Bradley Manning, will challenge Democratic Senator Ben Cardin for the nomination.
> The former US soldier moved to Maryland after being released from prison in May 2017.
> Manning was arrested in Iraq in 2010 for sharing more than 700,000 confidential documents, videos and diplomatic cables with anti-secrecy website Wikileaks.
> 
> Manning said she shared the documents to spark public debate about US foreign policy, but US officials said the release of material put lives at risk.
> The case and Manning herself continue to be politically divisive in the United States.
> Former President Obama said the sentence she was given was "disproportionate", but President Donald Trump has labelled her an "ungrateful traitor" who "should never have been released from prison".
> Demonstrators hold 'Welcome Home Chelsea Manning' banner at event in San Francisco to coincide with her release Manning has remained in the public eye since her release, writing for publications like The Guardian
> Since her release Manning has remained active on social media, and has continued to discuss issues such as government transparency, free speech and transgender rights.
> Speaking to Vogue in August, she refused to discount running for political office in the future.
> "My goal is to use these next six months to figure out where I want to go," she told the magazine.
> Manning will be challenging 74-year-old incumbent Senator Cardin for the Democratic nomination.
> Mr Cardin has held the Maryland seat since 2007, and is favourite to retain the seat for a third term in the heavily-Democratic state.


http://archive.is/Saed9#selection-1106.0-1627.134


----------



## yeahbaby!

Vic Capri said:


> Man, what a complete and total racist!
> 
> - Vic


Afraid to post the link because maybe there's something else in there which destroys your point? Hmmmm.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> Man, what a complete and total racist!
> 
> - Vic


You keep wanting to pretend Trump isn't a racist? Really dude?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html

yeah ok


----------



## GOON

@Stephen90 still can't properly copy+paste articles so I'll spare forum members from having to scroll through his pasting of Google Play advertisements by not quoting him.

Again, he doesn't properly analyze the situation. He posts random articles from Vox and Business Insider and then goes "Ohhh, Drumpf was totally owned here!" This is typical of deranged Trump haters, for their hatred prevents a rational analysis of the current American political climate. People like him haven't read a single book on the situation of the Rust Belt. I specifically mention the Rust Belt because it's the region that will decide the 2020 election. The coasts will go blue, that is a fact. Middle America and the South will go Red, for that too is a fact. That leaves the Rust Belt.

The Democrats are refusing to run true populist candidates like a Bernie Sanders, who is probably the one man who could defeat Trump since he appeals to the same base that Trump does in the Rust Belt (poor workers). But they will insist upon another neoliberal candidate like Kamala Harris (no Rust Belt, working-class citizen is going to vote for a leftist from California) or Elizabeth Warren, who lost all of her populist bonafides by endorsing Hillary Clinton.

Read the first half of "The Populist Explosion" John Judis (since it deals entirely with America's populist history) and "Listen Liberal" by Thomas Frank. Then you will understand the Rust Belt and why they went Trump. Your posts of "le racist drumpf xDDD" and declaring Trump an "embarrassment" mean nothing since you still don't understand the mindset of the Rust Belt voters. You read one article from Vox and you think you're a genius.


----------



## Stephen90

GOON said:


> [MENTION=344946]Ohhh, Drumpf was totally owned here!" This is typical of deranged Trump haters


When did I ever call him Drumpf? Really you're resorting to lying. Also I posted other articles from other news sources. You just read one book.


----------



## Tater

GOON said:


> @Stephen90 still can't properly copy+paste articles so I'll spare forum members from having to scroll through his pasting of Google Play advertisements by not quoting him.
> 
> Again, he doesn't properly analyze the situation. He posts random articles from Vox and Business Insider and then goes "Ohhh, Drumpf was totally owned here!" This is typical of deranged Trump haters, for their hatred prevents a rational analysis of the current American political climate. People like him haven't read a single book on the situation of the Rust Belt. I specifically mention the Rust Belt because it's the region that will decide the 2020 election. The coasts will go blue, that is a fact. Middle America and the South will go Red, for that too is a fact. That leaves the Rust Belt.
> 
> The Democrats are refusing to run true populist candidates like a Bernie Sanders, who is probably the one man who could defeat Trump since he appeals to the same base that Trump does in the Rust Belt (poor workers). But *they will insist upon another neoliberal candidate like Kamala Harris (no Rust Belt, working-class citizen is going to vote for a leftist from California*) or Elizabeth Warren, who lost all of her populist bonafides by endorsing Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Read the first half of "The Populist Explosion" John Judis (since it deals entirely with America's populist history) and "Listen Liberal" by Thomas Frank. Then you will understand the Rust Belt and why they went Trump. Your posts of "le racist drumpf xDDD" and declaring Trump an "embarrassment" mean nothing since you still don't understand the mindset of the Rust Belt voters. You read one article from Vox and you think you're a genius.


I know you know that neoliberals are center right corporatists, so I don't know why you keep calling them leftists. You're correct in your analysis of the Rust Belt having no use for neoliberals but they would absolutely vote for a leftist from California or from anywhere else because a leftist actually represents the interests of the working class, whereas a neoliberal represents the interests of the corporations. Even Bernie Sanders isn't much of a leftist, he's a moderate centrist himself, but in the American political landscape, that's about as close as you're going to get.

You're right about one thing though, the Democrats are hell bent on changing absolutely nothing, and if they roll into 2020 pushing the same neoliberal garbage that got them wiped out in the first place, best get ready for 4 more years of Trump. Life for people in the Rust Belt isn't exactly going to improve for people under Trump, but they know life won't improve for them under neoliberalism either, so if their only options are shit and shit, they'll opt for the one that says fuck you to neoliberal Dems.


----------



## Stephen90

GOON said:


> @Stephen90 still can't properly copy+paste articles so I'll spare forum members from having to scroll through his pasting of Google Play advertisements by not quoting him.
> 
> Again, he doesn't properly analyze the situation. He posts random articles from Vox and Business Insider and then goes "Ohhh, Drumpf was totally owned here!" This is typical of deranged Trump haters, for their hatred prevents a rational analysis of the current American political climate. People like him haven't read a single book on the situation of the Rust Belt. I specifically mention the Rust Belt because it's the region that will decide the 2020 election. The coasts will go blue, that is a fact. Middle America and the South will go Red, for that too is a fact. That leaves the Rust Belt.
> 
> The Democrats are refusing to run true populist candidates like a Bernie Sanders, who is probably the one man who could defeat Trump since he appeals to the same base that Trump does in the Rust Belt (poor workers). But they will insist upon another neoliberal candidate like Kamala Harris (no Rust Belt, working-class citizen is going to vote for a leftist from California) or Elizabeth Warren, who lost all of her populist bonafides by endorsing Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Read the first half of "The Populist Explosion" John Judis (since it deals entirely with America's populist history) and "Listen Liberal" by Thomas Frank. Then you will understand the Rust Belt and why they went Trump. Your posts of "le racist drumpf xDDD" and declaring Trump an "embarrassment" mean nothing since you still don't understand the mindset of the Rust Belt voters. You read one article from Vox and you think you're a genius.


:triggered
:triggered
:triggered
:triggered
:triggered
:triggered
:triggered


----------



## yeahbaby!

Do we all get a $50 cheque in the mail for every time we mention Rust Belt now?


----------



## Stephen90

yeahbaby! said:


> Do we all get a $50 cheque in the mail for every time we mention Rust Belt now?


This is all the Trump supporters on here and they repetitive crap @Merry Reaper @Vic Capri and @GOON


----------



## Reaper

Interesting. Showed up in my facebook memories from 2015:










Not very centrist now. 










This test is a little weird, but I've been shifting from left to the right consistently and this test has a record of how far I've shifted.


----------



## DOPA

https://www.wsj.com/articles/econom...d-for-u-s-growth-hiring-and-stocks-1515682893



> Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal say President Donald Trump has had generally positive effects on U.S. economic growth, hiring and the performance of the stock market during his first year in office.
> 
> The professional forecasters also predicted 2018 would see solid growth and a continued decline in the jobless rate. One factor: the tax cuts signed into law by Mr. Trump in December, which most economists say will boost the economy for several years at least.
> 
> More broadly, most forecasters surveyed by the Journal suggested Mr. Trump’s election deserves at least some credit for the economy’s recent strength.
> 
> Asked to rate Mr. Trump’s policies and actions to date, a majority of economists said he had been somewhat or strongly positive for job creation, gross domestic product growth and the stock market. Most also said he had been either neutral or positive for the country’s long-term growth trajectory, while his influence on financial stability was seen as largely neutral.
> 
> “There is definitely a sense in the business community that the president’s actions on taxes and regulations have led to a more pro-growth environment for them to operate,” said Chad Moutray, chief economist at the National Association of Manufacturers.
> 
> Still, it is early yet to evaluate Mr. Trump’s performance. He inherited an economy that had already experienced years of falling unemployment and durable if slow growth.
> 
> “We have to be cautious about giving Trump too much credit for the economy’s strength,” said Bernard Baumohl of the Economic Outlook Group. “Job creation and business capital spending were on the rise prior to his presidency. The jury is still out how much more his actions moved the economy forward.”
> 
> A year ago, President Barack Obama got mixed grades as he prepared to leave office after eight years. Most economists surveyed by the Journal in January 2017 saw his policies as positive for financial stability, positive or neutral for job creation, negative or neutral for GDP growth and negative for long-term potential growth.
> 
> 
> Looking forward, the economists surveyed in recent days had high hopes for 2018.
> 
> On average, the forecasters predicted GDP would expand a healthy 2.7% this year. They saw the unemployment rate, which was 4.1% in December, falling to 3.9% by midyear and 3.8% in December. The pace of hiring was expected to slow further, with monthly nonfarm payroll gains set to average 165,000 in 2018. Monthly job gains averaged 171,000 in 2017 and 187,000 in 2016, according to the Labor Department.
> 
> The probability of a recession in the next 12 months ticked down in January to 13%, the lowest average since September 2015. More than two-thirds of forecasters said they saw the risks to the growth outlook as tilted to the upside.
> 
> One reason for the rosy 2018 forecasts: a package of tax-law changes enacted last month. More than 90% of economists said the tax cuts would increase GDP growth over the next two years, similar to their thinking in earlier months when the details of the legislation were still in flux.
> 
> Still, economists aren’t confident the boost will prove long-lived. They on average expected GDP growth would ease to 2.2% in 2019 and 2% in 2020, and identified 2.1% as its long-run average. Half of economists said the tax legislation will boost the economy’s long-run trend at least modestly, while the other half said it would have no effect or leave growth somewhat below its current trajectory.
> 
> “The corporate tax cut has the theoretical potential of increasing trend rate, but I am skeptical if there is that much of pent-up investment demand left unfulfilled,” said Rajeev Dhawan, director of Georgia State University’s Economic Forecasting Center.
> 
> Policy makers have debated who will reap the benefits of one major tax provision—reducing the U.S. corporate tax rate to 21% from 35%.
> 
> White House economists have said workers should see higher incomes as a result of the tax cut while a 2012 Treasury analysis found most of the corporate-tax burden falls on owners of capital, not workers.
> 
> Roughly three in four economists surveyed by the Journal said shareholders, not employees, would see the larger benefit from the corporate-tax cut. “We’ll still see much of the earnings go to stock buybacks, raise dividends or help finance” mergers and acquisitions, Mr. Baumohl said.
> 
> The Journal’s survey of 68 academic, business and financial economists was conducted Jan. 5-9, though not every economist answered every question.



http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/368904-economists-agree-trump-not-obama-gets-credit-for-economy



> Who deserves credit for the booming economy? This is not a petty argument. How voters answer the question could well determine whether Democrats retake the House of Representatives come November.
> 
> Trump and Obama (and their admirers) are slugging it out, both claiming that it is their policies that have led to the ongoing economic expansion, steady job growth and higher stock prices.
> 
> Happily for President Trump, the pros agree with him. A recent survey of economists suggest it is President Trump, and not Obama, who should be taking a bow.
> 
> 
> The Wall Street Journal asked 68 business, financial and academic economists who was responsible for the strengthening of the economy, and most “suggested Mr. Trump’s election deserves at least some credit” for the upturn.
> 
> 
> A majority said the president had been “somewhat” or “strongly” positive for job creation, gross domestic product growth and the rising stock market.
> 
> The pros cite the White House’s push for lighter regulation and the recent tax bill as critical to a pro-growth environment; more than 90 percent of the group thought the tax bill would boost GDP expansion over the next two years.
> 
> A year ago in the same survey, economists awarded President Obama mixed grades. Most saw his policies as positive for financial stability, but neutral-to-negative for GDP growth and negative for long-term growth. By contrast, Trump was seen as neutral to positive for long-term gains.
> 
> Why would Trump rate higher than Obama with this group? Economists point to the upturn in business confidence that accompanied Trump’s election, and tie that to increasing business investment. Spending on capital goods accelerated sharply over the first three quarters of last year, growing at an annualized rate of 6.2 percent.
> 
> Such outlays will spur productivity gains and lead to wage hikes, creating a virtuous circle complete with rising consumer confidence and spending.
> 
> Unhappily Trump, voters have not yet caught up with the experts. Democrats have done an excellent job of trashing Trump’s policies, issuing hysterical alarms over the supposed dangers of deregulation (toxic water, foul air!) and vilifying the GOP tax bill.
> 
> Imagine the nation polling negative on a tax cut for an estimated 90 percent of the workers. That takes genius.
> 
> Democrats are terrified that the tax cuts will be a pleasant surprise to those who believed House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) when she called the bill Armageddon, and when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) declared it a “kick in the gut to the middle class.”
> 
> They are even more terrified of the bonuses and raises being handed out by employers large and small, who credit the tax bill for those unexpected benefits. Democrats are trying to convince voters that those $1,000 bonuses and pay hikes are “crumbs” as multi-millionaire Nancy Pelosi recently said.
> 
> Maybe $1,000 is “pathetic” to Pelosi, but for a great many Americans, it is a big and welcome windfall.
> 
> So far, Democrats are winning the messaging war, using President Trump’s unpopularity to sour Americans on everything the White House does.
> 
> In a recent Quinnipiac poll, a record 66 percent of those surveyed graded the economy as “excellent” or “good” but 49 percent of those surveyed credited Obama while only 40 percent named Trump.
> 
> That poll, though, seems biased. Only 23 percent of those questioned were Republicans, while 34 percent described themselves as Democrats, and 38 percent said they were Independents. It also asked the questions in a way that appeared likely to elicit an anti-Trump response.
> 
> As the months pass, it will be increasingly difficult for Democrats to separate rising wages and faster growth from the tax bill sponsored by Republicans and the rollback of regulations, which has encouraged an upturn in business investment.
> 
> Even the New York Times, no friend to President Trump, has described the “wave of optimism” sweeping over Americans business leaders, saying it is “beginning to translate into the sort of investment in new plants, equipment and factory upgrades that bolsters economic growth, spurs job creation — and may finally raise wages significantly.”
> 
> The Times ran the piece on New Year's Day, pretty much guaranteeing it would attract few readers, but still.
> 
> More than two million workers have now received bonuses and or raises, with their bosses telling them the benefits are flowing from the GOP tax bill. That number will continue to grow as other companies are pressured into sharing the proceeds from lower taxes. This is a powerful and persuasive movement that is gaining momentum every day, which is probably why Democrats are so foolishly belittling the payouts.
> 
> A vast majority of Americans feel more optimistic about their prospects than they have in a decade. Will they really want to rock the boat come November and throw out the party at the helm? We shall see.



A couple of interesting articles surrounding the performance of the economy under Trump. Seems as though economists are willing to give Trump more credit than the anti-Trumpers are willing to concede. How shocking.

Reminds me of when Bush was blamed for Obama increasing the deficit every year to over a trillion dollars under his first term. The Democrats and the left simply does not either want to take responsibility when something goes wrong or give credit to their opposition when something is moving in the right direction. That's partisan politics for you .


----------



## Reaper

CPI is rising btw. So while the economy "booms", what has happened is that the expectation of people having more money has as always resulted in higher prices on core consumer goods. 










Unless there is real wage growth in 2018 to offset inflation (we can't cherry-pick a few companies giving bonuses and raising wages here and there as evidence of that) there is likely no net gain for the day-to-day customer. 

I'm already noticing the impact of inflation on our monthly paycheck btw. Looking at the money going in and out of my account last few months, I'm spending more on Groceries and Gas in the last three months than the three months before and my consumption habits haven't changed. My utilities are higher too. After average all year at around 187, this month I paid 213. 

And this seems to verify my rising costs: 



> *Core consumer prices in the United States which exclude cost of food and energy increased 1.8 percent year-on-year in December of 2017, *higher than 1.7 percent in November and market expectations of 1.7 percent. Prices rose faster for medical care commodities (2.3 percent from 1.8 percent). On the other hand, inflation was steady for shelter (3.2 percent) and medical care services (1.6 percent) while cost continued to decline for apparel (-1.6 percent, the same as in November), new vehicles (-0.5 percent from -1.1 percent) and used cars and trucks (-1 percent from -2.1 percent). *On a monthly basis, core consumer prices went up 0.3 percent, the biggest gain in 11 months amid rising cost of rents, healthcare and autos*. Core Inflation Rate in the United States averaged 3.65 percent from 1957 until 2017, reaching an all time high of 13.60 percent in June of 1980 and a record low of 0 percent in May of 1957.


It's all inter-connected ... with the expectation of more consumer spending power comes the ability to raise prices ... and in some cases if wages don't keep up (which they really aren't) people still have less money overall. Consumer spending will either decline or remain stagnant throughout 2018 and I believe we will see a slight increase in inflation with the expectation of 2019's tax returns.


----------



## DOPA

@Merry Reaper All very good points, we will have to see where the US economy is at by the end of the year.


----------



## Reaper

Thanks. 

Yeah. The forecast actually as CPI, Interest rates and Inflation on the rise, but wage _growth _on a decline (this doesn't mean that wages are declining but that the _rate of growth_ is declining). 

This could lead to lowering consumer confidence and people hunkering down on spending as the year goes on. 

2018 is an interesting year where I don't think a lot is going to happen. 

At the same time, the government does not seem remotely interested in curtailing their own spending at this point so to me it just seems like we're not heading towards the amazingly good times as promised. But rather more par for the course with a mediocre/under-performing economy.

The forecast for US Govt Debt looks sickening:


----------



## GOON

Stephen90 said:


> :triggered
> :triggered
> :triggered
> :triggered
> :triggered
> :triggered
> :triggered


You really don't have arguments of your own, do you?


----------



## Stephen90

GOON said:


> You really don't have arguments of your own, do you?


Actually that would be you since you're just repeating the same thing over and over. Also when did I call him Drumpf? Apparently you don't read anything that makes your hero look bad. At least I actually have sources to back up my claim.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> I know you know that neoliberals are center right corporatists, so I don't know why you keep calling them leftists. You're correct in your analysis of the Rust Belt having no use for neoliberals but they would absolutely vote for a leftist from California or from anywhere else because a leftist actually represents the interests of the working class, whereas a neoliberal represents the interests of the corporations. Even Bernie Sanders isn't much of a leftist, he's a moderate centrist himself, but in the American political landscape, that's about as close as you're going to get.
> 
> You're right about one thing though, the Democrats are hell bent on changing absolutely nothing, and if they roll into 2020 pushing the same neoliberal garbage that got them wiped out in the first place, best get ready for 4 more years of Trump. Life for people in the Rust Belt isn't exactly going to improve for people under Trump, but they know life won't improve for them under neoliberalism either, so if their only options are shit and shit, they'll opt for the one that says fuck you to neoliberal Dems.


I always like your analysis even if I don't agree with it because it's usually fair and hits both sides. I agree with you fully on this, the Democrats aren't Left, they're some kind of bastardized parallel universe of the Left. They love war, hate their voters, say they're against racism but then get caught doing racist stuff and they want changing demographics not for some diversity nonsense but to keep having a voter base they can control with "freebies".

The Republicans aren't much better, all you have to do is look at both sides biggest donors and it's all big corporations and tech giants. Dems are rolling in big business money. Even more funny is the tech giants who support "Leftist" ideology are some of the biggest cheapskates and employ questionable hiring and personnel tactics.

Conservatives and Liberals are outnumbered by the braying masses of neoliberals and neocons that pretty much ensure we live in this weird haphazard form of Government where no real change is allowed. It doesn't matter who gets put into place, all it takes for this horde of sellouts to shut them down and we keep voting them in year after year. Even Europe's "Left" is more retarded than Left, not seeing the bigger picture or maybe they are and that's what scares me. Politicians and Governments purposely making things worse so a few can benefit and to be free of meeting any obligations to it's people.

Governments are supposed to be scared of it's people, we live in an age where we live in fear of our Governments and Politicians, what wrong think will they punish me for? How else will they ensure my way of life is fucked? How much more of my money will they steal from me? How much more moral and intellectual decay will they push onto my family and tell me it's good for me? It's not pretty when you think about it.


----------



## Stephen90

Apparently he's no genius according to the majority of the US.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/16/donald-trump-report-card-340624


----------



## Kabraxal

Stephen90 said:


> Apparently he's no genius according to the majority of the US.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/16/donald-trump-report-card-340624


Not how genius works... not saying he is one, but genius is not decided by a popularity contest.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> Not how genius works... not saying he is one, but genius is not decided by a popularity contest.


It's also not decided by Trump claiming he is one.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Apparently he's no genius according to the majority of the US.


The majority of the US aren't billionaires either. Hmm...

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> The majority of the US aren't billionaires either. Hmm...
> 
> - Vic


Oh look more deflection


----------



## virus21

> Guess which state has the highest poverty rate in the country? Not Mississippi, New Mexico, or West Virginia, but California, where nearly one out of five residents is poor. That’s according to the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, which factors in the cost of housing, food, utilities and clothing, and which includes noncash government assistance as a form of income.
> 
> Given robust job growth and the prosperity generated by several industries, it’s worth asking why California has fallen behind, especially when the state’s per-capita GDP increased approximately twice as much as the U.S. average over the five years ending in 2016 (12.5%, compared with 6.27%).
> 
> It’s not as though California policymakers have neglected to wage war on poverty. Sacramento and local governments have spent massive amounts in the cause. Several state and municipal benefit programs overlap with one another; in some cases, individuals with incomes 200% above the poverty line receive benefits. California state and local governments spent nearly $958 billion from 1992 through 2015 on public welfare programs, including cash-assistance payments, vendor payments and “other public welfare,” according to the Census Bureau. California, with 12% of the American population, is home today to about one in three of the nation’s welfare recipients.
> California Democrats have long been free to indulge blue-state ideology while paying little or no political price.
> 
> The generous spending, then, has not only failed to decrease poverty; it actually seems to have made it worse.
> 
> In the late 1980s and early 1990s, some states — principally Wisconsin, Michigan, and Virginia — initiated welfare reform, as did the federal government under President Clinton and a Republican Congress. Tied together by a common thread of strong work requirements, these overhauls were a big success: Welfare rolls plummeted and millions of former aid recipients entered the labor force.
> 
> The state and local bureaucracies that implement California’s antipoverty programs, however, resisted pro-work reforms. In fact, California recipients of state aid receive a disproportionately large share of it in no-strings-attached cash disbursements. It’s as though welfare reform passed California by, leaving a dependency trap in place. Immigrants are falling into it: 55% of immigrant families in the state get some kind of means-tested benefits, compared with just 30% of natives.
> 
> Self-interest in the social-services community may be at fault. As economist William A. Niskanen explained back in 1971, public agencies seek to maximize their budgets, through which they acquire increased power, status, comfort and security. To keep growing its budget, and hence its power, a welfare bureaucracy has an incentive to expand its “customer” base. With 883,000 full-time-equivalent state and local employees in 2014, California has an enormous bureaucracy. Many work in social services, and many would lose their jobs if the typical welfare client were to move off the welfare rolls.
> 
> Further contributing to the poverty problem is California’s housing crisis. More than four in 10 households spent more than 30% of their income on housing in 2015. A shortage of available units has driven prices ever higher, far above income increases. And that shortage is a direct outgrowth of misguided policies.
> 
> “Counties and local governments have imposed restrictive land-use regulations that drove up the price of land and dwellings,” explains analyst Wendell Cox. “Middle-income households have been forced to accept lower standards of living while the less fortunate have been driven into poverty by the high cost of housing.” The California Environmental Quality Act, passed in 1971, is one example; it can add $1 million to the cost of completing a housing development, says Todd Williams, an Oakland attorney who chairs the Wendel Rosen Black & Dean land-use group. CEQA costs have been known to shut down entire homebuilding projects. CEQA reform would help increase housing supply, but there’s no real movement to change the law.
> 
> Extensive environmental regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions make energy more expensive, also hurting the poor. By some estimates, California energy costs are as much as 50% higher than the national average. Jonathan A. Lesser of Continental Economics, author of a 2015 Manhattan Institute study, “Less Carbon, Higher Prices,” found that “in 2012, nearly 1 million California households faced … energy expenditures exceeding 10% of household income. In certain California counties, the rate of energy poverty was as high as 15% of all households.” A Pacific Research Institute study by Wayne Winegarden found that the rate could exceed 17% of median income in some areas.
> 
> Looking to help poor and low-income residents, California lawmakers recently passed a measure raising the minimum wage from $10 an hour to $15 an hour by 2022 — but a higher minimum wage will do nothing for the 60% of Californians who live in poverty and don’t have jobs. And research indicates that it could cause many who do have jobs to lose them. A Harvard University study found evidence that “higher minimum wages increase overall exit rates for restaurants” in the Bay Area, where more than a dozen cities and counties, including San Francisco, have changed their minimum-wage ordinances in the last five years. “Estimates suggest that a one-dollar increase in the minimum wage leads to a 14% increase in the likelihood of exit for a 3.5-star restaurant (which is the median rating),” the report says. These restaurants are a significant source of employment for low-skilled and entry-level workers.
> 
> Apparently content with futile poverty policies, Sacramento lawmakers can turn their attention to what historian Victor Davis Hanson aptly describes as a fixation on “remaking the world.” The political class wants to build a costly and needless high-speed rail system; talks of secession from a United States presided over by Donald Trump; hired former attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr. to “resist” Trump’s agenda; enacted the first state-level cap-and-trade regime; established California as a “sanctuary state” for illegal immigrants; banned plastic bags, threatening the jobs of thousands of workers involved in their manufacture; and is consumed by its dedication to “California values.” All this only reinforces the rest of America’s perception of an out-of-touch Left Coast, to the disservice of millions of Californians whose values are more traditional, including many of the state’s poor residents.
> 
> With a permanent majority in the state Senate and the Assembly, a prolonged dominance in the executive branch and a weak opposition, California Democrats have long been free to indulge blue-state ideology while paying little or no political price. The state’s poverty problem is unlikely to improve while policymakers remain unwilling to unleash the engines of economic prosperity that drove California to its golden years.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.htmlhttp://


----------



## AlternateDemise

Vic Capri said:


> The majority of the US aren't billionaires either. Hmm...
> 
> - Vic


The majority of the US aren't born into a rich family. But by all means, continue to make idiotic comments.


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> The majority of the US aren't billionaires either. Hmm...
> 
> - Vic


That's easy when you're born into money. Geniuses don't also for file bankruptcy over and over again. Also if you're going to quote me at least have my name in it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

virus21 said:


> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.htmlhttp://


Its #1 when you frame it "considering the U.S. Census Bureau’s *Supplemental Poverty Measure*."

If you don't use the subset like you are doing CA is much lower and instead you get

Mississippi
New Mexico
Louisiana
Alabama
Kentucky


etc etc etc


----------



## AlternateDemise

Merry Reaper said:


> CPI is rising btw. So while the economy "booms", what has happened is that the expectation of people having more money has as always resulted in higher prices on core consumer goods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless there is real wage growth in 2018 to offset inflation (we can't cherry-pick a few companies giving bonuses and raising wages here and there as evidence of that) there is likely no net gain for the day-to-day customer.
> 
> I'm already noticing the impact of inflation on our monthly paycheck btw. Looking at the money going in and out of my account last few months, I'm spending more on Groceries and Gas in the last three months than the three months before and my consumption habits haven't changed. My utilities are higher too. After average all year at around 187, this month I paid 213.
> 
> And this seems to verify my rising costs:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all inter-connected ... with the expectation of more consumer spending power comes the ability to raise prices ... and in some cases if wages don't keep up (which they really aren't) people still have less money overall. Consumer spending will either decline or remain stagnant throughout 2018 and I believe we will see a slight increase in inflation with the expectation of 2019's tax returns.


All I'm getting out of this is that you only spent $213 dollars on groceries this month. That's fucking impressive.


----------



## Reaper

BlueSanta said:


> All I'm getting out of this is that you only spent $213 dollars on groceries this month. That's fucking impressive.


It's two people lol. I buy meat in bulk and I keep an eye on prices to make sure I'm getting the best deals. If there's a month where no store in town has chicken less than 1.50/lb I just don't buy any and instead buy more pork. When chicken comes down below 1.50, I buy about $30 worth and freeze it. Same with beef. Keep a ledger of all the prices with me and keep an eye out for deals. :lmao 

Though I was talking about utilities but yeah, my groceries for Jan so far are less than $100 (and I have plenty of meat in the freezer). They were about $250 in Dec not including Christmas dinner.

I get to do this cuz I'm the home-maker. It's my job to make sure expenses are met and we save in the end :Shrug


----------



## birthday_massacre

Merry Reaper said:


> It's two people lol. I buy meat in bulk and I keep an eye on prices to make sure I'm getting the best deals :lmao
> 
> Though I was talking about utilities but yeah, my groceries for Jan so far are less than $100. They were about $250 in Dec not including Christmas dinner.


Most people spend $100 a week on groceries.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Merry Reaper said:


> It's two people lol. I buy meat in bulk and I keep an eye on prices to make sure I'm getting the best deals. If there's a month where no store in town has chicken less than 1.50/lb I just don't buy any and instead buy more pork. When chicken comes down below 1.50, I buy about $30 worth and freeze it. Same with beef. Keep a ledger of all the prices with me and keep an eye out for deals. :lmao
> 
> Though I was talking about utilities but yeah, my groceries for Jan so far are less than $100. They were about $250 in Dec not including Christmas dinner.
> 
> I get to do this cuz I'm the home-maker. It's my job to make sure expenses are met and we save in the end :Shrug


Less than $100?? :sodone

I don't keep track of mine so I can't say for sure but I'm almost certain I'm above the $120 mark already. Christ in heaven.


----------



## Reaper

BlueSanta said:


> Less than $100?? :sodone
> 
> I don't keep track of mine so I can't say for sure but I'm almost certain I'm above the $120 mark already. Christ in heaven.


Well, I did a full math table basically how many calories we both need to eat daily to maintain our weights (and reduce a little) and I cook based on that. Neither of us are into any of the expensive hipster shit so that obviously helps too. 

Humans only need 5-6 ounces of meat daily which translates to about 0.37 pounds / person per day. That's the main factor that is something I'm completely inflexible about and all my meals are based around that. So 4 pounds of meat last a week. I don't cook more. 

It's all a complex (but very easy) system of shopping sales and storing. 

My daily meal cost is less than $2-3 bucks a meal for two people. And I've never had my wife complain that the food wasn't enough or wasn't good. 

Just another example is that Walmart Rottisserie chicken is like 5 bucks in my area. That's one full meal. However, the carcass that gets left behind gets converted into either a soup or sandwich spread. That's my lunch for a week from a single carcass. No food gets wasted. 

Learnt this from my mom seriously.



birthday_massacre said:


> Most people spend $100 a week on groceries.


We save a ton on snacks, drinks and junk food. We have no budget for them. They're luxuries. All our snacks that we do buy are basically Publix BOGOs where we buy a bunch in bulk and store them. Non-perishable foods last like 6 months to 2 years so that helps a lot. 

Like this one time Ritz crackers came on a BOGO and I bought like 10 boxes. Took me about 3-4 months to finish them :lol


----------



## FriedTofu

This week I learn that the offensive part of the word shithole is hole. Using shithouse instead isn't offensive because it refers to real estate. :jericho2


----------



## Miss Sally

Merry Reaper said:


> Well, I did a full math table basically how many calories we both need to eat daily to maintain our weights (and reduce a little) and I cook based on that. Neither of us are into any of the expensive hipster shit so that obviously helps too.
> 
> Humans only need 5-6 ounces of meat daily which translates to about 0.37 pounds / person per day. That's the main factor that is something I'm completely inflexible about and all my meals are based around that. So 4 pounds of meat last a week. I don't cook more.
> 
> It's all a complex (but very easy) system of shopping sales and storing.
> 
> My daily meal cost is less than $2-3 bucks a meal for two people. And I've never had my wife complain that the food wasn't enough or wasn't good.
> 
> Just another example is that Walmart Rottisserie chicken is like 5 bucks in my area. That's one full meal. However, the carcass that gets left behind gets converted into either a soup or sandwich spread. That's my lunch for a week from a single carcass. No food gets wasted.
> 
> Learnt this from my mom seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> We save a ton on snacks, drinks and junk food. We have no budget for them. They're luxuries. All our snacks that we do buy are basically Publix BOGOs where we buy a bunch in bulk and store them. Non-perishable foods last like 6 months to 2 years so that helps a lot.
> 
> Like this one time Ritz crackers came on a BOGO and I bought like 10 boxes. Took me about 3-4 months to finish them :lol


Can get them for 3 dollars if you wait until 8 pm I think. Walmart has their Deli stuff reduced too at end of day. Also their french bread is only a dollar, the bread must be eaten within a few days but makes for a good side..

I use french bread as a side to my food, as toast, to make pizza, sammiches and turn it into garlic bread. There's a lot you can do with a loaf!


----------



## CamillePunk

https://www.dailywire.com/news/25963/trump-excellent-health-his-doc-says-no-sign-joseph-curl


> President Trump is in excellent health, his White House doctor said Tuesday.
> 
> "He has incredible cardiac fitness at this point in his life," said Dr. Ronny Jackson, who conducted the routine physical examination. Jackson said the exam took four hours and included a dozen other medical personnel for a series of tests.
> 
> The doctor said Trump's lifelong abstinence of alcohol and tobacco has led to his excellent health. And Jackson also said Trump, 71, simply "has incredibly good genes. It's just the way God made him."
> 
> *Jackson said Trump asked to take a cognitive exam during the session. The doctor used "The Montreal Cognitive Assessment," which screened for Alzheimer's and dementia, among other illnesses. Trump scored 30 out of 30.*
> 
> "The cognitive test, it's well-respected. It's a test that's used throughout the United States," he said. "The fact that the president got 30/30 on that exam, there's no indication whatsoever that he has any cognitive issues."
> 
> Jackson described Trump as “very sharp” and “very articulate when he speaks to me.”
> 
> Reporters in the White House briefing room repeatedly asked about whether Trump showed signed of cognitive impairment or degeneration. At one point when another reporter asked about "rumors of dementia," Jackson dismissed those as "tabloid psychiatry."
> 
> MSNBC's Joe Scarborough has repeatedly claimed on air that sources have told him Trump suffers from early-onset dementia. But Jackson said that's just not so. "I have no concerns about his cognitive ability," Jackson said, noting that it was the first time a president has had such testing.
> 
> Jackson said Trump is 6'3" and weighs 239 pounds — which makes him borderline obese. Jackson said he urged Trump to adhere to a healthy diet and increase his exercise — from none currently to at least some. He said he told Trump to cut down carbohydrates and fats. Jackson said Trump hopes to lose 10–15 pounds in the next year.
> 
> "The president has acknowledged that he'd be healthier if he lost a few pounds."
> 
> All of Trump's blood tests were normal. His blood pressure is 122/74, a normal level, and he has a resting heart rate of 68 beats per minute. Jackson said Trump takes Crestor, aspirin, Propecia (to prevent male pattern hair loss), and a multivitamin.
> 
> Jackson said Trump sleeps four to five hours a night. "It's just his nature. It works for him. It wouldn't work for me, but it works for him."
> 
> And the doctor said he’s confident that Trump — the oldest man ever elected president — has a “very strong and a very probable possibility” of completing his first term “with no medical issues.”


Another swing, another miss by the anti-Trumpers. :lol So much for all the armchair psychologists and "sources" that said he has early signs of dementia.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Miss Sally said:


> Can get them for 3 dollars if you wait until 8 pm I think. *Walmart has their Deli stuff reduced too at end of day*. Also their french bread is only a dollar, the bread must be eaten within a few days but makes for a good side..
> 
> I use french bread as a side to my food, as toast, to make pizza, sammiches and turn it into garlic bread. There's a lot you can do with a loaf!


You really don't want to know what that actually is.

It's probably the off cuts from the off cuts of the stuff that falls on the 'butcher room' floor while they're cutting the meat at the end of the day. Yuck!

But Bon Appetite!


Regarding Trump - That's great if his administration's actions have lead to economic upturns and prosperity - kudos to the Orange Goblin King! 

The thing is however it seems to be difficult to prove if it's truly from Trump or the long term effects of Obama depending on which report you read. Then when you say that out loud, you realise it shouldn't matter who it was as long as people now have jobs and don't have to rely solely on Walmart off-cuts (wink).


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Can get them for 3 dollars if you wait until 8 pm I think. Walmart has their Deli stuff reduced too at end of day. Also their french bread is only a dollar, the bread must be eaten within a few days but makes for a good side..
> 
> I use french bread as a side to my food, as toast, to make pizza, sammiches and turn it into garlic bread. There's a lot you can do with a loaf!


Yes. We've done that on occasion too. It's very versatile with what you can do with it lol. 



yeahbaby! said:


> You really don't want to know what that actually is.
> 
> It's probably the off cuts from the off cuts of the stuff that falls on the 'butcher room' floor while they're cutting the meat at the end of the day. Yuck!
> 
> But Bon Appetite!


Fake news. 

Have you ever bought sandwich meat from a deli at all? Irrespective of price (and meat prices change daily anyways), it's always the same good cut. They reduce the price to minimize wasteage.

In any case, yes - the kind of lack of desire or knowledge required to save and still eat well is interestingly coming from people who don't want their governments to be fiscally responsible either. Very interesting determination here. :lol

PS> GUYS, WE'RE GOING TO BE HOME OWNERS SOON. Look at that. A millennial on a single income is about to buy a house. But I though that millennials couldn't afford houses because of old people wrecking the world! Chalk one up for advantages of living in a fiscally responsible state :woo


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> https://www.dailywire.com/news/25963/trump-excellent-health-his-doc-says-no-sign-joseph-curlAnother swing, another miss by the anti-Trumpers. :lol So much for all the armchair psychologists and "sources" that said he has early signs of dementia.


That just means that Trump is even dumber than we thought. 

It makes Trump look worse that he doesn't early signs of dementia lol


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer

Merry Reaper said:


> It's two people lol. I buy meat in bulk and I keep an eye on prices to make sure I'm getting the best deals. If there's a month where no store in town has chicken less than 1.50/lb I just don't buy any and instead buy more pork. When chicken comes down below 1.50, I buy about $30 worth and freeze it. Same with beef. Keep a ledger of all the prices with me and keep an eye out for deals. :lmao
> 
> Though I was talking about utilities but yeah, my groceries for Jan so far are less than $100 (and I have plenty of meat in the freezer). They were about $250 in Dec not including Christmas dinner.
> 
> I get to do this cuz I'm the home-maker. It's my job to make sure expenses are met and we save in the end :Shrug


_*Damn, I only spend 120 dollars on groceries every 2 weeks. I only get the stuff that we need in the house and not spend a extra dollar on extra stuff that we don't need. *_


----------



## Reaper

BTheVampireSlayer said:


> _*Damn, I only spend 120 dollars on groceries every 2 weeks. I only get the stuff that we need in the house and not spend a extra dollar on extra stuff that we don't need. *_


60 bucks is pretty awesome too btw. 

Florida is great for groceries. I suppose I have to add that as a disclaimer because admittedly other parts of the country are really bad.


----------



## El Grappleador

Ok. I have only one week here and I don't know how to react about this thread. 
Before express my point of view, I wanna make a question:

*Why is there too much hate against capitalism?*


----------



## virus21

El Grappleador said:


> *Why is there too much hate against capitalism?*


Because a bunch of Millennials don't want to work for a living? Because they think Socialism is fair and equal for all for some reason? Because they're stupid?


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer

Merry Reaper said:


> 60 bucks is pretty awesome too btw.
> 
> Florida is great for groceries. I suppose I have to add that as a disclaimer because admittedly other parts of the country are really bad.


_*Yes, this state is great for food shopping but sometimes I think some people just spends over their means pure month on food. I don't know how other states are with their food and stuff. But I guess some states are bad or better than others. 60 bucks is also pretty awesome indeed.*_


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> https://www.dailywire.com/news/25963/trump-excellent-health-his-doc-says-no-sign-joseph-curlAnother swing, another miss by the anti-Trumpers. :lol So much for all the armchair psychologists and "sources" that said he has early signs of dementia.


Can you send that editor of that article to the same Doctor? HE does'Nt SeEM to unDERstand grammar in HEADLines anymore. SAD!

I mean if they have editors....


----------



## El Grappleador

virus21 said:


> Because a bunch of Millennials don't want to work for a living? Because they think Socialism is fair and equal for all for some reason? Because they're stupid?


O.K. We have too piece of the jigsaw:

Millenials
Socialism

Anybody wants to complete the puzzle.


----------



## GOON

Excellent news. It's time to round up those who refuse to follow federal immigration law: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/16/dhs-asks-prosecutors-charge-sanctuary-city-leaders/


----------



## virus21

El Grappleador said:


> O.K. We have too piece of the jigsaw:
> 
> Millenials
> Socialism
> 
> Anybody wants to complete the puzzle.


They are under the impression that all Capitalism does is exploit people to profit the higher ups of corporations (which is actually Corporatism, not pure Capitalism) and that Socialism is much more fair and equal, even though most Socialism governments are far worse. That and many of them are lazy fucks who want the Government to pay for them.


----------



## DOPA

@Merry Reaper acting like a true fiscal conservative in real life :trump. I commend you sir, I definitely fail in comparison when it comes to certain spending habits :lol.

There's a few topics I want to weigh in on which in internet years is years gone past already but honestly I wasn't particularly in the mood to comment in this thread for a number of days. Before that though, I came across a particularly amusing video surrounding Hollywood and Trump:






The amount of fake news from both the left and the right regarding Hollywood and their "actions" towards Trump is rather funny. As is Rosie O'Donnel's continued meltdown concerning Trump being president :lmao. 

In any event, I'm more disappointed in the fake news coming from the right claiming Hollywood was about to go on strike if Trump didn't resign. There's honestly plenty of crazy shit that Hollywood has done to show just how elitist and out of touch they are concerning Trump (as well as how they've plunged straight forward into Trump Derangement Syndrome) that shit doesn't need to be made up. It just shows that the number of sources of news that are untrustworthy is continuing to grow whilst the number of legitimate sources continues to shrink.

Now to get to my late thoughts on some topics, starting with a couple of sideshow events that seemingly is endless with Trump before going on to an important topic of policy.

*Trump stating he will not visit the UK this year. *

Let's start off with something I've talked about briefly when it happened but didn't really delve into, that being Trump's refusal to visit the UK, which of course to an extent concerns me because I am a British citizen. In all honesty as much as this is going to piss some Trump supporters off, I can't see this as anything other than a bitch move.

I say this as someone who thought and still thinks it's absolutely moronic that people like Sadiq fucking Khan demand that Trump should be banned from entering the UK over things Trump has said to cause outrage when we as a country have had state visits for politicians and officials who are far worse than Trump and have come from actual oppressive regimes. As are to me the people who are actually arguing we should block the president of the United States from entering the country when historically and still to this day we have had the closest working relationship in western politics. It's like these people don't realize that we would achieve nothing by simply blocking a state visit and that it's better to work with him even if you view him as adversarial than to shoot ourselves in the foot and to an extent cut off ties. As much as I dislike Theresa May, at least she was smart enough to a certain extent of this reality.

But honestly, this move from Trump does nothing but feed into the caricature that his opposition have painted about him that he is thin skinned and cannot take criticism. It does nothing for his public perception and is a move that does everything to paint him in an even more negative light.

The thing is, if this was anyone other than Trump, I would be absolutely baffled by this decision because in all honesty, the realistic potential outcomes of what would happen if Trump did nothing would have honestly made Trump look good in comparison to what the UK would have done surrounding his arrival or potential arrival. Although it was looking less likely to happen, there was still a possibility that the UK parliament could have had a vote and voted to block Trump from coming to the UK. If that had happened, instead of talking about Trump bailing on the UK, I'd instead be talking about what a bunch of whiny bitches the UK parliament is. And to be fair, some in parliament have been acting like whiny bitches in regards to their attitude towards Trump. In this situation, it would have only served to make the British parliament look incredibly petty and childish.

The other likely scenario would have been Trump coming and there being a huge level of protests against him and to be honest, even in that situation it is likely Trump would have looked good in comparison because there would be a good chance that the protests would mirror what has happened in other Trump protests like the inauguration day and the women's march, which in both cases the Trump protesters looked utterly ridiculous.

Even in neither scenario, it's not like Trump couldn't have handled it. I know in this example, the level of hostility isn't as bad as what Trump could have faced, but I remember during the 2016 election race when Rand Paul had an interview with MSNBC in front of crowd of Bernie and Hillary supporters, literally you couldn't get any more opposite and at the start they booed him mercilessly. Instead of responding back at them or being hostile, Rand just embraced the hate and started laughing/cheering as they booed and in all honesty, he ended up coming out of the interview better for it. If Trump just treated the UK visit like that in his more "I don't give a fuck" mentality, at the very least he wouldn't have come across that bad. Now his detractors can say he's a wimp and a pussy and have evidence to support their claims. Here's the Rand interview for anyone who is interested by the way:







The reason why I'm not baffled by what Trump did is because as I have mentioned before, in most cases Trump seems to know only one way to handle criticism which is to attack the issue and the people surrounding it. In some situations not only does it work but is actually justified. But this is one of those cases where Trump would have been served better if he simply just sat back and see what the UK parliament does. What amazes me is Trump manages to ignore Eminem producing one of the more hilarious responses to his presidency with basically Em constantly triggered that Trump is ignoring him yet does something as silly as this.

It is what it is.


*The Controversy surrounding the "shithole" comment*


So it's 2018, and it seems as though the media and to a certain degree detractors are still intent on focusing more on what Trump says or what he supposedly says rather than on policy. I think most people agree that if Trump did say those words about Haiti that it was crass to put it mildly. I also don't buy the idea that if Trump was a little more cordial on his words surrounding the state of Haiti that it would be somehow elitist. I think that's a rather weak argument.

Having said that, Trump isn't exactly wrong either :lol. Haiti is a 3rd world country with a tonne of infrastructural and economic problems, with a good amount of it's population in abject poverty. There's a reason why many people from Haiti would love to come to America but nobody in the US would go to Haiti. So really, this is another case of feigned outrage in my opinion because if we were being honest here whilst I'd agree that he should have been more cordial if indeed that is what he said, the truth is really on his side when it comes to Haiti.

What was really amusing to me was I saw a bunch of meme's posted on Facebook which had a bunch of people who described the successes they had in life, mostly about their education background and their careers detailing which countries they had come from, all of which were not Haitian by the way with the tagline "I'm from a shithole country". Yet all of the examples that were shown had immigrated to the United States from their homegrown country. So without even realizing it they proved Trump's point :lol. If their country was that good, they wouldn't have immigrated to the United States to begin with to seek out better opportunities, nor were any of the countries mentioned hotbed destinations for westerners let alone Americans. To put it bluntly: Unless the person in question was from that country or origin with familial ties there, nobody realistically would want to go to the countries that were mentioned.

The biggest takeaway I got from all of this though was the fact that this was just believed as a matter of fact to begin with. To my knowledge there's no audio tape of proof nor written proof like a chainmail of some sort that shows Trump had actually said this rather it's based off of something that a person who was supposedly at a meeting with Trump has claimed that that is what he said. Yet people are automatically believing this without any proof :lol. Even work colleagues of mine were quoting it as if it were a matter of fact. To be fair to them, they weren't particularly outraged and were really just poking fun at the absurdity of all of this but it is still interesting to me that this was just believed to be true.

It just goes to show the amount of mass hysteria and outrage surrounding Trump....better known as Trump derangement syndrome still has a hold around the media and some detractors of Trump that people are willing to hold on to any story which puts Trump in a bad light... even if there is no verification for it being true or if there is a good chance that it is not even true.


*The DACA negotiations*


Now for some real meat! I won't make a big post surrounding the FISA re-authorization because I think it's pretty clear what my views are on it (Hint: Fuck the 56 Democrats, the so called *RESISTANCE* :lmao who voted with Republicans on breaching privacy rights granted by the 4th amendment), so I want to post my thoughts on the ongoing negotiations surrounding the DACA bill.

I have to admit surrounding Illegal Immigration that there is one line of argument that is expressed by both liberals and even some Conservatives like Ben Shapiro who I respect which I do not understand (perhaps because I'm a heartless shitlord :trump ) and that is differentiating between so called "non-criminal" illegal aliens and criminal ones. The reason I don't get it is because if you cross into a countries borders illegally you are essentially guilty of trespassing without consent, which is a criminal offence. Say if I walk on to your property without your consent, you don't want me there and I refuse to move. I'm breaking the law by trespassing on your property. The same can be said for illegal immigrants, if you cross the border without the proper papers to show that you have been cleared by the state to enter the country, you are in fact trespassing which is a crime. 

Now is it as serious if someone who is working illegally had done this compared to someone who has committed a violent crime whilst being there illegally? Of course not. Should those who commit other serious crimes be prioritized to be deported before those who aren't? Of course. Common sense dictates these things. But it baffles me why certain illegal immigrants get a pass on this other than the usual emotional arguments we get on this subject. I know it's not the politically correct thing to say, but there is a reason why it's become a problem in the United States and it's because for too long the US has done nothing about it whilst there are those still trying to get into the country legally having to wait in the back of the line. Call me heartless but it's an issue that needs fixing.

Having said all that, I've said before that I don't believe that those who came to the US as children should be punished for the sins of the parents. So we're at an interesting crossroads here. What should be done? If I'm being honest here on what I think should be done in an ideal world, I do not believe they should be given amnesty, mainly because historically it hasn't worked. I've used this example before but Reagan did an amnesty bill back in 1986 which is over 30 years ago that was supposed to be a one time deal to solve the issue. The only problem was the administration couldn't account for millions of illegal immigrants that were not identified to be put on the path to citizenship and now the problem has gotten worse.

Think about amnesty in the frame of incentives like many economic and political policies: If you give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship without reform then you are in fact giving those thinking about crossing the border an incentive to do so knowing that a) So long as they don't get themselves in trouble with the law there is a good chance they will not get deported and b) All they have to do is wait until a Democrat or a moderate Republican gets in and chances are they will be granted a path to citizenship. This is why immigration has become a hot button topic in the United States.

If I were Trump, ideally this is how I'd handle the situation:

* *Have the parents of the Dreamers pay some sort of penalty or fine:* It would be silly and is well passed the time to either jail or deport them but at the same time, I don't think they should go unpunished. So I think some sort of penalty would be fine as a sort of payment for crossing illegally.

* *Have the Dreamers apply for Green Cards legally whilst in the country:* In the meantime you could give them some sort of temporary work visa whilst the application goes through. If need be if the process is going too slow, you could fast track them for efficiency sake and to not keep them in limbo.

From there, other than the reforms I'm going to mention, just treat them like every other person who has immigrated legally including giving them a path to citizenship after a certain time period.

Realistically, we're in a position where Trump wants to work with the Democrats because they clearly care about this issue a lot, which I get because Trump wants to appear as the deal maker whilst getting some sort of bipartisan deal through. It looks good on Trump's part.

In this situation, it's obvious the Democrats won't accept a deal without some sort of path to citizenship for the Dreamers. That doesn't mean however that you can't have some sort of deal where both sides get what they want. So if I were Trump, this is what I would propose:

* An end to chain migration and the visa lottery system
* Reform on border security including some sort of fence or wall. Yes as ridiculous as the idea still sounds to me, I'm not opposed to a border wall :lol.
* Switch to a points based merit system of immigration like Canada and Australia.

If he could the Democrats to agree to those three proposals, then I personally would not be opposed to granting the Dreamers amnesty in return. That feels like a good and fair compromise.

The problem is the Democrats have made it clear they aren't interested in immigration reform, meaning at the moment things are at a stalemate. Honestly, this is a time where I think Trump should play hardball with the negotiations and make it clear that there is no deal without major reform. Which is what it appears he's doing right now.

The MSM will say he's heartless or a racist but let's be honest here. If Trump were to do a deal around DACA which granted the Democrats everything they wanted with nothing in return, would the MSM's and Trump detractors impression of him turn overnight? Of course not :lol. If it's not DACA, it will be something else. So Trump should just say fuck it and stick to his guns. He's not going to win over those people, so what's he got to lose? I'd rather him stick to his principles over this and I respect that it seems thus far he is doing that.

Will be interesting to see how it turns out.


----------



## El Grappleador

virus21 said:


> They are under the impression that all Capitalism does is exploit people to profit the higher ups of corporations (which is actually Corporatism, not pure Capitalism) and that Socialism is much more fair and equal, even though most Socialism governments are far worse. That and many of them are lazy fucks who want the Government to pay for them.


Hey! I did learned last year.
We agree:
Corporatism is not the pure capitalism.
And It's true: Socialism gotten worse economies of their respective countries which has been ruled: Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, USSR.
In fact, Socialism and Corporatism has something in common: both political currents deal about an specie of interventionism who deny everone else their right to private propierty for the sake of please an specific collective.


And yes: Everybody wants a change, but we really don't, because we are too much comfortable to act by ourselves. Why? Because it talks too much about change but it knows a little bit.
Which are the changes of Rules?

It will be not easy
It will be not fast
It will not gonna like
In the end, you choice continue or back down
In addition, to make a change, there must be a constancy as in time as in space.
To make interesting the fight for a change, you must be a target, a motivation and a reward.
You can change your thought, your clothes, your attitude, but not your personality nor outer world.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

I think if people feel the ruling government and economy is oppressive, they tend to reject it and support its opposite. If you live in apartheid South Africa under their crony capitalism you become a communist. Same with Cuba under Batista. Conversely you see those that fled China, NK, Soviet union, etc and became capitalist. If the status quo sucks you jump to the other side. I think if apartheid South Africa had been communist you'd see speeches of Mandela touting the virtues of capitalism.

My bullshit opinion, anyway.


----------



## Reaper

2 Ton 21 said:


> I think if people feel the ruling government and economy is oppressive, they tend to reject it and support its opposite. If you live in apartheid South Africa under their crony capitalism you become a communist. Same with Cuba under Batista. Conversely you see those that fled China, NK, Soviet union, etc and became capitalist. If the status quo sucks you jump to the other side. I think if apartheid South Africa had been communist you'd see speeches of Mandela touting the virtues of capitalism.
> 
> My bullshit opinion, anyway.


Your opinion is better than a lot of people who post in this thread. 

The problem is that the vast majority of the worlds population doesn't want to accept that poverty is both relative as well as a state of mind and therefore at the core of every religion, cult, political movement and ideology is alleviation of poverty. 

Meanwhile the reality is that poverty and destitution cannot be ended. No good, human or system exists that can eliminate it.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Merry Reaper said:


> Your opinion is better than a lot of people who post in this thread.
> 
> The problem is that the vast majority of the worlds population doesn't want to accept that poverty is both relative as well as a state of mind and therefore at the core of every religion, cult, political movement and ideology is alleviation of poverty.
> 
> Meanwhile the reality is that poverty and destitution cannot be ended. No good, human or system exists that can eliminate it.


Agree with that. I do hope one day someone(s) much smarter than me might figure out a solution. I don't expect it in my lifetime, but I do hope one day they might.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Merry Reaper said:


> Yes. We've done that on occasion too. It's very versatile with what you can do with it lol.


At least half of what I eat revolves around me using bread in some form or fashion. But I love to eat so I buy other meaningless shit that my girlfriend gets angry at me for :lol


----------



## DesolationRow

@Mercy @CamillePunk @Merry Reaper @Makise Kurisu @Tater @Miss Sally @2 Ton 21 @Lougit BOSS @Goku


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953392043300216832


----------



## DesolationRow

@Mercy @CamillePunk @Merry Reaper @Makise Kurisu @Tater @Miss Sally @2 Ton 21 @Lougit BOSS @Goku 

Surveying the world today versus a year ago, one item that Donald Trump has earned at least some credit for bettering is the ongoing situation between the two Koreas. One of the side benefits to a routine transfer of power in the executive branch is the ushering in of something approaching a geopolitical opportunity to pivot from at least some of the octopus tentacles-like tendrils of "the carcasses of dead policies," as per Lord Salisbury. 

The matter at hand was a potentially dangerous one as Trump became president a year ago. Kim Jong Un has proven to be a formidable player on the international stage for he readily acknowledged the reality of the post-Cold War era of U.S. geopolitics. Seeing what occurred to regimes which lacked the deterrent of nuclear weapons to keep the Americans from invading their country and/or decapitating them, the ostensible blowhard dictator repeatedly threatened to destroy American cities, calling the new president Trump "a dotard." For the North Koreans the angle to play is reasonably simple: since the North's artillery on the DMZ would result in overwhelming South Korean and U.S. casualties, the some odd thirty thousand American soldiers stationed not far from there are fundamentally hostages to the carcass and what ought to be a dead policy. North Korean diplomacy sought to create a fissure between the Americans and South Koreans, but the fissure was already existent for the sixty-five-year-old Cold War treaty necessitating American war against the North if Seoul is attacked is in dire need of revisions. The South has approximately forty times the economic firepower with GDP against the North. 

What Trump opted to do was allow Kim to win the first several rounds of the confrontation, for in so doing he allowed the South Koreans to play Hamlet to the United States's Fortinbras. The major matter at stake is the survival of South Korea, and the South Koreans themselves are best playing the protagonist in this play. By easing up on the typical American critiques of the South Korean "Sunshine Policy" with the North, Trump, while also demonstrably voicing complaints about the U.S. trade imbalance with South Korea, allowed Seoul to reclaim full sovereignty in the matter with the North, and placed the U.S. in the least bit of the diplomatic tug-of-war. At the invitation of South Korean president Moon Jae-in, the North is now sending a skating team to what are being termed the "Peace Olympics" as one of the more serious nuclear crises of the past fifty-five years has been abated through cautious diligence on the part of Trump's administration. 

As Kim Jong Un knows, any conflagration with the South would result in the better part of the entire Korean peninsula being engulfed in flame with millions dead on each side. Kim's conciliatory note coupled to his issuing the sending of a delegation to the South during the upcoming Olympics were given the banner of his statement, "We sincerely hope that the South will successfully host the Olympics." 

Continuing this way, Kim stated, Above all, we must ease the acute military tensions between the North and the South. The North and the South should no longer do anything that would aggravate the situation, and must exert efforts to ease military tensions and create a peaceful environment." 

What has transpired over the past year is--Trump has played the distant but irascible "bad cop" to South Korean President Moon Jae-in's dovish "good cop." Trump has played his part so well and so naturally, in fact, partly because it suits him but also because this "bad cop" is not above voicing a litany of complaints about his partnership with the "good cop." By focusing so intently on the trade imbalance with the South Koreans, Trump has given Seoul every opportunity to recognize that the partnership as it has been known for several generations now must undergo a transformation. As Trump played "bad cop" over and over on twitter, for instance, exchanging playground taunts with Kim, the lines of communication were reopened between the two Koreas, allowing the U.S. to play its part with greater efficacy and less pressure all around. A month ago President Moon Jae-in issued the request that all of the upcoming regularly scheduled military exercises by joint U.S.-South Korean forces--long held in contempt by the North as provocative gestures, as they are crafted to simulate an invasion of the North and overtaking of Pyongyang--be postponed indefinitely, and certainly until after the upcoming Olympics. In a move that has flown under the radar, partially due to the U.S. media's obsession with viewing Trump as merely some sort of irresponsible gunslinger tweeting out one hostile remark after another for his own amusement, the U.S. president immediately agreed with Moon Jae-in, saying that the exercises by U.S.-South Korean forces should be halted until after the Olympics are over. 

Trump, again playing Fortinbras, only provided the cover for the dovish South Korean Moon Jae-in to rest easy against some South Korean hardliners, saying that he agreed with the South Korean president just before Christmas. Trump was not alternately playing tough American brute who would kick down the palace doors of Kim Jong Un's if things became nasty for American and North Korean consumption while extending an olive branch to Pyongyang for the consumption of the entire Korean peninsula. The Panmunjun Peace Village meeting in the demilitarized zone swiftly followed these quick chess moves, and it was at the Panmunjun Peace Village meeting that representatives of the North agreed with representatives from the South to send athletes as well as a whole delegation to the Olympic games, with both sides agreeing that talks between both the North and the South must continue to be ongoing and lead to laxer and laxer tensions and, each side pledged, solidly improved relations. 

As South Korea's President Moon is a dovish sort, steadfastly pushing for many years to bring about a renaissance of the "Sunshine Policy" abandoned in 2008, he is right to acknowledge that the American president deserves "big credit" for the litany of Kim's somewhat stunning concessions to the South. 

http://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/10/sout...eserves-big-credit-for-north-korea-talks.html



> South Korea's Moon says Trump deserves 'big' credit for North Korea talks
> "I think President Trump deserves big credit for bringing about the inter-Korean talks," Moon Jae-in told reporters at his New Year's news conference.
> Talks were held on Tuesday on the South Korean side of the demilitarized zone, which has divided the two Koreas since 1953.
> Trump has also claimed that talks between the North and South likely would not have occurred without his tough rhetoric against Pyongyang.


Though he is a dove, Moon Jae-in knows that Trump's role as enforcer is critical for the talks to remain meaningful for a while yet.



> "We cannot say talks are the sole answer," Moon said. "If North Korea engages in provocations again or does not show sincerity in resolving this issue, the international community will continue applying strong pressure and sanctions."


The entire international scorecard will have to be perused in the weeks and months to come but as 2018 is still young, for only a year in office, Trump's work vis-a-vis the perpetual headache of North Korea and South Korea has been consistently stellar.


----------



## yeahbaby!

DesolationRow said:


> @Mercy @CamillePunk @Merry Reaper @Makise Kurisu @Tater @Miss Sally @2 Ton 21 @Lougit BOSS @Goku
> 
> Surveying the world today versus a year ago, one item that Donald Trump has earned at least some credit for bettering is the ongoing situation between the two Koreas. One of the side benefits to a routine transfer of power in the executive branch is the ushering in of something approaching a geopolitical opportunity to pivot from at least some of the octopus tentacles-like tendrils of "the carcasses of dead policies," as per Lord Salisbury.
> 
> The matter at hand was a potentially dangerous one as Trump became president a year ago. Kim Jong Un has proven to be a formidable player on the international stage for he readily acknowledged the reality of the post-Cold War era of U.S. geopolitics. Seeing what occurred to regimes which lacked the deterrent of nuclear weapons to keep the Americans from invading their country and/or decapitating them, the ostensible blowhard dictator repeatedly threatened to destroy American cities, calling the new president Trump "a dotard." For the North Koreans the angle to play is reasonably simple: since the North's artillery on the DMZ would result in overwhelming South Korean and U.S. casualties, the some odd thirty thousand American soldiers stationed not far from there are fundamentally hostages to the carcass and what ought to be a dead policy. North Korean diplomacy sought to create a fissure between the Americans and South Koreans, but the fissure was already existent for the sixty-five-year-old Cold War treaty necessitating American war against the North if Seoul is attacked is in dire need of revisions. The South has approximately forty times the economic firepower with GDP against the North.
> 
> What Trump opted to do was allow Kim to win the first several rounds of the confrontation, for in so doing he allowed the South Koreans to play Hamlet to the United States's Fortinbras. The major matter at stake is the survival of South Korea, and the South Koreans themselves are best playing the protagonist in this play. By easing up on the typical American critiques of the South Korean "Sunshine Policy" with the North, Trump, while also demonstrably voicing complaints about the U.S. trade imbalance with South Korea, allowed Seoul to reclaim full sovereignty in the matter with the North, and placed the U.S. in the least bit of the diplomatic tug-of-war. At the invitation of South Korean president Moon Jae-in, the North is now sending a skating team to what are being termed the "Peace Olympics" as one of the more serious nuclear crises of the past fifty-five years has been abated through cautious diligence on the part of Trump's administration.
> 
> As Kim Jong Un knows, any conflagration with the South would result in the better part of the entire Korean peninsula being engulfed in flame with millions dead on each side. Kim's conciliatory note coupled to his issuing the sending of a delegation to the South during the upcoming Olympics were given the banner of his statement, "We sincerely hope that the South will successfully host the Olympics."
> 
> Continuing this way, Kim stated, Above all, we must ease the acute military tensions between the North and the South. The North and the South should no longer do anything that would aggravate the situation, and must exert efforts to ease military tensions and create a peaceful environment."
> 
> What has transpired over the past year is--Trump has played the distant but irascible "bad cop" to South Korean President Moon Jae-in's dovish "good cop." Trump has played his part so well and so naturally, in fact, partly because it suits him but also because this "bad cop" is not above voicing a litany of complaints about his partnership with the "good cop." By focusing so intently on the trade imbalance with the South Koreans, Trump has given Seoul every opportunity to recognize that the partnership as it has been known for several generations now must undergo a transformation. As Trump played "bad cop" over and over on twitter, for instance, exchanging playground taunts with Kim, the lines of communication were reopened between the two Koreas, allowing the U.S. to play its part with greater efficacy and less pressure all around. A month ago President Moon Jae-in issued the request that all of the upcoming regularly scheduled military exercises by joint U.S.-South Korean forces--long held in contempt by the North as provocative gestures, as they are crafted to simulate an invasion of the North and overtaking of Pyongyang--be postponed indefinitely, and certainly until after the upcoming Olympics. In a move that has flown under the radar, partially due to the U.S. media's obsession with viewing Trump as merely some sort of irresponsible gunslinger tweeting out one hostile remark after another for his own amusement, the U.S. president immediately agreed with Moon Jae-in, saying that the exercises by U.S.-South Korean forces should be halted until after the Olympics are over.
> 
> Trump, again playing Fortinbras, only provided the cover for the dovish South Korean Moon Jae-in to rest easy against some South Korean hardliners, saying that he agreed with the South Korean president just before Christmas. Trump was not alternately playing tough American brute who would kick down the palace doors of Kim Jong Un's if things became nasty for American and North Korean consumption while extending an olive branch to Pyongyang for the consumption of the entire Korean peninsula. The Panmunjun Peace Village meeting in the demilitarized zone swiftly followed these quick chess moves, and it was at the Panmunjun Peace Village meeting that representatives of the North agreed with representatives from the South to send athletes as well as a whole delegation to the Olympic games, with both sides agreeing that talks between both the North and the South must continue to be ongoing and lead to laxer and laxer tensions and, each side pledged, solidly improved relations.
> 
> As South Korea's President Moon is a dovish sort, steadfastly pushing for many years to bring about a renaissance of the "Sunshine Policy" abandoned in 2008, he is right to acknowledge that the American president deserves "big credit" for the litany of Kim's somewhat stunning concessions to the South.
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/10/sout...eserves-big-credit-for-north-korea-talks.html
> 
> 
> 
> Though he is a dove, Moon Jae-in knows that Trump's role as enforcer is critical for the talks to remain meaningful for a while yet.
> 
> 
> 
> The entire international scorecard will have to be perused in the weeks and months to come but as 2018 is still young, for only a year in office, Trump's work vis-a-vis the perpetual headache of North Korea and South Korea has been consistently stellar.



Ironically you could try and explain this erudite metaphor to Trump himself all day long and he'd have no idea who any of the players are. You'd need to start with the equivalent of a pop-up book version of Hamlet with his own face pasted over all the characters to even gain his interest.


----------



## FriedTofu

With regards to North Korea, either Trump is a stable genius at game theory or he just goes all-in every time in poker and constantly have ways to buy back in even if he loses. Not sure which is it.


----------



## yeahbaby!

FriedTofu said:


> With regards to North Korea, either Trump is a stable genius at game theory or he just goes all-in every time in poker and constantly have ways to buy back in even if he loses. Not sure which is it.


One of my best qualities is I'm like, really smart, so I know what I'm betting on.


----------



## GOON

Reminder that Trump is smarter than literally all of his critics ITT. Just because he doesn't fit your decadent bourgeoisie definition of "genius" (act like a submissive coward like Obama) doesn't mean that he isn't one.


----------



## yeahbaby!

GOON said:


> Reminder that Trump is smarter than literally all of his critics ITT. Just because he doesn't fit your decadent bourgeoisie definition of "genius" (act like a submissive coward like Obama) doesn't mean that he isn't one.


The fact you just used the word bourgeoisie, a word Trump would not understand in a million years, means you're not a real Trump fan. SAD!

Thanks for revealing your real beef however - that's quite the problem you appear to have with the former Mr President Barack Obama. Submissive coward lol who says that.


----------



## FriedTofu

GOON said:


> Reminder that Trump is smarter than literally all of his critics ITT. Just because he doesn't fit your decadent bourgeoisie definition of "genius" (act like a submissive coward like Obama) doesn't mean that he isn't one.


----------



## GOON

yeahbaby! said:


> The fact you just used the word bourgeoisie, a word Trump would not understand in a million years, means you're not a real Trump fan. SAD!
> 
> Thanks for revealing your real beef however - that's quite the problem you appear to have with the former Mr President Barack Obama. Submissive coward lol who says that.


Oh man. Trump doesn't throw around the word "bourgeoisie." That must mean that he doesn't know it!

Nah it's the fact that people deem Trump as "insane" or "dumb" just because he doesn't fit the mold of the neoliberal "respectable" statesman that Barack perfected. The media elites slander anyone who doesn't submit to their will. In their minds, Trump must be "insane" or "have a low IQ" to dare to combat their lies openly.


----------



## yeahbaby!

GOON said:


> Oh man. Trump doesn't throw around the word "bourgeoisie." That must mean that he doesn't know it!
> 
> Nah it's the fact that people deem Trump as "insane" or "dumb" just because he doesn't fit the mold of the neoliberal "respectable" statesman that Barack perfected. *The media elites slander anyone who doesn't submit to their will. In their minds, Trump must be "insane" or "have a low IQ" to dare to combat their lies openly*.


Well that's not an insane point in of itself, but it's beside the point - and the point is self evident because Trump makes it self evident.

I mean please be honest, don't you think someone that has made a life out of business meetings with a world of different contacts, made a life out of the art of negotiation as he puts it, the art of the deal etc, should have the simple common sense to realise a white house meeting isn't the place to bring out the terminology of 'shitholes' when talking about other countries? 

Isn't it just simple common sense to recognise it's not the time or the place? That showing respect might just be a better option? That has nothing to do with fake media or media lies etc, it's from the horses mouth and it's one of about a dozen and counting.

A lack of common sense shown over and over again needs to be called out on what it is - stupidity.


----------



## GOON

Also: This is an excellent article. It was written before Trump won (hence his pessimistic prediction towards the end) but the point remains: https://archive.fo/r7AHc

A lot of people still don't understand why Trump won.


----------



## GOON

yeahbaby! said:


> Well that's not an insane point in of itself, but it's beside the point - and the point is self evident because Trump makes it self evident.
> 
> I mean please be honest, don't you think someone that has made a life out of business meetings with a world of different contacts, made a life out of the art of negotiation as he puts it, the art of the deal etc, should have the simple common sense to realise a white house meeting isn't the place to bring out the terminology of 'shitholes' when talking about other countries?
> 
> Isn't it just simple common sense to recognise it's not the time or the place? That showing respect might just be a better option? That has nothing to do with fake media or media lies etc, it's from the horses mouth and it's one of about a dozen and counting.
> 
> A lack of common sense shown over and over again needs to be called out on what it is - stupidity.


I don't care that he said it. It's a statement that has some basis in truth regardless of how well Trump articulated it. America is a nation of 300 million+ people. Why must we continue to take in the world's poor? America wasn't founded to be a refuge of the world and the stupid poem that was put on the Statue of Liberty AFTER it was built means nothing. We have our own poor to worry about, who need jobs, and need help.

And nobody would know that Trump even said it had Democrats not blabbed to the media afterwards to get one over on Trump.


----------



## yeahbaby!

GOON said:


> I don't care that he said it. It's a statement that has some basis in truth regardless of how well Trump articulated it. America is a nation of 300 million+ people. Why must we continue to take in the world's poor? America wasn't founded to be a refuge of the world and the stupid poem that was put on the Statue of Liberty AFTER it was built means nothing. We have our own poor to worry about, who need jobs, and need help.
> 
> And nobody would know that Trump even said it had Democrats not blabbed to the media afterwards to get one over on Trump.


That's not the point, we're talking about Trump's character and his lack of common sense, judgement, statesmenship and simple decorum. It's not a one off, it's one of a laundry list.

But it seems he could take a dump on your head and you'd thank him for it, unable to ever admit he's ever done anything wrong - lest you ever appear anything like 'submissive coward'.


----------



## GOON

yeahbaby! said:


> That's not the point, we're talking about Trump's character and his lack of common sense, judgement, statesmenship and simple decorum. It's not a one off, it's one of a laundry list.
> 
> But it seems he could take a dump on your head and you'd thank him for it, unable to ever admit he's ever done anything wrong - lest you ever appear anything like 'submissive coward'.


I don't care about his "decorum" when it comes to interacting with people who will complain about his language regardless. For all we know, the people at the meeting were trying to sell him on a bullshit immigration deal and Trump cut through said bullshit with his "shithole" remark.

Your critique of Trump is essentially that he isn't civil enough. He's too crude. He's too blunt. Who cares? I don't care about stuff like that and its never bothered me.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953731733651886081

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953733906137796608


Makise Kurisu said:


> Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal say President Donald Trump has had generally positive effects on U.S. economic growth, hiring and the performance of the stock market during his first year in office.
> 
> The professional forecasters also predicted 2018 would see solid growth and a continued decline in the jobless rate. One factor: the tax cuts signed into law by Mr. Trump in December, which most economists say will boost the economy for several years at least.
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of interesting articles surrounding the performance of the economy under Trump. Seems as though economists are willing to give Trump more credit than the anti-Trumpers are willing to concede. How shocking.
> 
> Reminds me of when Bush was blamed for Obama increasing the deficit every year to over a trillion dollars under his first term. The Democrats and the left simply does not either want to take responsibility when something goes wrong or give credit to their opposition when something is moving in the right direction. That's partisan politics for you .
Click to expand...

It's like you don't even understand the causes of boom-bust economies. fpalm

These are the same "professional forecasters" who said everything was doing great before the last crash happened. We've seen this play before. It ends the same way every single time. You know what they say about repeating the same actions and expecting different results. Do try to learn from it the next time it happens.



GOON said:


> You really don't have arguments of your own, do you?


Pot, meet kettle.



Miss Sally said:


> Governments are supposed to be scared of it's people, we live in an age where we live in fear of our Governments and Politicians, what wrong think will they punish me for?


----------



## GOON

I actually agree Trump hasn't sufficiently purged the Neocons (John McCain, Bill Kristol, etc, should die in jail) but I'm not going to shed tears over Syria when he's doing fine on the domestic front.


----------



## Tater

GOON said:


> I actually agree Trump hasn't sufficiently purged the Neocons (John McCain, Bill Kristol, etc, should die in jail) but I'm not going to shed tears over Syria when he's doing fine on the domestic front.


If by "fine on the domestic front", you mean continuing the trends of every other president of the past 40 years, then yeah, he's doing just fine. The domestic trajectory now is every bit as unchanged as foreign policy.

At least you seem to understand that Trump is a puppet of the neocons. You get credit for that much.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...trump-now-believes-border-wall-is-unnecessary
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/18/trump-border-wall-position-john-kelly-345500?cmpid=sf

Bit of an odd one, I'm assuming Trump's stating his actual opinion on the matter and Kelly's off base?


----------



## Reaper

Remember this face. 

This is the face of a real wife beater (who would actually be a wife beater if he wasn't so emasculated by stronger women). 

The way he was talking to the DHS lady was sickening, but that's what you can expect from the small-dicked "respek muh wymens" crowd these days. Horrible stuff. Real man right there. Wow. Not a day goes by now without a story breaking of some emasculated cuck breaking out his repressed aggression on a woman. Either it's through verbal abuse, or through physical abuse, rape, molestation. What have you. 

The more you watch this video, the more you'll see that this man is letting out his aggression that he repressed when his mommy and wifey emasculated him for all those years while they turned him into a liberal. But yea, we've created this culture where it's ok for these liberal pieces of shit to abuse conservative women and so that's where their aggression is placed.


----------



## Miss Sally

Merry Reaper said:


> Remember this face.
> 
> This is the face of a real wife beater (who would actually be a wife beater if he wasn't so emasculated by stronger women).
> 
> The way he was talking to the DHS lady was sickening, but that's what you can expect from the small-dicked "respek muh wymens" crowd these days. Horrible stuff. Real man right there. Wow. Not a day goes by now without a story breaking of some emasculated cuck breaking out his repressed aggression on a woman. Either it's through verbal abuse, or through physical abuse, rape, molestation. What have you.
> 
> The more you watch this video, the more you'll see that this man is letting out his aggression that he repressed when his mommy and wifey emasculated him for all those years while they turned him into a liberal. But yea, we've created this culture where it's ok for these liberal pieces of shit to abuse conservative women and so that's where their aggression is placed.


It was last year me and a few females here, think it was about 5-6 and total were talking about how we're not Third Wavers and about different stuff regarding Feminism and we had male members here going hard at us about it and not respecting our opinions. I found it ironic because they said they were Feminists, so why were they mansplaining and not respecting Female opinion or thoughts?

They're no different from the men who use the bible, the quran or anything else to basically shut down women's opinions or wants. They just use Third Wave Feminism instead and try to browbeat women into submission of the ideology.

Reminds me when those two men were raging on Lindsay Shepard and claiming to be Feminists while breaking their own rules. Fucking hypocrites.
@Tater this syrian shit puts us at odds with Russia and all it will do is lead to another Iraq. If Syria falls it will have devastating consequences that will send the migrant crisis into overdrive and see more of the Mid East in absolute chaos. Assad is a terrible man but you cannot rule that area with kid gloves.


----------



## GOON

Tater said:


> If by "fine on the domestic front", you mean continuing the trends of every other president of the past 40 years, then yeah, he's doing just fine. The domestic trajectory now is every bit as unchanged as foreign policy.
> 
> At least you seem to understand that Trump is a puppet of the neocons. You get credit for that much.


Lol in what way has Trump been "following the trend of every other president of the past 40 years" domestically? I don't care about pot.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> It was last year me and a few females here, think it was about 5-6 and total were talking about how we're not Third Wavers and about different stuff regarding Feminism and we had male members here going hard at us about it and not respecting our opinions. I found it ironic because they said they were Feminists, so why were they mansplaining and not respecting Female opinion or thoughts?
> 
> They're no different from the men who use the bible, the quran or anything else to basically shut down women's opinions or wants. They just use Third Wave Feminism instead and try to browbeat women into submission of the ideology.
> 
> Reminds me when those two men were raging on Lindsay Shepard and claiming to be Feminists while breaking their own rules. Fucking hypocrites.


It's a double-edged sword. Either you care about women and not treat them like shit, or you don't actually care about women and your true colors will eventually reveal themselves like it has with SO many "respek wymen" men who are daily being outed as abusers. 

IMO, men are not programmed to give respect to someone based on the idea that respect is innate. Men are more programmed to care and protect so men need to go back to that aspect of their innate quality in their interactions with women. "What am I saying, or doing that might be hurting the person in front of me?" ... Meanwhile, what exactly is "respect" .. what do these people even mean by it? As a person, I only respect people who I feel are at my level or have shown they are my better. Respect is earned. It's not innate. Hence why "repect muh wymens" campaign and verbal training is a massive failure. 

Interestingly, men do have this innate sense of needing to be respected and I believe that women are wired more towards realizing that people have this innate authority and hence respect is so important for them. What they don't understand is that men would rather be in a position where they can care about someone as opposed to "respecting" them. That's how I personally give respect --- I care enough about you that I won't do something intentionally to hurt you. 

Personally, I _don't _respect women nor do I ever claim to respect a woman just cuz she's a woman ... but I try to care about her feelings as much as I can until we get to a point where there's no mutual benefit to be had from further interactions with such person and then I just cool off with a curt "I'm done" and walk away. 

If I see myself fly off the handle, I will remove myself from the house, room or whatever that's occupied by someone else until and I've grounded myself back. 

None of this happened easily. It took time and an actual effort to recognize and understand my own shortcomings.


----------



## Tater

Miss Sally said:


> @Tater this syrian shit puts us at odds with Russia and all it will do is lead to another Iraq. If Syria falls it will have devastating consequences that will send the migrant crisis into overdrive and see more of the Mid East in absolute chaos. Assad is a terrible man but you cannot rule that area with kid gloves.


Regardless of how evil Assad is or isn't, Syria is a sovereign nation and the United States is the invading army. We have no right to set up shop on their land. They are not a threat to our national security. I can assure you they won't be invading Nebraska any time soon. The only reason the US military is there is the same reason they're in every other country they shouldn't be in. I don't think I need to explain to you what that reason is.

The biggest fuck you of all to the American people is that we have to fund this shit to protect interests that are not our own.



GOON said:


> Lol in what way has Trump been "following the trend of every other president of the past 40 years" domestically? I don't care about pot.


Corporate consolidation is continuing. The surveillance state is expanding. We're still locking up more of our people than any other country in the world. Wealth is still being funneled to the top. Jobs are still being outsourced. Debt is continuing to skyrocket. Under Obama, nearly all of the economic gains after the economic crash went to the top 1%. That's a trend that will be accelerated even further with the massive tax cuts for the rich that just passed. The amount of taxes corporations pay are at record lows and their profits are at record highs, yet they are still being given more and more. Meanwhile, the common working man is still struggling to put food on his table and keep a roof over his head. It was like that under Obama and it's still like that under Trump.

Different methods are applied and superficial changes are made but the end results are always the same; more for them, less for us. No significant structural changes are ever made to the system. It doesn't matter if a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House. The oligarchs will be protected at all costs and the rest of us are expected to live off their table scraps.

Take the Carrier scam, for example. Trump made a big show of "protecting" American jobs. The reality is, they outsourced most of those jobs to Mexico anyways and the 7 million in subsidies were used to further automate their factories. That was never even a secret either. The CEO of the company admitted that way back in December of 2016. Talk about fucking the people of Indiana. They just got the privilege of subsidizing the automation of their own jobs.

You have to pull yourself out of the MSM propaganda bubble and look at the end results of what's being done. Liberals who believe Obama was looking out for their best interests are just as big of chumps as conservatives who believe the same about Trump. Our government is bought and owned by oligarchs. Everything it does is in the interests of those at the very top. The results bear that out.


----------



## Reaper

I'd rather not make a new thread for this as a lot of economic discussion takes place here. I've been tracking the whole Bitcoin saga for the last few months and it had everyone from libertarians to anti-federalists claiming that this is the savior of humanity and that it would be able to compete and maybe even replace the US Dollar as the currency of choice. 

I sat through the whole saga (despite the fact that I had the money at the time to actually buy bitcoin), but the one thing that I remembered was that IF the investment itself cannot buy you land, then that investment isn't worth committing to. I stayed away from the stock market and I especially stayed away from the Bitcoin market. It kept propping up in political circles --- especially amongst the libertarian right and even libertarian left. 

Well, this is where all these people's money went to. Their hard earned money that was supposed to be their future. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social



> Bitcoin's Plunge Turns the Winklevoss Twins Into Ex-Billionaires
> 
> What Bitcoin giveth, Bitcoin taketh away.
> 
> Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, the twin brothers who became billionaires after the run-up in the price of Bitcoin and other digital assets toward the end of last year, have seen their fortunes drop 37 percent in the past month as the cryptocurrency plunged.
> 
> Bitcoin dipped below $10,000 Wednesday, extending a rout that has sliced $443 million from the net worth of each brother, leaving them with $739 million apiece, at least on paper, according to the Bloomberg Billionaire Index.
> 
> Bitcoin dropped 10 percent to $9,544.09 as of 11 a.m. in New York, the first time it traded below the $10,000 threshold since Dec. 1, according to consolidated pricing data collated by Bloomberg. It peaked at $19,511 on Dec. 18.
> 
> Still, the twins may not be too concerned. They intend to hold their Bitcoin for the long-term and expect it to “appreciate by 10 to 20 times its current value,” Cameron Winklevoss said in a Dec. 8 interview with Bloomberg.


People only noticed these Billionnaires who lost a shit ton of money ... But imo, the real losers are those poor people who bought late and are now hoping against hope that it will come back up to the level they bought it at. 

Sure, early investors are ok. But late buyers. STAY the FUCK away. This is not going to replace the US Dollar. This is not the savior of Federalism. This is not the replacement that people were thinking it would be. This is not a dud, but it's also not at all anything close to what it was cracked up to be. If you're not smart enough to understand economics and how these things work, don't get caught up by people who pretend that they do when they don't either. Everyone was predicting a massive correction and I saw literally people MOCKING those who would say that the crash is coming. 

Meanwhile on Reddit: 

http://www.newsweek.com/cryptocurre...line-appear-reddit-forum-bitcoin-price-783412



> CRYPTOCURRENCY CRASH SEES SUICIDE HOTLINE APPEAR ON REDDIT FORUM, AS BITCOIN PRICE CONTINUES SLIDE
> 
> Bitcoin and other virtual currencies have nearly halved in value since last month, prompting a popular cryptocurrency forum to offer suicide prevention support to any members who may have been impacted financially by the price crash.
> 
> The cryptocurrency forum on Reddit, which has almost half a million subscribers, featured a post with links to the U.S. National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, as well as other suicide and mental health resources for people who live outside the United States.
> 
> The price falls of bitcoin and other major cryptocurrencies—like ethereum, litecoin and ripple—have been attributed to a variety of factors, including news reports in South Korea and China about increased government regulation on exchanges, as well as the closure of the popular crypto platform Bitconnect.
> 
> Keep Up With This Story And More By Subscribing Now
> 
> The suicide prevention post on Reddit, posted by a user going by the name of A_Internet_Stranger, explained how people new to cryptocurrency investing would be among the worst affected by the recent price drop.
> 
> “The hardest hit people are one of the following: Newcomers, Margin Traders, or Day-Traders (and those in Bitconnect),” stated the post, which has received more than 45,000 upvotes and more than 3,000 comments. “The vast majority of people who have held for more than 60+ days are still in the green.”
> 
> During the late 2017 price surges, prominent cryptocurrency figure George Popescu spoke of the need for a specialized suicide prevention hotline for people affected by the significant swings.
> 
> “People borrow money and invest in cryptocurrencies. If they lose it, they can get really hurt in this bitcoin craze,” Popescu, the CEO of Block X Bank, told The Korea Herald. “Maybe what we should do right now is to set up a suicide prevention lifeline to give those who hoard bitcoins a call and ask if they really know what they are doing.”
> 
> The volatility of bitcoin has previously been named a factor in suicide, with a post on Reddit’s bitcoin forum last month detailing a story in which a 29-year-old man apparently killed himself after missing out on the bitcoin gold rush.
> 
> Read more: Bitcoin price fall sees investors hold, saying cryptocurrency crash is a "yearly pattern"
> 
> In a post titled ‘My brother killed himself because of BTC,’ one user wrote about how a sibling became depressed after selling or losing up to 15,000 bitcoins before bitcoin’s dramatic price surge in 2017.
> 
> “As the price took off in late 2013-early 2014 you could tell he was distraught over it and became increasingly withdrawn from family and friends,” the post stated, before describing the circumstances of his death.
> 
> “If I had missed out on $50M I might have killed myself too. I can’t imagine what my brother must have been feeling these past several years knowing he missed his best and easiest shot at the wealthy life he had always fantasized about.”


https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/01/17/bitconnect-bitcoin-scam-cryptocurrency/



> *How BitConnect pulled the biggest exit scheme in cryptocurrency*
> 
> In a menacing turn of events yesterday, Bitcoin investment lending platform BitConnect abruptly announced it is shutting down its lending and exchange services. But while this sudden “curveball” might have come as a massive surprise for thousands of gullible investors, the writing was on the wall all along.
> 
> The company, which made its foray into the cryptocurrency scene with an initial coin offering (ICO) in late December 2016, swiftly cemented its position as one of 2017’s best performing currencies on CoinMarketCap. Indeed, during its heyday, BitConnect boasted a market cap of over $2.6 billion and a value exceeding the $400 mark.
> 
> But despite its meteoric growth and burgeoning user base, the investment platform attracted a swarm of naysayers with its suspicious business model, which vocal critics repeatedly labeled a Ponzi scheme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guaranteed to earn investors up to 40 percent total return per month, BitConnect followed a four-tier investment system based on the sum of initial deposit – the more cash you put down, the bigger and faster profits you could rake in.
> 
> Regardless of the stake though, investors were promised a one-percent return of investment (ROI) on a daily basis. To this end, the company had developed its own proprietary “trading bot and volatility software” that would turn your Bitcoin investment into a fortune. Or so the information provided on the website suggested.
> 
> This meant that salting $1,000 away into your BitConnect investment account could net you more than $50 million within three years, assuming the scheme does indeed live up to its promise for one-percent interest compounded on a daily basis. Needless to say though, many deemed this model unsustainable.
> 
> Among the first ones to voice his concern with the company was Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin. “If [one percent per day] is what they offer,” he said on Twitter back in November, “then that’s a [P]onzi [scheme].”
> 
> Despite these warnings, BitConnect continued to pick up momentum.
> 
> Indeed, the company relied on an aggressive marketing strategy on all fronts. Putting aside its extensive digital and event marketing efforts, the company had enlisted a large army of multi-level affiliate marketers to recruit new investors, who could then work their way up by bringing in even more new investors – and so on and so on. In the real world, we call this a pyramid scheme.


My prediction is that eventually there will be no cryptocurrencies.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953757704643850240


> *Breaking - Tillerson Unveils 'New' US Syria Plan: 'Assad Must Go!'*
> Written by Daniel McAdams
> Wednesday January 17, 2018
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confirming that the US military presence inside Syria had little to do with fighting ISIS, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson unveiled in detail today the real US strategy for Syria: overthrow of the Assad government.
> 
> In a speech at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and introduced by President George W. Bush's Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Secretary Tillerson vowed that the United States military would continue to occupy Syrian territory until three conditions are met:
> 
> *First: ISIS must be destroyed. *
> 
> This condition is made all the more problematic by the well-reported fact that it is the United States government that at every turn seems to pull ISIS chestnuts out of the fire. From handing them weapons to allowing them to escape when they are trapped in places like Raqqa, it almost seems like the US does not want to really see the end of ISIS.
> 
> *Second: Assad must go.*
> 
> Tillerson's admission that this is a sine qua non for any US military departure from Syria confirms that the Trump foreign policy is no different from that of Hillary Clinton or her former boss, President Obama. Recall that as part of his "thank you" tour, President-elect Trump reiterated promises made by candidate Trump to break with the past:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past. We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments. …In our dealings with other countries we will seek shared interests wherever possible...”
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear that he lied, as it is reported that he signed off on this new Syria strategy last month at a meeting of his National Security Council.
> 
> Secretary Tillerson said today that new elections should be held in Syria and that President Assad should lose:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States believes that free and transparent elections … will result in the permanent departure of Assad and his family from power... Assad’s regime is corrupt, and his methods of governance and economic development have increasingly excluded certain ethnic and religious groups... Such oppression cannot persist forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tillerson's speech reveals that the old myth about the Syrian people "rising up" to overthrow Assad is still very much viewed as Gospel truth in Washington:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...our expectation is that the desire for a return to normal life … will help rally the Syrian people and individuals within the regime to compel Assad to step down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: we are going to continue to make life miserable for you until you overthrow Assad. Then it will return to "normal." Presumably the people of Syria understand what "normal" life after a US "liberation" looks like from examples like Libya, Iraq, and Ukraine.
> 
> Tillerson also made the bizarre assertion that US troops will remain in Syria to prevent the Syrian government from re-establishing control over the parts of Syria abandoned by a defeated ISIS. So the legitimate government of Syria will be prevented by an illegal United States military occupation from reclaiming its own territory? This is supposed to be a coherent policy?
> 
> *Third: Refugees must be returned to Syria.*
> 
> Secretary Tillerson said today at Stanford University:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America has an opportunity to help people who have suffered greatly. The safe and voluntary return of #Syrian refugees serves the security interests of the U.S. and our allies and partners. We must give Syrians a chance to return home and rebuild their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the one event that led to the biggest return of refugees back to Syria was violently opposed by the US government: the Syrian government's liberation of east Aleppo from al-Qaeda control!
> 
> *For additional consideration:*
> 
> The US military is busy creating a 30,000-strong Kurdish militia to reportedly guard Syria's borders with Turkey and Iraq. NATO-ally Turkey is violently opposing US moves to further arm Kurd groups that it considers terrorist.
> 
> The discredited "Free Syrian Army" (FSA) is back in Washington begging the Trump Administration to re-open the CIA weapons pipeline. The FSA is perhaps best known for immediately handing any weapons it gets from Washington directly to al-Qaeda in Syria. Will Trump's neocon-filled ecosphere convince him to once again put some wind in al-Qaeda's sails?
> 
> Will Congress awake from its slumber and finally dust off the part of the Constitution directing the Legislative Branch to decide on matters of war and peace? It's probably an ill-advised bet, however there are a few whispers on Capitol Hill that a shift in US military focus from anti-ISIS to anti-Assad and anti-Iran might be slightly problematic.
> 
> Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has just unveiled a 100 percent neocon approved "new" US policy for Syria: No more pussyfooting around. We won't abandon our project in Syria like Obama "abandoned" Libya (presumably, as the neocon myth goes, on the verge of becoming a new Switzerland after its "liberation" only to be thrust back into the mire by Obama's premature withdrawal).
> 
> President Trump is set to out-neocon the neocons with this foolish and destructive policy. The showman is shown to be nothing but a fraud.
> 
> http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archive...rson-unveils-new-us-syria-plan-assad-must-go/
Click to expand...

*The showman is shown to be nothing but a fraud.*


----------



## Reaper

I wonder how "muh wymens' rights" people will feel about this: 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/2604...tm_content=051717-news&utm_campaign=dwtwitter



> AWESOME TRUMP: Trump To Become First Sitting President To Address March For Life
> 
> On Wednesday, the Trump White House announced that President Trump would speak at the annual March For Life, making him the first sitting president to do so. The March For Life draws hundreds of thousands of people every year to Washington D.C. to protest the Roe v. Wade decision that mandated that states legalize abortion.
> 
> Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders made the announcement, and stated that Trump wouldn’t attend in person, but would speak live from the White House.
> 
> This is a moral move for Trump – Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is not only one of the worst legal decisions in American history, but one of the most immoral. Abortions have been declining markedly across the United States since their heyday in the 1990s; in 1990, for example, the Centers for Disease Control reported 1.4 million abortions, while in 2013, that number was 644,435, less than half. The American people have also become significantly more pro-life over the decades, thanks to the hard work of the pro-life movement.
> 
> Speaking at the March for Life is also a smart political move for Trump – it’s a low cost way to reassure his base that he still maintains their priorities, especially in light of new reports regarding his sexual profligacy while married. Evangelical Christians have been Trump’s most solid supporters, and they will likely continue to do so if he speaks out strongly against abortion, despite his checkered history on the issue.
> 
> There’s little doubt the media will savage Trump for speaking at the March For Life – they’ll suggest that he’s a sexist, since the media routinely conflate protection of the unborn with hatred of women, a nonsensical and deeply disgusting conflation. But that may be good for Trump, too: most Americans don’t see pro-lifers as sexist at root, and pro-lifers certainly won’t stand for such an insulting proposition.
> 
> Good for Trump. It’s beyond time a president stood with life as publicly and loudly as possible, and gave credence to a massive event the media ignore every year. Trump has a spotlight, and he’s doing a service by shining it on the March For Life.


I'm not looking to debate abortion. My final stance on that topic has been made abundantly clear in this thread repeatedly. For me, it's not even a march for life but rather a march for the survival of the weakest members of society.


----------



## Vic Capri

Virtue signalling Jeff Flake voted to hand "Stalin" more domestic surveillance. Oops!



> Remember this face.
> 
> This is the face of a real wife beater (who would actually be a wife beater if he wasn't so emasculated by stronger women).
> 
> The way he was talking to the DHS lady was sickening, but that's what you can expect from the small-dicked "respek muh wymens" crowd these days. Horrible stuff. Real man right there. Wow. Not a day goes by now without a story breaking of some emasculated cuck breaking out his repressed aggression on a woman. Either it's through verbal abuse, or through physical abuse, rape, molestation. What have you.
> 
> The more you watch this video, the more you'll see that this man is letting out his aggression that he repressed when his mommy and wifey emasculated him for all those years while they turned him into a liberal. But yea, we've created this culture where it's ok for these liberal pieces of shit to abuse conservative women and so that's where their aggression is placed.


Cory Booker also supported Big Pharma and Jeff Sessions, but Team Blue conveniently forgot about that.

- Vic


----------



## GOON

Tater said:


> We're still locking up more of our people than any other country in the world.


Probably because we have the most criminals.



> Wealth is still being funneled to the top. *Jobs are still being outsourced*. Debt is continuing to skyrocket. Under Obama, nearly all of the economic gains after the economic crash went to the top 1%. That's a trend that will be accelerated even further with the massive tax cuts for the rich that just passed. *The amount of taxes corporations pay are at record lows and their profits are at record highs*, yet they are still being given more and more. Meanwhile, the common working man is still struggling to put food on his table and keep a roof over his head. It was like that under Obama and it's still like that under Trump.


Unless you're willing to nationalize a lot of these corporations and literally force them to remain in the United States (which I would not oppose) you have to give them financial incentives to remain. These CEOs are not altruistic people and don't have any real loyalty to the nation. You either give them financial incentives to remain or you force them to.

And in any case, Apple announced the other day that: 



> The iPhone makers announced Wednesday that it would make the move, paying about $38 billion in taxes on the money *and spending tens of billions on domestic jobs, manufacturing and data centers in the coming years.* Apple also told employees that it’s issuing stock-based bonuses worth $2,500 each following the new U.S. tax law, according to people familiar with the matter.


So evidently we're seeing some jobs return.



> Different methods are applied and superficial changes are made but the end results are always the same; more for them, less for us. No significant structural changes are ever made to the system. It doesn't matter if a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House. The oligarchs will be protected at all costs and the rest of us are expected to live off their table scraps


Ok and? I don't inherently disagree but what are your preferred solutions to this? Every nation throughout history has had a form of oligarchs in some shape. The difference between now and then is that our oligarchs, in this era of globalization, no longer have loyalty to the nation of their birth. In the past America's oligarchs/elites at least had a sense of noblesse oblige (Theodore Roosevelt for one). Today they're entirely rootless in nature and that is one of the main reasons for the problems that you outline. America's elites are completely disconnected from the masses.

Trump is actually a good example of noblesse oblige. If he wanted to merely help his buddies he wouldn't have run the campaign that he did much less seek the GOP nomination.



> Take the Carrier scam, for example. Trump made a big show of "protecting" American jobs. The reality is, they outsourced most of those jobs to Mexico anyways and the 7 million in subsidies were used to further automate their factories. That was never even a secret either. The CEO of the company admitted that way back in December of 2016. Talk about fucking the people of Indiana. They just got the privilege of subsidizing the automation of their own jobs.


What would you want Trump to do to Carrier? Nationalize them? You'd probably call him a "statist" if he did that.



> You have to pull yourself out of the MSM propaganda bubble and look at the end results of what's being done. Liberals who believe Obama was looking out for their best interests are just as big of chumps as conservatives who believe the same about Trump. Our government is bought and owned by oligarchs. Everything it does is in the interests of those at the very top. The results bear that out.


This is a cynical take. The problem is what I outlined above. Virtually every government has had a small ruling elite. That's nothing new but economic globalization has created a new, transnational elite class that is entirely cosmopolitan.

But in the end it all goes back to the title of Vladimir Lenin's most famous work: "What is to be Done?"


----------



## Tater

GOON said:


> Probably because we have the most criminals.


I'm just going to assume you're being facetious here...



GOON said:


> Unless you're willing to nationalize a lot of these corporations and literally force them to remain in the United States (which I would not oppose) you have to give them financial incentives to remain. These CEOs are not altruistic people and don't have any real loyalty to the nation. You either give them financial incentives to remain or you force them to.


You act like those are the only two alternatives when neither are particularly good options. You shouldn't have to subsidize businesses just to get them to stay in the country and nationalizing them would be an even bigger mistake. 

Just to point out the obvious, instead of offering them financial incentives in the form of taxpayer subsidies, you could always tell them that you'd slap a tariff so high on their goods that it would cancel out the cheap third world country labor and make it cheaper to just pay people good wages in the USA.

A better, more permanent solution to the problem of shipping jobs overseas is worker co-ops. Quick question: if the workers owned the corporations, do you believe they would vote to ship their own jobs overseas? Okay, that was a rhetorical question. Of course they wouldn't. Nor would they vote to funnel most of the profits generated into the hands of a small group of people at the very top.

Concentrated economic power is the problem. You don't want to nationalize the corporations because then we'd all be working for the government and fuck communism. You also don't want to have to give the corporations tax subsidies because they are threatening to take the jobs away. Instead of forcing people to choose between working for the government and working for some jackass CEO who doesn't give a fuck about them and is making 300 times as much as his employees, what we should be doing is giving people the option of working for themselves.



GOON said:


> Ok and? I don't inherently disagree but what are your preferred solutions to this? Every nation throughout history has had a form of oligarchs in some shape. The difference between now and then is that our oligarchs, in this era of globalization, no longer have loyalty to the nation of their birth. In the past America's oligarchs/elites at least had a sense of noblesse oblige (Theodore Roosevelt for one). Today they're entirely rootless in nature and that is one of the main reasons for the problems that you outline. America's elites are completely disconnected from the masses.


Just because something has always been a certain way doesn't provide any validation for allowing it to continue that way. You're definitely right about oligarchs in the age of globalization. We don't have to allow them to operate that way in our own country though. Step one to solving this problem would be banning all forms of private money in government. I'd toss all lobbyists on the scrap heap while we're at it. No one person, regardless of wealth, should have more influence over public policy than anyone else. Americans supposedly believe in things like democracy and one person, one vote. Not that we have it, but a lot of people here claim to believe in it. Maybe it's time we start practicing what we preach.



GOON said:


> Trump is actually a good example of noblesse oblige. If he wanted to merely help his buddies he wouldn't have run the campaign that he did much less seek the GOP nomination.


:ha

Sorry but you can't seriously still believe that, not after a year of results.



GOON said:


> What would you want Trump to do to Carrier? Nationalize them? You'd probably call him a "statist" if he did that.


I'd call him a fuckin' commie and it would be an accurate statement. I've already answered this above but just to state for the record, I am just as opposed to an authoritarian left wing communist government as I am to an authoritarian right wing fascist government. All forms of unaccountable concentrated power are a problem. Whether that power comes from the left or right is irrelevant.



GOON said:


> This is a cynical take. The problem is what I outlined above. Virtually every government has had a small ruling elite. That's nothing new but economic globalization has created a new, transnational elite class that is entirely cosmopolitan.


Cynical but true. Many of society's ills would solve themselves naturally by taking power out of the hands of the few and spreading it out amongst the many. People can't abuse their power if they don't have it.

ETA:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954071701356253190
Good question.


----------



## Reaper

From the few to the many is just as retarded as from the many to the few. 

When the many get together there are witch burnings, blasphemy laws, mob lynching and public hangings. 

Fuck the "many". Humans are assholes and even bigger assholes when they're allowed to have power in large groups.


----------



## GOON

Tater said:


> A better, more permanent solution to the problem of shipping jobs overseas is worker co-ops. Quick question: if the workers owned the corporations, do you believe they would vote to ship their own jobs overseas? Okay, that was a rhetorical question. Of course they wouldn't. Nor would they vote to funnel most of the profits generated into the hands of a small group of people at the very top.


Ok and how would a company like Apple be turned into a Co-Op? Are you just going to push out the CEO and other executives and turn it over to the people in the sweatshops? Same goes for other corporations like Nike, Ford, and so on. It sounds like a fine idea on the surface but impossible to enforce, especially when it comes to corporations that have already shipped most of their labor overseas.





> Just because something has always been a certain way doesn't provide any validation for allowing it to continue that way. You're definitely right about oligarchs in the age of globalization. We don't have to allow them to operate that way in our own country though. Step one to solving this problem would be banning all forms of private money in government. I'd toss all lobbyists on the scrap heap while we're at it. No one person, regardless of wealth, should have more influence over public policy than anyone else. Americans supposedly believe in things like democracy and one person, one vote. Not that we have it, but a lot of people here claim to believe in it. Maybe it's time we start practicing what we preach.


If something *has* always been, then odds are that it’s a natural part of the system that it inhabits. You can talk about what *should* be, such as everybody having an equal say over public policy, that has very rarely, if ever, been the case. Oligarchies form around power and that’s hasn’t always been a bad thing. The problem, as I previously mentioned, is that our present day oligarchs aren’t “American” in any meaningful way. They might’ve been born in America but they hold no loyalty to it.




> :ha
> 
> Sorry but you can't seriously still believe that, not after a year of results.


Results aren’t reflective of his intent. On two separate occasions during the campaign people tried to rush the stage in an attempt to probably kill him. Unless he felt some sort of obligation to the nation he had no reason to run if his goal was to merely act as an agent of the oligarchy. You’re too cynical on this point.




> Cynical but true. Many of society's ills would solve themselves naturally by taking power out of the hands of the few and spreading it out amongst the many. People can't abuse their power if they don't have it.


That would make things even worse at this point, especially in contemporary America with the culture it has. You’re essentially advocating for mob rule in a country where political violence is escalating. Perhaps it would be functional in a country where the population is able to at least give you a coherent definition of what said country is but we don’t even have that anymore in America. Your vision of democracy would just increase tensions in America; not decrease it.

The oligarchs might be shit but I'd rather just purge the ruling-class as opposed to handing power over an unstable population that can't even define what America is.


----------



## birthday_massacre




----------



## Art Vandaley

Just popping by to recommend everyone read Fire and Fury, absolutely fascinating and very entertaining.

Also really not particularly biased against Trump tbh, actually throws a lot of random praise at him and continually attacks his enemies.


----------



## Vic Capri

Sanjay Gupta has heart disease. I don't have any proof of this, but just go with it.

*#ThisIsCNN*

- Vic


----------



## Arkham258

I can't wait to see what's in that memo:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/wor...ntaining-revelations-worse-than-a3744111.html


----------



## Chloe

Ok why was Reaper banned?


----------



## Tater

GOON said:


> Ok and how would a company like Apple be turned into a Co-Op? Are you just going to push out the CEO and other executives and turn it over to the people in the sweatshops? Same goes for other corporations like Nike, Ford, and so on. It sounds like a fine idea on the surface but impossible to enforce, especially when it comes to corporations that have already shipped most of their labor overseas.


The USA can and has in the past used antitrust and other anti-monopolization laws to break up corporations that have consolidated too much power. There was a time in the USA when people generally understood that too much concentrated economic power was a bad thing. Do a search for "trust buster" and you'll find lots of fun stuff about Teddy Roosevelt.

Obviously, you wouldn't just roll in and do a hostile takeover by kicking out the owners and handing ownership over to the employees. A good first step would simply be enforcing the antitrust laws that are already on the books. A properly motivated President could get elected and start doing that without even needing Congress to pass new laws because the laws already exist. We wouldn't be in as much shit as we are now if we had a government that actually enforced those laws.

Something else I would do as a part of a transitional phase would be changing the pay structure in the existing framework. The majority of Americans are so fucking poor right now that they couldn't possibly buy into businesses. That is, of course, by design; keep 'em poor and keep 'em desperate and they can't fight back. I'm someone who is highly critical of the fight for 15 movement, mostly because wages shouldn't be decided by time spent on the job. Those who argue that raising the minimum wage will hurt small businesses who cannot afford to pay 15 an hour do it as a way to shield the big businesses who can afford to pay it. Yet, they have a point, because not all businesses can afford those labor costs. My position is that wages should be decided on percentages of profit and not by time spent on the job. Labor should not be treated like a cost of business like every other material. Everyone who works for a business, all the way from the top to the bottom, should be treated as a profit earner, who sees their earnings go up and down with the success of a business. That's the rising tide lifts all boats theory in actual practice. There should be a cap on the ratio between the highest earner and the lowest earner. Does a CEO deserve to make more than the janitor? Absolutely. Should the CEO be making 300 times as much as the janitor? Fuck no.

Here's a simple math example. Let's say a small business with 10 employees and 1 owner does 300k in profit for year 1. The employees earn a 25k salary and there are 10 of them, so that's 250k. The remaining 50k goes to the owner. Now let's say in year 2 that the business is very successful and they double their profits to 600k. The employees, being on a salary, are still getting 25k apiece for the year but the owner just saw his income shoot from 50k to 350k. If they stayed on the same ratio from year 1, the employees would have gone from 25k to 50k and the owner would have gone from 50k to 100k. That's one of the many problems with our current economic model. All the gains get funneled to the top and there is not a fair distribution of income. If you work for a business and that business is massively successful, then everyone who works for that business should see their income rise.

You do that and you solve the problem of smaller businesses not being able to pay higher wages. When the people who work for the massively profitable corporations start getting more disposable income, they go out and spend it on the smaller businesses, who then in turn can afford to pay their employees more as well. We don't need Big Government redistributing wealth. We need a fair distribution of wealth in the first place.

Once you start bringing more balance back to how wealth is earned, then you start giving people more opportunities to own their own businesses. You can set up local public banking or a state bank like they have in North Dakota to help provide capital to local business owners. If you are a local community and you go to the mayor and tell them to help you with establishing local businesses, then give the mayor the incentive your campaigning for or against them in the next election, you might be surprised at how many of those mayors would be willing to help their local communities. Elect politicians who will enforce antitrust laws and provide protections against things like predatory pricing. Amazon has devastated many communities across the USA because they are so big they can operate at a loss until their competition is run out of business. Then they jack up their prices because they are the only game in town. We have laws against those kinds of practices but they are not enforced.

These are all libertarian leftist ideas but there are a lot of conservatives across America who love the idea of Main Street USA. If a community is entirely reliant on one big business and that big business leaves town, the entire community is devastated. If that community is reliant on dozens of small businesses and one goes under, they can absorb the hit.

I could keep going on this but I need to cut it off for now because I have to get to work soon. Speaking of which, my own wages are based on productivity and not on time. The more work I do, the more money I make. If business is good, I have more work to do and I make more money. When business is slow, I have less work to do and I make less money. If everyone in the USA saw an actual rise in income based on how hard they worked, you'd see a lot more hard workers in the USA.



GOON said:


> If something *has* always been, then odds are that it’s a natural part of the system that it inhabits. You can talk about what *should* be, such as everybody having an equal say over public policy, that has very rarely, if ever, been the case. Oligarchies form around power and that’s hasn’t always been a bad thing. The problem, as I previously mentioned, is that our present day oligarchs aren’t “American” in any meaningful way. They might’ve been born in America but they hold no loyalty to it.


Look back at the entire history of humanity. There was all kinds of fucked up shit they did and that's just the way it always was. Unless you believe we should allow slavery because it existed for thousands of years, then the it's always been that way argument is not a valid one.



GOON said:


> Results aren’t reflective of his intent. On two separate occasions during the campaign people tried to rush the stage in an attempt to probably kill him. Unless he felt some sort of obligation to the nation he had no reason to run if his goal was to merely act as an agent of the oligarchy. You’re too cynical on this point.


No, I'm really not too cynical on this point. Actions speak louder than words. Every single thing Trump has done since getting into office has been in the interests of serving the oligarchy. To claim that's not his intent is to admit he's just too much of a fucking moron to understand that he's not looking out for the best interests of the people. Then again, you could be right about that. :lol





GOON said:


> That would make things even worse at this point, especially in contemporary America with the culture it has. You’re essentially advocating for mob rule in a country where political violence is escalating. Perhaps it would be functional in a country where the population is able to at least give you a coherent definition of what said country is but we don’t even have that anymore in America. Your vision of democracy would just increase tensions in America; not decrease it.
> 
> The oligarchs might be shit but I'd rather just purge the ruling-class as opposed to handing power over an unstable population that can't even define what America is.


I'm not advocating for mob rule. There's a difference between allowing Americans to vote for the economic policy they want and allowing a majority of white people to vote to take away the rights of minorities. I don't have the time right now to go into this topic more in-depth.

Also, replacing oligarchs with oligarchs does absolutely nothing to solve the problem of oligarchy. It's kinda like how nothing ever gets better if you replace Republicans with Democrats and vice versa. Think about it.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Interestingly the release of the memo is entirely up to the congressional republicans so I don't know why they're posting on Twitter asking people to release it and not just releasing it.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

This memo stuff sounds crazy as fuck, does this mean Hillary's monstrous ass finally goes to jail?


----------



## FriedTofu

Alkomesh2 said:


> Interestingly the release of the memo is entirely up to the congressional republicans so I don't know why they're posting on Twitter asking people to release it and not just releasing it.


Whip up anti-democrat sentiment in advance of government shutdown on Friday to avoid scrutiny on their roles in causing it.

However, it is really ironic to me that the democrats are using a government shutdown as leverage against the GOP whose base hate the government anyway. The MAGA crowd is probably treating this as a win-win situation. :lmao


----------



## Stadhart02

coming as a surprise to absolutely no one - the UK media aren't covering the memo story but I have found out about it through US online news sites

what the fuck is in it? The Tweet about Obama's image of a nice and gentle man (the guy who drone bombed everyone) is about to get destroyed is very interesting

the swamp could actually about to be drained


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oh look more distractions from the GOP with this FISA Memo, they are trying to distract from


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/19/explosive-allegations-from-the-latest-trump-dossier-testimony.html

Here are some explosive allegations from the latest testimony on the Trump dossier


The latest congressional testimony from the co-founder of a firm tasked with investigating Donald Trump is full of explosive allegations.
Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS says in the November testimony that much of the president's wealth had come from trusts and investments set up by his late father.
*Simpson also testifies that money from Russian sources was funneled to Trump properties in Toronto, Panama and elsewhere.
*

*The latest congressional testimony about an infamous opposition-research dossier on Donald Trump is full of explosive allegations and suggestions about the real estate magnate-turned-president's potential dealings with organized crime figures, the sources of his often-bragged-about wealth and potential entanglement between Russia and the National Rifle Association.*

In the November testimony that was released Thursday, Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter and a co-founder of Fusion GPS, talks at length about his firm's research into Trump's dealings and background.

Fusion GPS commissioned the dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele,

The release of the testimony comes more than a week after Sen. Dianne Feinstein released Simpson's testimony from a closed-door interview session with the Senate Judiciary Committee. That move drew harsh condemnation from Trump, who referred to Feinstein as "Sneaky Dianne."

The release of the House panel testimony couldn't come at a more dramatic time for Trump, either, as the president marks his first full year in office and the government barrels toward a shutdown this weekend. Trump is also a central figure in a probe led by special counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election and potential ties between Trump's campaign and the Kremlin.

Both transcripts also hit the news in the middle of the furor over Michael Wolff's tell-all book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," which cited former chief Trump strategist Steve Bannon disparaging the president's son Donald Trump Jr., daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Trump has denied collusion with Russia and has extensively criticized Wolff's book and Bannon — the latter of whom has reached an agreement to talk to Mueller.

*Simpson's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee is fueling already heated speculation about whether Trump is somehow indebted to Russian business and government figures. The president, for his part, has repeatedly called allegations of improper ties to Russia a "hoax" and often dismissed the dossier.*

Here are some of the highlights of Simpson's testimony in November:

Simpson said it was hard to track down "reliable information" about Trump's financial situation, but he said he thinks Trump's wealthy father, Fred, set him up rather nicely. "I also think that, you know, a lot of his income comes from trusts and things that his father set up, and that he doesn't actually make that much money, you know, in terms of profits from his own activities," Simpson said. "He still funds much of his — from, you know, assets that were acquired by his father."
T*rump, Simpson said, used to be mixed up with Italian mobsters before he became entangled with Russian organized crime types. "We also had sort of more broadly learned that Mr. Trump had long time associations with Italian organized crime figures," Simpson testified. "And as we pieced together the early years of his biography, it seemed as if during the early part of his career he had connections to a lot of Italian mafia figures, and then gradually during the '90s became associated with Russian mafia figures."*
Many Trump businesses were not that profitable, according to Simpson, but the 2013 Miss Universe contest in Russia turned a profit for the mogul. But, Simpson added, "I don't think we have a full accounting you know, how much he got paid and where the money came from for putting that on in Russia."

*Trump properties in various locations around the globe received Russian money, Simpson said. "Ultimately, you know, what we came to realize was that the money was actually coming out of Russia and going into his properties in Florida and New York and Panama and Toronto and these other places."*

*Simpson also referred to purported ties between the National Rifle Association and Russian bankers and organized crime leaders. "It appears the Russians, you know, infiltrated the NRA," the Fusion GPS co-founder testified. "And there is more than one explanation for why. But I would say broadly speaking, it appears that the Russian operation was designed to infiltrate conservative organizations. And they targeted various conservative organizations, religious and otherwise, and they seem to have made a very concerted effort to get in with the NRA." On Thursday, McClatchy reported that the FBI was investigating Russian donations to the NRA, which was one of Trump's biggest supporters during the 2016 election.*






http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-firm-suspected-trump-russia-money-laundering
*
Steele dossier' firm suspected Trump-Russia money laundering*

*In more than 150 pages of testimony released by the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday, Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of the firm behind the so-called “Steele dossier,” alleged a constellation of business deals that he said suggested the Russians could be laundering money through then-candidate Donald Trump. 
*
Simpson stopped short of saying the firm had found definitive proof of such dealings, telling investigators that, “evidence, I think, is a strong word.”

*Some of Trump’s dealings, Simpson told lawmakers, showed “patterns of buying and selling that we thought were suggestive of money laundering.” *

The testimony is likely to reinforce battle lines surrounding the dossier, a compendium of opposition research memos compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele as part of the firm’s research into the real estate mogul.
Some of the allegations in the memos have been disproven, and Republicans have largely argued that the document is a politically motivated hit job on the president. 

Democrats, meanwhile, have argued that the dossier could provide the framework for meaningful inquiry into Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, citing Steele’s credibility in the intelligence community. Other elements of the dossier have been confirmed and supporters of the document say it broadly describes an observable pattern of concerning contacts between Moscow and the Trump campaign. 

Simpson’s firm, Fusion GPS, was contracted initially by the conservative organization Washington Free Beacon and later by the law firm Perkins Coie acting on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), as he confirmed in his testimony to the Intelligence Committee.

The testimony provided a handful of new details about the production of the dossier.

Simpson told investigators that, to his knowledge, Steele did not pay any of his sources for the memos.

He revealed that Fusion was paid about $50,000 a month by Perkins Coie, a fee he described as a flat rate. Steele was paid $160,000 he said, with an original engagement of about $20,000 to $30,000. 

Democrats immediately used the release of the transcript to urge further investigation of what Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) described as *“serious allegations that the Trump Organization may have engaged in money laundering with Russian nationals.”*

“Thus far, Committee Republicans have refused to look into this key area and we hope the release of this transcript will reinforce the importance of these critical questions to our investigation,” Schiff said.

Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), who is leading the investigation, declined to comment through a spokesperson.

Some committee Republicans, including chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), have consistently said they have seen no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The interview with Simpson took place in November. 

Simpson pointed to a series of Trump’s business dealings that he viewed as particularly suspicious, suggesting that some of his previous property sales could have potentially been used as leverage against him. 

*“Generally speaking, the patterns of activity that we thought might be suggestive of money laundering were, you know, fast turnover deals and deals where there seemed to have been efforts to disguise the identity of the buyer,” Simpson told the lawmakers. *

Those patterns, Simpson said, first came to his attention when the project was funded by the Washington Free Beacon.

S*impson suggested that the business mogul did deals with Russian oligarchs, who doubled as mafia members, who remain largely under the control of Putin.

“If people who seem to be associated with the Russian mafia are buying Trump properties or arranging for other people to buy Trump properties, it does raise a question about whether they're doing it on behalf of the government," he continued.
*
The document is the second congressional interview with Simpson to be released to the public. The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), earlier in the month bypassed Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to release the transcript of that committee’s 10-hour interview with Simpson.

In the Intelligence Committee testimony, as in the Senate document, Simpson put forward a full-throated defense of Fusion’s work, and described the decision by Steele to brief the FBI on his findings out of “a citizenship obligation.”

*The release of the transcript comes as the political fight over the dossier continues to roil Capitol Hill. Some Republicans have suggested that the bureau inappropriately used the dossier — once described by former FBI Director James Comey as “salacious and unverified” — as the sole basis for the federal investigation into possible Trump campaign ties to Russia.*

Earlier this month, Grassley and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked the Department of Justice to open a criminal investigation into Steele, with Graham accusing the former spy of “shopping this dossier all over the world” while acting as an informant for the FBI.


----------



## Cabanarama

Stadhart02 said:


> coming as a surprise to absolutely no one - the UK media aren't covering the memo story but I have found out about it through US online news sites
> 
> what the fuck is in it? The Tweet about Obama's image of a nice and gentle man (the guy who drone bombed everyone) is about to get destroyed is very interesting
> 
> the swamp could actually about to be drained


It's a four page memo put together by Devin Nunez who is the head of the house intelligence committee and also maybe the biggest Trump shill in all of congress, to distract from the impending Republican government shutdown, along with the other stuff has come out recently such as the Simpson testimony, the stuff with the porn star, the fact that Bannon is now playing ball with Mueller, etc. etc.
If you notice at all the ones who have spoken out on this supposed memo, it's only the Alt-righters, the Freedom Caucus scumbags, the most hardcore Trump loyalists. It's simply another conspiracy theory. The same people that have pushed conspiracy theory after conspiracy that was either completely debunked, deliberately misdirected blame, or made a mountain out of a molehill. This will be no different.


----------



## Miss Sally

Chloe said:


> Ok why was Reaper banned?


Not sure, will have to find out!


----------



## Smarky Mark

Tater said:


> Does a CEO deserve to make more than the janitor? Absolutely. Should the CEO be making 300 times as much as the janitor? Fuck no.


The janitor is offering a service and he is being paid for that service. Sounds fair to me. Why should someone who is no way responsible for the company's profit... be entitled to a piece of the profit?

Who are you to tell someone that they make too much money?


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> This memo stuff sounds crazy as fuck, does this mean Hillary's monstrous ass finally goes to jail?


One can hope. If the Clintons go down, they'll take down half of DC with them. We know what they're like. We know how vindictive they are. If Billary feels like they have nothing to lose, it would be glorious to see them release every single bit of dirt they have on every other major player in Washington. The fact that they know where so many of the skeletons are buried is the reason they haven't been taken down as of yet.



Smarky Mark said:


> The janitor is offering a service and he is being paid for that service. Sounds fair to me. Why should someone who is no way responsible for the company's profit... be entitled to a piece of the profit?
> 
> Who are you to tell someone that they make too much money?


I'm someone who believes the masses shouldn't be enslaved for the enrichment of the few. Everyone who works for a business contributed to the profit of said business. If you believe that the workers at the bottom should suffer in poverty while those at the top buy their third yacht, then you are a (I'm not getting myself banned pejorative) human being.


----------



## Smarky Mark

Tater said:


> I'm someone who believes the masses shouldn't be enslaved for the enrichment of the few. Everyone who works for a business contributed to the profit of said business. If you believe that the workers at the bottom should suffer in poverty while those at the top buy their third yacht, then you are a (I'm not getting myself banned pejorative) human being.


A janitor makes roughly 30k a year. 

That is poverty?


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> One can hope. If the Clintons go down, they'll take down half of DC with them. We know what they're like. We know how vindictive they are. If Billary feels like they have nothing to lose, it would be glorious to see them release every single bit of dirt they have on every other major player in Washington. The fact that they know where so many of the skeletons are buried is the reason they haven't been taken down as of yet.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm someone who believes the masses shouldn't be enslaved for the enrichment of the few. Everyone who works for a business contributed to the profit of said business. If you believe that the workers at the bottom should suffer in poverty while those at the top buy their third yacht, then you are a (I'm not getting myself banned pejorative) human being.


Clintons will take everyone down with them, nothing to lose at this point. I just wonder if it will open up more on the Government "unmasking" that went on during the Obama admin, with all of the hub bub about privacy nobody wants to talk about the Government covertly spying on it's own citizens. It could make for some pretty fun times!

CEO's make way too much money, most administrators do. I don't mind people who actually make the company better from top to bottom getting paid a king's ransom but most of these guys don't seem to do much than fleece money. I expect nothing to change in this regard though.


----------



## Tater

Miss Sally said:


> Clintons will take everyone down with them, nothing to lose at this point. I just wonder if it will open up more on the Government "unmasking" that went on during the Obama admin, with all of the hub bub about privacy nobody wants to talk about the Government covertly spying on it's own citizens. It could make for some pretty fun times!


As fun as it would be, I'll believe it when I see it. There's a reason why Obama didn't go after the criminals from the Bush administration and it's the same reason why the Clintons still walk free.

It's a big club and we ain't in it.



Miss Sally said:


> CEO's make way too much money, most administrators do. I don't mind people who actually make the company better from top to bottom getting paid a king's ransom but most of these guys don't seem to do much than fleece money. I expect nothing to change in this regard though.


Some people making more money than others has never bothered me. It's the extreme disparity between the top and the bottom that's the problem. The fact is, we've got the economic and technological capabilities to provide good lives for everyone in the USA while still having rich people at the top. The 2 biggest examples that I like to cite to show how fucked up our system is: we have people going hungry in a country that throws away 40% of it's food and we have more empty houses than there are homeless people. If we can produce enough food and build enough houses for everyone but there are still homeless people going hungry, that's a broken system.


----------



## Smarky Mark

@Tater do you mind if I ask what percentage of your earnings you personally donated to less fortunate people this last year?

Was it 10%? 15%? 20%?

Or did you horde everything and keep it to yourself?


----------



## Tater

Smarky Mark said:


> @Tater do you mind if I ask what percentage of your earnings you personally donated to less fortunate people this last year?
> 
> Was it 10%? 15%? 20%?
> 
> Or did you horde everything and keep it to yourself?


:HA

It's adorable that you believe you asked a gotcha question here. Thanks for the chuckle.


----------



## Smarky Mark

Tater said:


> :HA
> 
> It's adorable that you believe you asked a gotcha question here. Thanks for the chuckle.


It's actually not a gotcha question. It's a very straightforward one considering the discussion we're having. 

You obviously feel very sad for all the unfortunate people living here in the U.S. so I ask again... how much of your own earnings did you donate to the cause last year?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Miss Sally said:


> CEO's make way too much money, most administrators do. I don't mind people who actually make the company better from top to bottom getting paid a king's ransom but most of these guys don't seem to do much than fleece money. I expect nothing to change in this regard though.


This is right on the money. I work for a MASSIVE company as middle management. I'm pulling in £113k a year and I have to work my ASS off for that money and sacrifice substantial time with my gf due to constantly travelling overseas. My direct superior mostly sits in conference calls and presents the collated work of the various departments he oversees. We do far more work and work 3 times the hours he does and he's on half a mil a year. The CEO's got a £3 mil a year salary. There's a huge disparity in the salary to work ratio the further up the food chain you go, and frankly, most people at the top of companies were born into wealth and get by more on their familial connections than their ability. I'm one of 2 people in our entire office from a working class (like real poor, I dreamed of being middle class) background.


----------



## Smarky Mark

@Tater I take it your lack of response means that you didn't donate _any_ of your own money last year to less fortunate people?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Smarky Mark said:


> @Tater I take it your lack of response means that you didn't donate _any_ of your own money last year to less fortunate people?


What if he IS a less fortunate person, how does your narrative work then? It's a silly straw man argument and has nothing at all to do with wage disparity. If people were paid fairly for their work there wouldn't be a need for charity to make up the shortfall.


----------



## Tater

Smarky Mark said:


> @Tater I take it your lack of response means that you didn't donate _any_ of your own money last year to less fortunate people?


I would explain it to you but I don't have any crayons.


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> Sanjay Gupta has heart disease. I don't have any proof of this, but just go with it.
> 
> *#ThisIsCNN*
> 
> - Vic


That's pretty funny coming from someone who watches fox news.


----------



## Vic Capri

And they have more viewers. Thanks for playing!

-Vic


----------



## Tater

Vic Capri said:


> And they have more viewers. Thanks for playing!
> 
> -Vic


Pointing out that there are more sheep than people with critical thinking skills is not a winning argument.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> Pointing out that there are more sheep than people with critical thinking skills is not a winning argument.


It is to Trump supporters. They think Trump is winning when he loses 90% of the time but since Fox news claims he is winning they think he is.


----------



## deepelemblues

They need to release this SHOCKING FISA MEMO already so I can laugh over how picayune it will turn out to be 

Tater how much time and/or money have you donated to charity and/or to socialist organizations

Being sullen and petulant on an internet wrestling forum doesn't really count

Instead of being insulting you could say you donate any percentage of your income you feel like saying you donate and any amount of time you feel like saying you work for :thecause, it would be quite impossible to disprove such assertions without being a scumbag and doxxing you and breaking the law to get the details on your tax returns :draper2


----------



## Smarky Mark

RavishingRickRules said:


> What if he IS a less fortunate person, how does your narrative work then? It's a silly straw man argument and has nothing at all to do with wage disparity. If people were paid fairly for their work there wouldn't be a need for charity to make up the shortfall.


So you're saying you don't have 10 cents to spare out of a dollar, or even 10 dollars to spare out of 100 dollars...

... but we are supposed to believe that if you were being paid 100,000 dollars that you would automatically become this incredibly generous person who donates large portions of their salary away? Sorry, not buying it.

You don't need to be rich to donate money. There are plenty of people out there who would be grateful even if you donated $500 for the month. If you're going to demand that others help the less needy, then you should practice what you preach. Otherwise you come off as a beggar with your hand out.


----------



## Smarky Mark

Tater said:


> I would explain it to you but I don't have any crayons.


I saw no facts or counter arguments in this response, just emotions.

Leaning on emotion in a discussion about economics isn't going to get you anywhere friend. Unless of course you put value in the 'likes' of other fellow bottom dwellers.


----------



## Tater

Smarky Mark said:


> I saw no facts or counter arguments in this response, just emotions.
> 
> Leaning on emotion in a discussion about economics isn't going to get you anywhere friend. Unless of course you put value in the 'likes' of other fellow bottom dwellers.


----------



## deepelemblues

Dethklok are all dirty 1% greedy as fuck capitalist scum

Well except Toki he's nice


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Smarky Mark said:


> So you're saying you don't have 10 cents to spare out of a dollar, or even 10 dollars to spare out of 100 dollars...
> 
> ... but we are supposed to believe that if you were being paid 100,000 dollars that you would automatically become this incredibly generous person who donates large portions of their salary away? Sorry, not buying it.
> 
> You don't need to be rich to donate money. There are plenty of people out there who would be grateful even if you donated $500 for the month. If you're going to demand that others help the less needy, then you should practice what you preach. Otherwise you come off as a beggar with your hand out.


Sorry I use real money not that monopoly shit y'all have out there. I get paid more than that actually, and I currently donate to Marie Curie (who helped with my mum's cancer) 2 charities who organise sports and music programs for poor children where I grew up and the Battersea Dog's Home here in the UK. What exactly do you do? Again though, you missed the point. The point I made was that if employers paid a living wage to their employees on the low end then people on higher wages wouldn't need to make up the shortfall with charity, do you understand now or do I need to somehow simplify this even further?


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> And they have more viewers. Thanks for playing!
> 
> -Vic


And they're still fake news. My god you have no guts when it comes to debating. At least tag me if you're gonna talk about me.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Tater said:


> Pointing out that there are more sheep than people with critical thinking skills is not a winning argument.


In Vic's defense, they *do* have a decent number of news babes to their credit. Jillian Mele, Shannon Bream and Ainsley Earhardt in particular are not only Fox's top 3 tasty treats, but they're also substantially hotter than virtually all of other networks' news babes.

:yoshi


----------



## deepelemblues

Muh "living wage" :eyeroll

Why do those who claim to care about the unfortunate insist on putting up more and more barriers to their ever finding employment of any kind much less full employment :draper2

"Living wage" = full-time to part-time
"Living wage" = part-time to robots
"Living wage" = Did not, at the least, go to a trade school, spending at least 10 grand (aka putting yourself at least 10 grand in debt)? Haha fuck you no job for you

A job that isn't economically worth being compensated a "living wage" won't be a job if it is mandated that its compensation be a "living wage." It will be a job for computer kiosks and robots. Aka not a job.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Chloe said:


> Ok why was Reaper banned?


For having the gall to be a minority who supports Orange Hitler instead of the almighty government. :kappa2


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> Muh "living wage" :eyeroll
> 
> Why do those who claim to care about the unfortunate insist on putting up more and more barriers to their ever finding employment of any kind much less full employment :draper2
> 
> "Living wage" = full-time to part-time
> "Living wage" = part-time to robots
> "Living wage" = Did not, at the least, go to a trade school, spending at least 10 grand (aka putting yourself at least 10 grand in debt)? Haha fuck you no job for you
> 
> A job that isn't economically worth being compensated a "living wage" won't be a job if it is mandated that its compensation be a "living wage." It will be a job for computer kiosks and robots. Aka not a job.


There are tons of office jobs that only pay $11-12 an hour. Let's not pretend its only fast food jobs that only pay that little.


----------



## Cabanarama

So here's a scan of the Nunez memo the Republicans were talking about:


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *Economists agree: Trump, not Obama, gets credit for economy*
> 
> Who deserves credit for the booming economy? This is not a petty argument. How voters answer the question could well determine whether Democrats retake the House of Representatives come November.
> 
> Trump and Obama (and their admirers) are slugging it out, both claiming that it is their policies that have led to the ongoing economic expansion, steady job growth and higher stock prices.
> 
> Happily for President Trump, the pros agree with him. A recent survey of economists suggest it is President Trump, and not Obama, who should be taking a bow.
> 
> 
> The Wall Street Journal asked 68 business, financial and academic economists who was responsible for the strengthening of the economy, and most “suggested Mr. Trump’s election deserves at least some credit” for the upturn.
> 
> 
> A majority said the president had been “somewhat” or “strongly” positive for job creation, gross domestic product growth and the rising stock market.
> 
> The pros cite the White House’s push for lighter regulation and the recent tax bill as critical to a pro-growth environment; more than 90 percent of the group thought the tax bill would boost GDP expansion over the next two years.
> 
> A year ago in the same survey, economists awarded President Obama mixed grades. Most saw his policies as positive for financial stability, but neutral-to-negative for GDP growth and negative for long-term growth. By contrast, Trump was seen as neutral to positive for long-term gains.
> 
> Why would Trump rate higher than Obama with this group? Economists point to the upturn in business confidence that accompanied Trump’s election, and tie that to increasing business investment. Spending on capital goods accelerated sharply over the first three quarters of last year, growing at an annualized rate of 6.2 percent.
> 
> Such outlays will spur productivity gains and lead to wage hikes, creating a virtuous circle complete with rising consumer confidence and spending.
> 
> Unhappily Trump, voters have not yet caught up with the experts. Democrats have done an excellent job of trashing Trump’s policies, issuing hysterical alarms over the supposed dangers of deregulation (toxic water, foul air!) and vilifying the GOP tax bill.
> 
> Imagine the nation polling negative on a tax cut for an estimated 90 percent of the workers. That takes genius.
> 
> Democrats are terrified that the tax cuts will be a pleasant surprise to those who believed House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) when she called the bill Armageddon, and when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) declared it a “kick in the gut to the middle class.”
> 
> They are even more terrified of the bonuses and raises being handed out by employers large and small, who credit the tax bill for those unexpected benefits. Democrats are trying to convince voters that those $1,000 bonuses and pay hikes are “crumbs” as multi-millionaire Nancy Pelosi recently said.
> 
> Maybe $1,000 is “pathetic” to Pelosi, but for a great many Americans, it is a big and welcome windfall.
> 
> So far, Democrats are winning the messaging war, using President Trump’s unpopularity to sour Americans on everything the White House does.
> 
> In a recent Quinnipiac poll, a record 66 percent of those surveyed graded the economy as “excellent” or “good” but 49 percent of those surveyed credited Obama while only 40 percent named Trump.
> 
> That poll, though, seems biased. Only 23 percent of those questioned were Republicans, while 34 percent described themselves as Democrats, and 38 percent said they were Independents. It also asked the questions in a way that appeared likely to elicit an anti-Trump response.
> 
> As the months pass, it will be increasingly difficult for Democrats to separate rising wages and faster growth from the tax bill sponsored by Republicans and the rollback of regulations, which has encouraged an upturn in business investment.
> 
> Even the New York Times, no friend to President Trump, has described the “wave of optimism” sweeping over Americans business leaders, saying it is “beginning to translate into the sort of investment in new plants, equipment and factory upgrades that bolsters economic growth, spurs job creation — and may finally raise wages significantly.”
> 
> The Times ran the piece on New Year's Day, pretty much guaranteeing it would attract few readers, but still.
> 
> More than two million workers have now received bonuses and or raises, with their bosses telling them the benefits are flowing from the GOP tax bill. That number will continue to grow as other companies are pressured into sharing the proceeds from lower taxes. This is a powerful and persuasive movement that is gaining momentum every day, which is probably why Democrats are so foolishly belittling the payouts.
> 
> A vast majority of Americans feel more optimistic about their prospects than they have in a decade. Will they really want to rock the boat come November and throw out the party at the helm? We shall see.


http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/368904-economists-agree-trump-not-obama-gets-credit-for-economy

Didn't see this get mentioned earlier, decided to post it. Pretty interesting


----------



## Cabanarama

Stinger Fan said:


> http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/368904-economists-agree-trump-not-obama-gets-credit-for-economy
> 
> Didn't see this get mentioned earlier, decided to post it. Pretty interesting


Gotta love the dishonesty in the headline...
How does the WSJ report that "_most_ [economists] _suggested_ Mr. Trump’s election deserves at least _some_ credit" translate into the headline saying "Economists agree: Trump, not Obama, gets credit for economy"?

Not to mention that the headline leads you to believe that the context of the article comes from the economists surveyed when it is nothing more than the writer spouting off their subjective beliefs


----------



## Stinger Fan

Cabanarama said:


> Gotta love the dishonesty in the headline...
> How does the WSJ report that "_most_ [economists] _suggested_ Mr. Trump’s election deserves at least _some_ credit" translate into the headline saying "Economists agree: Trump, not Obama, gets credit for economy"?
> 
> Not to mention that the headline leads you to believe that the context of the article comes from the economists surveyed when it is nothing more than the writer spouting off their subjective beliefs


There are citations in the article

https://www.wsj.com/articles/econom...d-for-u-s-growth-hiring-and-stocks-1515682893
Here's one thats not specifically cited but this is an article from the 11th of this month and it is the basis for that article I posted.


----------



## Arkham258

I can't wait to see how stupid a lot of people are going to feel after the bombshells in that memo come to light. A lot of people are going to have a red pill shoved down their throats.


----------



## Beatles123

Arkham258 said:


> I can't wait to see how stupid a lot of people are going to feel after the bombshells in that memo come to light. A lot of people are going to have a red pill shoved down their throats.


Shadilay, my brother! :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

Arkham258 said:


> I can't wait to see how stupid a lot of people are going to feel after the bombshells in that memo come to light. A lot of people are going to have a red pill shoved down their throats.





Beatles123 said:


> Shadilay, my brother! :trump



And what happens when even more of Trump and his Russia ties come out like these


http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-firm-suspected-trump-russia-money-laundering
*
Steele dossier' firm suspected Trump-Russia money laundering*

*In more than 150 pages of testimony released by the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday, Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of the firm behind the so-called “Steele dossier,” alleged a constellation of business deals that he said suggested the Russians could be laundering money through then-candidate Donald Trump. 
*
Simpson stopped short of saying the firm had found definitive proof of such dealings, telling investigators that, “evidence, I think, is a strong word.”

*Some of Trump’s dealings, Simpson told lawmakers, showed “patterns of buying and selling that we thought were suggestive of money laundering.” *

The testimony is likely to reinforce battle lines surrounding the dossier, a compendium of opposition research memos compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele as part of the firm’s research into the real estate mogul.
Some of the allegations in the memos have been disproven, and Republicans have largely argued that the document is a politically motivated hit job on the president. 

Democrats, meanwhile, have argued that the dossier could provide the framework for meaningful inquiry into Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, citing Steele’s credibility in the intelligence community. Other elements of the dossier have been confirmed and supporters of the document say it broadly describes an observable pattern of concerning contacts between Moscow and the Trump campaign. 

Simpson’s firm, Fusion GPS, was contracted initially by the conservative organization Washington Free Beacon and later by the law firm Perkins Coie acting on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), as he confirmed in his testimony to the Intelligence Committee.

The testimony provided a handful of new details about the production of the dossier.

Simpson told investigators that, to his knowledge, Steele did not pay any of his sources for the memos.

He revealed that Fusion was paid about $50,000 a month by Perkins Coie, a fee he described as a flat rate. Steele was paid $160,000 he said, with an original engagement of about $20,000 to $30,000. 

Democrats immediately used the release of the transcript to urge further investigation of what Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) described as *“serious allegations that the Trump Organization may have engaged in money laundering with Russian nationals.”*

“Thus far, Committee Republicans have refused to look into this key area and we hope the release of this transcript will reinforce the importance of these critical questions to our investigation,” Schiff said.

Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), who is leading the investigation, declined to comment through a spokesperson.

Some committee Republicans, including chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), have consistently said they have seen no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The interview with Simpson took place in November. 

Simpson pointed to a series of Trump’s business dealings that he viewed as particularly suspicious, suggesting that some of his previous property sales could have potentially been used as leverage against him. 

“Generally speaking, the patterns of activity that we thought might be suggestive of money laundering were, you know, fast turnover deals and deals where there seemed to have been efforts to disguise the identity of the buyer,” Simpson told the lawmakers. 

Those patterns, Simpson said, first came to his attention when the project was funded by the Washington Free Beacon.

S*impson suggested that the business mogul did deals with Russian oligarchs, who doubled as mafia members, who remain largely under the control of Putin.

“If people who seem to be associated with the Russian mafia are buying Trump properties or arranging for other people to buy Trump properties, it does raise a question about whether they're doing it on behalf of the government," he continued.
*
The document is the second congressional interview with Simpson to be released to the public. The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), earlier in the month bypassed Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to release the transcript of that committee’s 10-hour interview with Simpson.

In the Intelligence Committee testimony, as in the Senate document, Simpson put forward a full-throated defense of Fusion’s work, and described the decision by Steele to brief the FBI on his findings out of “a citizenship obligation.”

*The release of the transcript comes as the political fight over the dossier continues to roil Capitol Hill. Some Republicans have suggested that the bureau inappropriately used the dossier — once described by former FBI Director James Comey as “salacious and unverified” — as the sole basis for the federal investigation into possible Trump campaign ties to Russia.*

Earlier this month, Grassley and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked the Department of Justice to open a criminal investigation into Steele, with Graham accusing the former spy of “shopping this dossier all over the world” while acting as an informant for the FBI.



But keep ignoring the mountains of evidence between Trump and Russia


----------



## Beatles123

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> For having the gall to be a minority who supports Orange Hitler instead of the almighty government. :kappa2


Fucking disgusting that HE gets banned while the shit some on the other side of the fence here do who shall remain nameless go unpunished.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Fucking disgusting that HE gets banned while the shit some on the other side of the fence here do who shall remain nameless go unpunished.


Can't be talking about me, I have been banned a couple of times. Don't act like its only Trump supporters getting banned


----------



## Warlock

Cabanarama said:


> So here's a scan of the Nunez memo the Republicans were talking about:


If what they say is true, it is pretty huge.

But if not, add it to the list of things that get vastly overblown that should carry substantial consequences when the hysteria and fear mongering is proven false. That goes for both sides of the aisle. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Cabanarama

Stinger Fan said:


> There are citations in the article
> 
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/econom...d-for-u-s-growth-hiring-and-stocks-1515682893
> Here's one thats not specifically cited but this is an article from the 11th of this month and it is the basis for that article I posted.


It's still a massive spin on the WSJ article.

The WSJ journal basically says that most of the economists believe that Trump has been "somewhat or strongly positive" for the economy, but it also points out that things had been on an upward trend for years before the election. That's still makes the Hill article very dishonest

WSJ article: Most economics think that Trump has thus far helped an already booming economy
Hill article: Economic consensus says that Trump is the reason for booming economy.


----------



## Arkham258

There's nothing going on between Trump and Russia. Wake up people


----------



## Stinger Fan

Cabanarama said:


> It's still a massive spin on the WSJ article.
> 
> The WSJ journal basically says that most of the economists believe that Trump has been "somewhat or strongly positive" for the economy, but it also points out that things had been on an upward trend for years before the election. That's still makes the Hill article very dishonest
> 
> WSJ article: Most economics think that Trump has thus far helped an already booming economy
> Hill article: Economic consensus says that Trump is the reason for booming economy.


I just thought it was interesting :shrug I have no clue who is responsible


----------



## Arkham258

That memo is going to shut a lot of people up


----------



## birthday_massacre

Arkham258 said:


> There's nothing going on between Trump and Russia. Wake up people


Keep ignoring all the evidence. I just posted yet another article. But sure there are no connections


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Beatles123 said:


> Fucking disgusting that HE gets banned while the shit some on the other side of the fence here do who shall remain nameless go unpunished.


 @birthday_massacre got banned too, though. :draper2

Regardless, I honestly can't see how Reaper warranted another ban. He can be delightfully snarky, but has never been straight up malicious from what I've seen of him.


----------



## Stephen90

Beatles123 said:


> Fucking disgusting that HE gets banned while the shit some on the other side of the fence here do who shall remain nameless go unpunished.


I bet you're one of those people that thought Last Man Standing was cancelled because Tim Allen was a conservative.


----------



## Cabanarama

Stephen90 said:


> I bet you're one of those people that thought Last Man Standing was cancelled because Tim Allen was a conservative.


The whole victimhood complex these right wing snowflakes have is pretty hilarious


----------



## Stephen90

Cabanarama said:


> The whole victimhood complex these right wing snowflakes have is pretty hilarious


Even more hilarious is that they're bringing back Roseanne who's a Trump supporter and her character on the show is as well. Yet they continue to complain about Last Man Standing being cancelled.


----------



## virus21

Stephen90 said:


> Even more hilarious is that they're bringing back Roseanne who's a Trump supporter and her character on the show is as well. Yet they continue to complain about Last Man Standing being cancelled.


I barley knew that show existed.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Stephen90 said:


> I bet you're one of those people that thought Last Man Standing was cancelled because Tim Allen was a conservative.


The show had steadily good ratings, especially for a Friday night show, and was so popular among viewers that a petition to bring it back nabbed 380,000+ signatures.

When you couple that with how Hollywood's blatantly liberal slant has been cranked up to 11 in light of Trump's presidency, Allen's claim honestly isn't farfetched.


----------



## Stephen90

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> The show had steadily good ratings, especially for a Friday night show, and was so popular among viewers that a petition to bring it back nabbed 380,000+ signatures.
> 
> When you couple that with how Hollywood's blatantly liberal slant has been cranked up to 11 in light of Trump's presidency, Allen's claim honestly isn't farfetched.


It also had no sponsors which led to it's demise. Also Roseanne is a huge Trump supporter and they're bringing back her show for 8 episodes.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Stephen90 said:


> It also had no sponsors which led to it's demise. Also Roseanne is a huge Trump supporter and they're bringing back her show for 8 episodes.


If ABC knew full well that they were gonna get cash only from adverts for the show due to merely licensing it from Fox, they could've saved themselves from any controversy by simply not picking up the show in the first place.

Ultimately, I view the cancellation as a "wrong place at a wrong time"-type of scenario. However, I still won't dismiss the potential validity of Allen's claim.


----------



## Tater

:lmao


----------



## Beatles123

Tater said:


> :lmao


Yet I cant post anti-obama memes...:mj2


----------



## Tater

As anyone here who knows me can tell you, I am not in the business of defending Democrats. That said, you have to be an absolute fucking retard to believe this shit. Republicans are in control of all branches of government. You gotta be the most retarded person on the planet to believe the blame goes to the party not in control.


----------



## Tater

Beatles123 said:


> Yet I cant post anti-obama memes...:mj2


Why not? Fuck Obama. He's the biggest failure of any of our lifetimes.


----------



## birthday_massacre

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...fbi-doj-house-gop_us_5a613a58e4b01d91b25446b5

House GOPers Say A Secret Memo Could End The Trump-Russia Probe. *Their Staff Wrote It.*

LOL

so its a nothing burger


----------



## Beatles123

Stephen90 said:


> I bet you're one of those people that thought Last Man Standing was cancelled because Tim Allen was a conservative.


And if I was, that would make me an inferior person? I was speaking from mu own observations here. Maybe it IS a little bias, buy i don't see the same fairness. Honestly, it'd be better if we had no political discussions at all, because bias will be there as part of who we are. :shrug


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Tater said:


> As anyone here who knows me can tell you, I am not in the business of defending Democrats. That said, you have to be an absolute fucking retard to believe this shit. Republicans are in control of all branches of government. You gotta be the most retarded person on the planet to believe the blame goes to the party not in control.


No, the Republicans needed 60 votes to pass it. It doesn't matter if they control all the branches, they still only have 51 Senators. They cannot pass it on their own. 90% of their Senators voted yes on the CR, 90% of the Democrats voted against it. Even if every Republican voted for it, they would not have had the votes to pass it. It's a mathematical certainty which party is obstructing in this case.


----------



## birthday_massacre

7-TIME AWARD WINNING WF LEGEND: THE SHIV said:


> No, the Republicans needed 60 votes to pass it. It doesn't matter if they control all the branches, they still only have 51 Senators. They cannot pass it on their own. 90% of their Senators voted yes on the CR, 90% of the Democrats voted against it. Even if every Republican voted for it, they would not have had the votes to pass it. It's a mathematical certainty which party is obstructing in this case.


You are kidding right. Most of the Republicans voted to shut the govt down thus they are to blame.


----------



## DJ Punk

This country is a fucking mess..


----------



## birthday_massacre

DJ Punk said:


> This country is a fucking mess..


Its even more of a mess the GOP trying to pin this on the democrats when the GOP is in the majority.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

birthday_massacre said:


> You are kidding right. Most of the Republicans voted to shut the govt down thus they are to blame.



No, I'm not. The CR requires 60 votes and 44 of the Democrats voted against it, ostensibly because they wanted DACA attached to it. Thing is, there was no reason for it because DACA is going to happen. This was a spending bill and DACA is not part of the year end appropriations.


----------



## birthday_massacre

7-TIME AWARD WINNING WF LEGEND: THE SHIV said:


> No, I'm not. The CR requires 60 votes and 44 of the Democrats voted against it, ostensibly because they wanted DACA attached to it. Thing is, there was no reason for it because DACA is going to happen. This was a spending bill and DACA is not part of the year end appropriations.


The GOP are the ones who shut down the GOVT not the Democrats. The Govt does not have to be shut down just because the spending bill did not pass.Just pass a 4 day extension to keep debating. Its just the GOP being babys and taking their ball and going home because they did not get their way.

They dont want to work with the democrats.


----------



## Tater

7-TIME AWARD WINNING WF LEGEND: THE SHIV said:


> No, the Republicans needed 60 votes to pass it. It doesn't matter if they control all the branches, they still only have 51 Senators. They cannot pass it on their own. 90% of their Senators voted yes on the CR, 90% of the Democrats voted against it. Even if every Republican voted for it, they would not have had the votes to pass it. It's a mathematical certainty which party is obstructing in this case.


Naughty Shiv.

:awshucks


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Tater said:


> :lmao












Have some rep, fella. :trump3


----------



## Cabanarama

7-TIME AWARD WINNING WF LEGEND: THE SHIV said:


> No, I'm not. The CR requires 60 votes and 44 of the Democrats voted against it, ostensibly because they wanted DACA attached to it. Thing is, there was no reason for it because DACA is going to happen. This was a spending bill and DACA is not part of the year end appropriations.


This is 100% of Trump and the GOP....
How can you except Dems to vote for a bill they've had no say in?
Of course most of the majority party will support their own bill. But when you can't even get 50 votes from the majority party, then the filibuster is pretty much irrelevant.
They had pretty much reached a bipartisan deal after months of negotiations, which Trump basically blew up. 
Schumer actually reached across the aisle and offered to get the wall built as a concession, which was rejected. So not only is the GOP 100% responsible, but Trump passed on what was probably his only chance to actually get the wall built
But somehow, this is the Dems fault that for once, they actually showed some backbone and didn't become complicit with the GOP agenda?


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954595975238209536
:lmao


----------



## KO Bossy

Anyone tired of all that "winning" yet?


----------



## Tater

Posted for truth.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954593804417462272


----------



## birthday_massacre

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/19/poll-government-shutdown-blame-349401

Poll: More Americans will blame shutdown on Trump, GOP than on Dems


Forty-eight percent of those surveyed said they'll blame the president and the GOP if a shutdown could not be averted.
By CRISTIANO LIMA 01/19/2018 12:52 PM EST

A plurality of Americans say President Donald Trump and the Republican Party will be responsible for a government showdown, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll released Friday.

F*orty-eight percent of those surveyed said they'll blame the president and the GOP if a shutdown could not be averted *by the deadline midnight Friday, *while only 28 percent said they'll fault the Democrats*. *Eighteen percent of voters said they'll blame the White House, Republicans and Democrats equally.*

Among independents, the split margin was nearly identical, with 46 laying blame on Trump and the GOP and 25 percent on the Democrats. The results among Democrats and Republicans were predictably split along partisan lines, with 78 percent of Democrats placing blame on the West Wing and GOP leadership and 66 percent of Republicans faulting congressional Democrats.

The House passed a continuing resolution Thursday night that would extend government funding through Feb. 16, teeing up a crucial vote in the Senate to avert a shutdown before the deadline midnight Friday.

The findings come as both sides have doubled-down on pre-emptively pointing fingers across the aisle as the possibility of a shutdown looms.

During an impromptu press conference at the White House Thursday, Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said Democrats should be held accountable if Congress is unable to extend government funding by Friday. Mulvaney singled out the leadership of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in criticizing Democrats, dubbing a potential lapse in government funding the "Schumer shutdown."

“There’s no way you can lay this at the feet of the president of the United States,” Mulvaney told reporters. Mulvaney added that Schumer is “in a position to force this on the American people.”

Mick Mulvaney speaks with reporters. | AP Photo
Shutdown threatens a 'gut punch' as agencies brace for closure
By LORRAINE WOELLERT
Marc Short, the White House director of legislative affairs, echoed the remarks, saying Democrats are "hell bent" on bringing about a shutdown.

Trump on Thursday accused Democrats of seeking to "blunt" the positive impact of the Republican Party's sweeping tax code overhaul by shutting the government down during a visit to a manufacturing plant in Pennsylvania.

Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, have faulted Republicans for failing to garner support for an agreement despite controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress.

This ABC News/Washington Post poll surveyed 1,005 adults and was conducted by landline and cellular telephone from Jan. 15-18. The poll has a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points.


----------



## Tater

Not gonna lie, I'd be happier with no government than the government we have now. I mean that about both parties of the duopoly.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> Not gonna lie, I'd be happier with no government than the government we have now. I mean that about both parties of the duopoly.


Or just let every state run it how they want.

The one good thing you can say about Trump being president is he is showing what a disaster the govt is especially on the GOP side.

You converted me about Trump being president and blowing it up is better than Hillary giving us more of the same Obama republican lite BS under the guise of Democrats.

Ive seen the light lol The how the system needs to be blown up. 4 years of Trump will be a huge disaster but we will be better off in the long run if we want to fix the system


----------



## DesolationRow

Good point about _Hamlet_, @yeahbaby! :lol

Seeing Rand Paul stand with the likes of Jeff Flake and Lindsey Graham and Mike Lee is one of the more humorously incongruous happenings in a while.

Chuck Schumer's statements. :lmao

_Oh, the fun!_


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> Or just let every state run it how they want.


Because, ya know, Jim Crow is awesome!


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> Because, ya know, Jim Crow is awesome!


They still have to follow the constitution.


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> They still have to follow the constitution.


Like they're following it now?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> Like they're following it now?


Ha good point. I guess I'm just lucky I live in a liberal state and don't have to deal with that BS

damn you bested me two times in one night. I need to quit before you get the hat trick.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954593450976010240
This is so true! The only thing that is more pathetic... is the lying neoliberal war monger who lost to him.


----------



## Kabraxal

Wouldn’t mind the gov’t to stay shutdown, congress pay get halted, and the spending forcibly contracted to a sane level.

But this will pass, congress will make a ridiculous wage, and spending will bankrupt us into chaos as the whole world falls apart because leople are too stupid to get the fuck off the burning train full of TNT.


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> Or just let every state run it how they want.
> 
> The one good thing you can say about Trump being president is he is showing what a disaster the govt is especially on the GOP side.
> 
> You converted me about Trump being president and blowing it up is better than Hillary giving us more of the same Obama republican lite BS under the guise of Democrats.
> 
> Ive seen the light lol The how the system needs to be blown up. 4 years of Trump will be a huge disaster but we will be better off in the long run if we want to fix the system


While I wouldn't mind this you have too many states that would run their state retarded and it would spill onto other states.


----------



## Cabanarama

At the end of the past three presidencies, C-Span has done a poll of a bunch presidential historians and and aggregation their scores on a scale of 0-100 in ten separate categories. Here's the most recent ranking:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015a-4d99-d5b6-a35f-ffff4eae0001
What i decided to do, was figure out Trump's score would be, one year into his presidency, by figuring out his rank by where he ranks closest to in regards to prior presidents and scoring him based on what the historians gave their scores... This is who he most compares to in each category and thus what his score would be:

*Public Persuasion: *
somewhere between Bush/ Nixon (49) and Ford/ Carter (42.5)
*Score: 46 (30th out of 44)*

*Crisis Leadership *
slightly above Herbert Hoover (29.7), below Harding (32.1)
*Score: 30 (40th out of 44)*

*Economic Management 
*slightly below LBJ (63.9)
*Score: 63 (15th out of 44)*

*Moral Authority *
Dead last (previous low, James Buchanan 20.5)
*Score: 20 (44th out of 44)*

*International Relations:
*Above LBJ (41.5), below Harding (42.1)
*Score: 42 (39th out of 44)*

*Administrative Skills
*Dead last by a large margin (previous low Andrew Johnson- 28.5)
*Score: 15 (44th out of 44)*

*Relationship with congress
*Between Franklin Pierce (36.6) and John Tyler (31)
*Score: 33 (41st out of 44)*

*Vision/ Setting an agenda
*Paralell to Warren G. Harding (32.8)
*Score: 32 (41st out of 44)*

*Pursued equal justice for all
*Somewhere between James Polk (32.1) and Woodrow Wilson (36.2)
*Score: 33 (36th out of 44)*

*Performance Within Context of Times*
Between Herbert Hoover (36.6) and William Henry Harrison (37.1)
*Score: 37 (39th out of 44)*

*Overall score: 356
Overall rank: 41st out of 44*

Bottom 5:
40: Woodrow Wilson 360
41: Donald Trump 356
42: Franklin Pierce 215
43: Andrew Johnson 275
44. James Buchanan 245


----------



## AlternateDemise

Cabanarama said:


> *Moral Authority *
> Lower than any president has received in any category (17.4- James Buchanan in crisis leadership)
> *Score: 15 (44th out of 44)*


Worse than the guy who failed to stop the country from going into a Civil War :wow

That's pretty bad.


----------



## Stephen90

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954593450976010240
> This is so true! The only thing that is more pathetic... is the lying neoliberal war monger who lost to him.


And who blames everybody but herself.


----------



## Cabanarama

BlueSanta said:


> Worse than the guy who failed to stop the country from going into a Civil War :wow
> 
> That's pretty bad.


You actually have a point on that one, nobody should score worse than Buchanan in that category...Plus Nixon's moral authority wasn't much better, Trump only comes across as much worse because Nixon was intelligent and competent and Trump isn't. 
He's still set new lows for both moral authority and administrative skills, so i'll give him slightly higher marks than Buchanan...
I stand 100% on everything else however and those extra points don't affect his ranking


----------



## RavishingRickRules

https://www.reuters.com/article/twi...propaganda-during-u-s-elections-idUSL3N1PE55I

Pretty crazy. Obviously doesn't show any actual collusion, but still, Russians meddling in elections and referendums is kinda fucked up.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Vic Capri

> *Trump accomplishments Year One*:
> 
> Refused his $400,000 Presidential salary.
> 
> Ordered a 90 day, hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition.
> 
> Imposed a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.
> 
> Imposed a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service.
> 
> Imposed a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.
> 
> Renegotiating NAFTA.
> 
> Withdrew from from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
> 
> Directed the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately.
> 
> Lifted the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.
> 
> Lifted the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward.
> 
> Canceled unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and orders issued by President Obama.
> 
> Selected a replacement for Justice Scalia in Neil Gorsuch.
> 
> Began removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back.
> 
> Suspended immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.
> 
> Signed the Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act.
> 
> Signed the Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy Executive Order.
> 
> Repealed the Obamacare Mandate.
> 
> Gave more power back to the States.
> 
> Signed the Tax Reform Bill.
> 
> Created more jobs in America (thanks to working with companies like Intel and meeting with various CEOs.)
> 
> The economy / stock market is in great shape.
> 
> Bombed the shit out of ISIS!
> 
> Minimized government waste with budget cuts.
> 
> Withdrew from the Paris Accord.
> 
> Helped opened more coal mines.
> 
> Increased military spending.
> 
> Signed 96 laws.
> 
> Recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.


Donald Trump is hated by degenerate rappers, scumbag actors, and cop hating NFL players. Makes me proud I voted for him!

- Vic


----------



## El Grappleador

Ladies and gentlemen: U.S. Goverment is closed.


----------



## virus21

El Grappleador said:


> Ladies and gentlemen: U.S. Goverment is closed.


Many would considering that a good thing. Not like they do much for us anyway.


----------



## Smarky Mark

RavishingRickRules said:


> The point I made was that if employers paid a living wage to their employees on the low end then people on higher wages wouldn't need to make up the shortfall with charity, do you understand now or do I need to somehow simplify this even further?


Why can't those low income employees just ask for more money?

If a janitor for a company is only making 30k a year and he's unhappy about it, what's stopping him from going to his boss and negotiating a higher salary?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Smarky Mark said:


> Why can't those low income employees just ask for more money?
> 
> If a janitor for a company is only making 30k a year and he's unhappy about it, what's stopping him from going to his boss and negotiating a higher salary?


Is that how you think it works? That the employees have the choice of earning a higher wage? If a company only wants to pay him 30k, that's all he's getting. Again, you're missing the point entirely. Just stop, it's evident you're just reaching at this point.


----------



## CamillePunk

If only they would actually shut down the government instead of this inconsequential political theater where not much really happens. :sad:


----------



## virus21

CamillePunk said:


> If only they would actually shut down the government instead of this inconsequential political theater where not much really happens. :sad:


Indeed. Fuck the government


----------



## Smarky Mark

RavishingRickRules said:


> Is that how you think it works? That the employees have the choice of earning a higher wage? *If a company only wants to pay him 30k, that's all he's getting. *Again, you're missing the point entirely. Just stop, it's evident you're just reaching at this point.


Why though? 

Why do you think this is?


----------



## Smarky Mark

@RavishingRickRules I could see you're having trouble responding.

It was a rhetorical question, one that you already know the answer to. The reason the janitor making 30k a year can't negotiate a higher salary is because his employer doesn't need him. There is likely a surplus of applicants volunteering to perform the same job and he can be replaced at anytime.

Would you agree with this?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Smarky Mark said:


> @RavishingRickRules I could see you're having trouble responding.
> 
> It was a rhetorical question, one that you already know the answer to. The reason the janitor making 30k a year can't negotiate a higher salary is because his employer doesn't need him. There is likely a surplus of applicants volunteering to perform the same job and he can be replaced at anytime.
> 
> Would you agree with this?


I'm not having trouble answering, I didn't even read your response because I'm busy watching my Rockets play the Warriors. Sorry to break it to you but you mean literally nothing to me so I'm really not that focused on a back and forth with somebody who's trying to throw up straw man after straw man to argue against giving people a fair wage.


----------



## Smarky Mark

RavishingRickRules said:


> I'm not having trouble answering, I didn't even read your response because I'm busy watching my Rockets play the Warriors. Sorry to break it to you but you mean literally nothing to me so I'm really not that focused on a back and forth with somebody who's trying to throw up straw man after straw man to argue against giving people a fair wage.


Lies.

You are a coward who is afraid to engage further debate because you have run out of arguments.

All I did was ask you a question and you are now running away. I really hope the people in this thread who are on the fence as it pertains to this debate can see your side's BS for what it is.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Hey Mitch, suck a dick.


----------



## Cabanarama

2 Ton 21 said:


> Hey Mitch, suck a dick.


Don't forget this is the same guy that led the Republican effort to openly do everything in their power to sabotage the economic recovery after Obama took office because he would rather watch the American people suffer than see Obama and the Dems score political points. 
Of all the things the Republicans do, the most disgusting thing of all may very well be how they will frequently make/ let people suffer just so they can pin it on the Democrats for political gains. The modern Republican part has shown time and time again that in every scenario that they will always put party over country.


----------



## Miss Sally

Cabanarama said:


> Don't forget this is the same guy that led the Republican effort to openly do everything in their power to sabotage the economic recovery after Obama took office because he would rather watch the American people suffer than see Obama and the Dems score political points.
> Of all the things the Republicans do, the most disgusting thing of all may very well be how they will frequently make/ let people suffer just so they can pin it on the Democrats for political gains. The modern Republican part has shown time and time again that in every scenario that they will always put party over country.


This reads like the Democratic Party, "We're the Party for the little guys". You know like Zuckerberg, big business, endless war and stonewalling anyone Left of the Democratic "Left".

No offense but one would have to be completely blind to not see that both parties are the issue and that they completely agree on almost everything, where it matters.


----------



## Cabanarama

Miss Sally said:


> This reads like the Democratic Party, "We're the Party for the little guys". You know like Zuckerberg, big business, endless war and stonewalling anyone Left of the Democratic "Left".
> 
> No offense but one would have to be completely blind to not see that both parties are the issue and that they completely agree on almost everything, where it matters.


There is a clear, far lesser of the two evils. There are many problems with the Democrats, but they aren't a fraction of how just utterly awful the Republicans are as a whole. 

Also, it's not even so much that the Democrats agree on everything with the Republicans, it's that for the most part they have been too gutless to stand up against the Republicans and as a result have been pretty much complicit with the GOP agenda since the Reagan administration. 

This shutdown is a test of how the Democratic party will be. If they cave or give up/ offer/ negotiate any further concessions than those in the bi-partisan agreement that was agreed upon before Trump blew it up, then they'll just show they're still the same spineless cowards they've always been. If they actually stand their ground (or better yet, make further demands), then maybe it means they actually are changing for the better.


----------



## Miss Sally

Cabanarama said:


> There is a clear, far lesser of the two evils. There are many problems with the Democrats, but they aren't a fraction of how just utterly awful the Republicans are as a whole.
> 
> Also, it's not even so much that the Democrats agree on everything with the Republicans, it's that for the most part they have been too gutless to stand up against the Republicans and as a result have been pretty much complicit with the GOP agenda since the Reagan administration.
> 
> This shutdown is a test of how the Democratic party will be. If they cave or give up/ offer/ negotiate any further concessions than those in the bi-partisan agreement that was agreed upon before Trump blew it up, then they'll just show they're still the same spineless cowards they've always been. If they actually stand their ground (or better yet, make further demands), then maybe it means they actually are changing for the better.


Stand up to what? They signed off on the constant wars, fucking with privacy and pushing through a whole lot of meaningless crap that does nothing for anyone. They're every bit as racist as people within the Republican party, their email leaks proved this, they also have no qualms about back channel deals or fucking over anyone who doesn't tow the neoliberal line, ie Bernie Sanders.

Libya, ISIS getting weapons and cash, lots of this Mid East nonsense happened during the Obama Administration, they were pretty fine with disrupting the Mid East further and neither did they mind the Patriot Act, seems there is also some shady spying going on during it, Democrats also signed off on further anti-privacy legislation. Seems their interests aren't that far off.

*FAR Lesser* of two evils my ass, it's nonsense like this that keeps getting the same retards elected year after year because they think they're somehow on the side of right or part of the "right party". Maybe if people didn't justify their blind loyalty and justification of "their side" so much we'd not have so many issues.

Oh who am I kidding when Democrats get elected in and we're invading another country, destabilizing more, eroding any rights and privacy we have and continuing the same nonsense since the Obama Administration we can all sleep soundly because "it's not as bad." Poor Tater, now I get how he feels.


----------



## virus21




----------



## DOPA

@DesolationRow

I am much like yourself quite amused with all the happenings surrounding the government shutdown. As you could also imagine I'm not exactly devastated with this happening, sometimes I wish the UK government would shutdown for a while :lol.

The blame game is quite fascinating to be honest, on the one hand, you have Schumer claiming that he tried to get a deal with Trump surrounding DACA with funding the border wall and Trump rejected it. I can see why Democrats in this case would put the blame on Trump if he feels the border wall isn't enough and instead isn't willing to put it in the bill to continue the funding of government. Especially because of the claim that DACA is something they've been working on for months. On the other hand, @7-TIME AWARD WINNING WF LEGEND: THE SHIV; (despite the ridiculous name, sorry SHIV  ) is right in that DACA should have never been in the spending bill to begin with as they have nothing to do with each other. It's typical Washington politics 101 having items not related to each other being piled in on spending bills when they should be on separate ones where they can actually be read and debated on. This particular bill should have only dealt with the essentials of keeping government operational. But this is typical of both parties, it was the Democrats this time but I'm not going to sit here and just point fingers at them considering the Republicans aren't above doing the same thing. 

This shutdown was doomed to happen from the moment it was realized that the Republicans needed 9 Democrats to cross the aisle to reach the 60 votes needed to keep the government operational and only 5 were willing. It didn't matter that 5 Republicans themselves voted no to the bill (which I'll get to in a moment) because even if all 51 of them voted yes, the shutdown was still going to happen. So vote wise from where I am standing, it was the Democrats prioritizing DACA as an issue that made the shutdown happen as most of them seem to believe it's an issue worth shutting the government down over.

What's interesting is that Trump and the Republicans could say, as I have heard that DACA has until March to be renegotiated and therefore this shutdown was completely avoidable. And to be honest, I do agree in this instance considering DACA as an item shouldn't have been there. On the one hand, having a couple of months extra to negotiate something both sides are happy with means that the Democrats really didn't need to shutdown the government over this, they could have waited on a separate time to get it fixed and chose not to for the sake of political point scoring. But on the other hand, again Congress has had months to sort this out and it hasn't been done. We're at a deadlock as we have one side saying they offered funding for the border wall which was rejected and on the other we have the other saying that they want immigration reform and the Democrats refuse to compromise. It's a giant mess :lol.

Personally on DACA? I don't think it's too much to ask the Democrats for some immigration reform regarding chain migration and the lottery, installing a merit based system like Canada or Australia and reform on border security in exchange for it (I don't even care about the wall but fuck it :lol). But I know a lot of people on this thread who will disagree with me and that's fine :lol. On the other hand, I can understand if Trump has been working on this months with the Democrats and he's decided it's not enough despite Schumer thinking progress is being made why they would blame him. It's a particular grandstanding game with both sides at this point.

I think you won't be surprised to find that my view on this is pretty cynical, considering the likely outcome is we will have a compromise deal which includes bigger spending on items that both parties want to keep them happy. You won't see a government shutdown followed by spending restraint. This is why as much as I like analyzing this, I can't exactly blame either side for the shutdown when personally if I was in there, I'd vote no on the bill along the same lines of Rand Paul and Mike Lee regarding the continuous deficit spending which is ruining the country. The American people will continue to lose as the country sinks further and further into debt with no end in sight.

Another $800 billion likely this year in debt and $1 Trillion the next year as spending continues to rise:

http://rare.us/rare-politics/issues...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer



> When discussing what led to the fall of the Roman Empire, much of it relates to today’s politics.
> 
> That’s a point Rand Paul attempted to impart to his Washington colleagues recently according to an op-ed Thursday in the Washington Examiner:
> 
> _I ran into a couple of GOP senators the other day. They were talking about the fall of the Roman Empire (who knew senators might actually discuss history?). One senator made the point that Rome’s fall corresponded with a loss of values, which of course has some merit. But that’s missing the bigger picture. I responded that perhaps their decline had something to do with being overextended militarily, knowing that they would likely reject this point since it might imply that the United States, also, might be faced with the same future._
> 
> Paul says that our massive debt could be a significant factor in any Rome-style decline of the United States in the future. He notes that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on this, yet both sides put on blinders if trying to reform runaway spending runs afoul of their party’s platform.
> 
> But Paul hammers home the primary point – that debt is debt is debt. That means both Democrat and Republican spending.
> 
> “If the GOP insists on exceeding the budget caps by over $100 billion in new military spending, it is hard to argue that the Republican Party really cares about the debt,” Paul said to his Republican colleagues, who he claims pretended like he had never said a thing.
> 
> Paul said he attempted the same type of reasoning with a Democrat he encountered:
> 
> _Minutes later, I ran into a Democrat senator in leadership. I continued my previous conversation about debt with him. ‘I hope your caucus will unite in opposing the GOP push to bust the budget caps on military spending.’ He slyly grinned and responded, ‘We’re kind of in the opposite place as you are. We are fine with busting the caps on military spending as long as we get our share of domestic spending.’_
> 
> And there you have it: the dirty little secret in Washington.
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if Paul feels like the last sane person in our nation’s capital. The problem is easily identifiable, yet too many look the opposite direction like a gazelle purposefully ignoring the lion bearing down on it because the grass is too delicious.
> 
> Today, the United States is well over $20 trillion in debt, a historic high. Add to that the fact that surpassing $20 trillion also eclipses the U.S. GDP, which economists estimate to be around $19.23 trillion.
> 
> America is officially spending more than it’s making. That doesn’t fly in your home, and it shouldn’t fly in Washington.
> 
> We are a bus careening toward a cliff, and only Paul and a handful of his colleagues appear to understand that slamming on the brakes is a solid plan. That’s incredibly worrisome.
> 
> Not only for us but far more so for future generations. The more debt we accumulate, the more the state has to focus on paying off said debt, and the less our children and grandchildren will be able to live without such a burden. They’ll be stuck working to pay the bill we ran up.
> 
> Paul recently pledged that he will be a “no” vote on the resolution to continue funding the government because of the bill’s failure to cut spending.


The GOP won't even follow the Senate's own rules in regards to the spending caps which are too high anyway. They should be much lower but of course there has to be compromise. Over $100 Billion over the spending cap in military spending. This is why I'm more angry at Republicans than Democrats concerning this issue. At least Democrats are honest and say they don't care about fiscal responsibility or the debt but the GOP when they aren't in power will rail against the frivolous spending in Washington and then when they get into power are more than happy to push for more spending on the items they want.

This continuing now that the debt has surpassed the US's own GDP.

So yeah, can't be hypocritical and point fingers myself. The government can stay shutdown for all I care :lol.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Smarky Mark said:


> Lies.
> 
> You are a coward who is afraid to engage further debate because you have run out of arguments.
> 
> All I did was ask you a question and you are now running away. I really hope the people in this thread who are on the fence as it pertains to this debate can see your side's BS for what it is.


Bruh, your arguments are straight up idiotic. No one's "running away" from you. They're choosing to no longer waste their time on you because they have better things to do and I don't blame them. 

Read your arguments, and understand why they don't work. Until you do, no one is going to side with you on this.


----------



## virus21

> Washington (CNN) — Although Democrats appear to have the backing of their base in their fight to extend the program allowing some people brought to the US illegally as children to stay, there are some warning signs that going to the carpet to protect Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals may be the wrong move for the minority party, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS.
> A plurality of Americans said they would blame either President Donald Trump or Republicans in Congress for a shutdown, while fewer say they would blame congressional Democrats. (Eight in 10 Americans who would blame Democrats are either Republicans or GOP-leaning independents.) Still, the poll offers several red flags for Democrats in their stalemate with Republicans on Capitol Hill.
> Here are five reasons why American public opinion may be betting against the Democrats in the shutdown battle:
> 
> 
> 1. More said avoiding a shutdown is important than continuing DACA
> A majority of Americans, 56%, said approving a budget to avoid a government shutdown was more important for Congress to do than passing a bill to maintain the DACA program. Only one in three Americans, 34%, said they prioritized a DACA fix over avoiding a shutdown.
> The preference for avoiding a shutdown holds across most demographic groups, even those that are traditionally Democratic-leaning. Among young people, it's 50% avoid a shutdown to 42% maintain DACA. Racial and ethnic minorities preferred avoiding a shutdown by 51% to 39%. Women favored keeping the government open by 10 points, 49% to 39%.
> 
> 2. Finding a DACA fix was seen as more important than opposing the wall
> It's true that most Americans oppose building a wall along the border with Mexico -- but that doesn't mean they're willing to let the government close over it.
> Among the group of Americans who say they both oppose building a wall and want to find a DACA solution -- more than half of the country -- a broad 8 in 10 said that continuing the DACA program is more important to them then blocking construction of a border wall. Only 1 in 6 said opposing the border wall is more important than continuing DACA.
> Republican negotiators in Congress have said they would support a deal to continue with DACA if it also included funding for a wall along the border with Mexico, but Democrats have said they will not accept funding for a border wall as part of any deal.
> 
> 3. More Americans said CHIP is a higher priority than DACA
> Overall, 8 in 10 Americans said it is extremely or very important for the President and Congress to fund the Children's Health Insurance Program this year, through which lower income children are able to get health insurance even if their parents aren't covered.
> That ranks as a higher priority for Americans than DACA overall (a smaller majority of 63% consider dealing with DACA as big a priority), and opens the door to GOP messaging suggesting Democrats are scuttling one popular program with more pressing funding concerns in favor of their pet issue.
> And Republicans have seized that opportunity. Republicans in the House, who don't face the procedural hurdles which which their counterparts in the Senate are struggling, have passed a bill that funds the government and continues CHIP for six years. Republican leaders from both houses of Congress called out Senate Democrats' inaction on that bill Friday, saying Democrats are ignoring an easy solution on CHIP and the nearly 9 million kids who would be affected by its lack of funding.
> 
> 4. Democrats themselves barely agreed with congressional Democrats' tradeoff
> Not quite half of Democrats -- 49% -- said they think that finding a solution for the roughly 690,000 undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children is a higher priority than keeping the government open. A significant minority, 42%, said they think it's more important to avoid the first government shutdown since 2013.
> That's not a very wide margin, and it held up only among liberal Democrats (57% picked DACA, 35% a budget agreement). Among Democrats who say they are ideologically moderate or conservative, 51% said approving a budget agreement is more important, while 40% choose DACA.
> Still, Democrats in Congress say they must find a solution for recipients of the DACA program, an Obama-era executive action that Trump halted in September while calling for a legislative fix.
> 
> 5. Independents tended to agree with Republicans on these issues
> Most independents fell in line with Republicans on the crucial choices facing both parties as a government shutdown approached. Independents fell squarely between Democrats and Republicans in their overall take on DACA: 82% supported continuing the program, more than the 72% of Republicans who did but less than the 96% of Democrats who backed it.
> But a majority of independents, 57%, said they prioritized avoiding a government shutdown over finding a DACA solution. Only 34% said a DACA solution is more important.
> Meanwhile, a broad 76% of independents said CHIP is extremely or very important, decidedly more than the 61% who said it's extremely or very important to find a solution to DACA. (An even lower 56% said it's extremely or very important to pass long-term spending bills to avoid government shutdowns.)
> The CNN Poll was conducted by SSRS January 14-18 among a random national sample of 1,005 adults reached on landlines or cellphones by a live interviewer. No interviewing was completed on January 16 due to weather conditions at call center locations. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points, it is larger for subgroups.


http://archive.is/NW0m9#selection-399.0-540.1


----------



## RavishingRickRules

BlueSanta said:


> Bruh, your arguments are straight up idiotic. No one's "running away" from you. They're choosing to no longer waste their time on you because they have better things to do and I don't blame them.
> 
> Read your arguments, and understand why they don't work. Until you do, no one is going to side with you on this.


The ironic thing here is that I actually put him on ignore before he sent that response. Imagine being conceited enough to think he mattered more than my team beating the NBA's "Final Boss" last night? Once he'd shown his desperation by tagging me after I'd already ignored him quoting me I decided he really wasn't worth my time :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

Rona Ambrose expects President Trump to withdraw from NAFTA.

- Vic


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Vic Capri said:


> Rona Ambrose expects President Trump to withdraw from NAFTA.
> 
> - Vic


Us get's about 33% of it's Oil from Canada,Mexico and Venezuela,that would significantly increase our gas prices.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> Donald Trump is hated by degenerate rappers, scumbag actors, and cop hating NFL players. Makes me proud I voted for him!
> 
> - Vic


You remind me of Robert Deniro's character in The Fan.


----------



## deepelemblues

Satisfaction with the economy keeps growing, Democrat crying about the tax cuts isn't working (turns out middle-class people like keeping more of their own money instead of giving it to the government and getting some - nowhere near all - indirectly back in the form of government programs, they aren't buying the "THIS TAX CUT IS TAKING MONEY FROM THE MIDDLE CLASS AND GIVING IT TO THE 1%" nonsense which the Democrats always trot out whenever there is a tax cut, it's total bullshit), still not tired of all this WINNING

Also the US imports a little over 100,000 barrels of oil from Canada a month

The US consumes a little under 20 million barrels of oil a day. So, Canadian oil is literally a drop in the barrel

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

Domestic US oil production continues to rise, to the point where the US might overtake Russia and Saudi Arabia this year for the world's biggest oil producer. If the US withdraws from NAFTA and Canada is dumb enough to try to use the minuscule amount of oil it exports to the US as some kind of leverage, lol I could see soy boy Trudeau trying something that dumb but :trump will just laugh at him and then they'll go make tender but furious love since as has been pointed out many times they are clearly deeply in love with each other, you can see it from any of the photos of them looking at each other. Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww 

Nope, still not tired of all this fracking WINNING


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> Satisfaction with the economy keeps growing, Democrat crying about the tax cuts isn't working (turns out middle-class people like keeping more of their own money instead of giving it to the government and getting some - nowhere near all - indirectly back in the form of government programs, they aren't buying the "THIS TAX CUT IS TAKING MONEY FROM THE MIDDLE CLASS AND GIVING IT TO THE 1%" nonsense which the Democrats always trot out whenever there is a tax cut, it's total bullshit), still not tired of all this WINNING
> 
> Also the US imports a little over 100,000 barrels of oil from Canada a month
> 
> The US consumes a little under 20 million barrels of oil a day. So, Canadian oil is literally a drop in the barrel
> 
> https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm
> 
> Domestic US oil production continues to rise, to the point where the US might overtake Russia and Saudi Arabia this year for the world's biggest oil producer. If the US withdraws from NAFTA and Canada is dumb enough to try to use the minuscule amount of oil it exports to the US as some kind of leverage, lol I could see soy boy Trudeau trying something that dumb but :trump will just laugh at him and then they'll go make tender but furious love since as has been pointed out many times they are clearly deeply in love with each other, you can see it from any of the photos of them looking at each other. Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
> 
> Nope, still not tired of all this fracking WINNING


You mean Trumps mid 30s approval rating equals winning?
Or the majorty of the country blaming Trump for the shut down winning?

or how Trumps tax cuts will cause another recession as winning.

The only people that think Trump is winning is Trump and his uninformed supporters.


----------



## virus21

We're at war with Russia. We've always been at war with Russia.


----------



## deepelemblues

I don't get the big deal about MUH RUSSIA suddenly being SO SCARY again

Just look at the numbers

Since 2000

MUH RUSSIA invaded Ukraine, and sent military forces to fight in Syria at the behest of the Syrian government 

The USA invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, bombed Libya, and has sent military forces to fight in like 25-30 other countries at the behest of their governments 

The disparity in power is quite large, MUH RUSSIA is still little brother to MURICA. You don't see Kenya or Somalia or Nigeria or the Philippines or whoever running to Moscow to get some MUH RUSSIA SPECIAL FORCES to come down and wreck some terrorists' shit, they run to Washington DC


----------



## Stephen90

deepelemblues said:


> Satisfaction with the economy keeps growing, Democrat crying about the tax cuts isn't working (turns out middle-class people like keeping more of their own money instead of giving it to the government and getting some - nowhere near all - indirectly back in the form of government programs, they aren't buying the "THIS TAX CUT IS TAKING MONEY FROM THE MIDDLE CLASS AND GIVING IT TO THE 1%" nonsense which the Democrats always trot out whenever there is a tax cut, it's total bullshit), still not tired of all this WINNING
> 
> Also the US imports a little over 100,000 barrels of oil from Canada a month
> 
> The US consumes a little under 20 million barrels of oil a day. So, Canadian oil is literally a drop in the barrel
> 
> https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm
> 
> Domestic US oil production continues to rise, to the point where the US might overtake Russia and Saudi Arabia this year for the world's biggest oil producer. If the US withdraws from NAFTA and Canada is dumb enough to try to use the minuscule amount of oil it exports to the US as some kind of leverage, lol I could see soy boy Trudeau trying something that dumb but :trump will just laugh at him and then they'll go make tender but furious love since as has been pointed out many times they are clearly deeply in love with each other, you can see it from any of the photos of them looking at each other. Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
> 
> Nope, still not tired of all this fracking WINNING


Winning Trump can't even keep the government open.:bryanlol


----------



## deepelemblues

Stephen90 said:


> Winning :bryanlol


69% of those polled by NBC are either somewhat satisfied (48%) or very satisfied (21%) with the economy

That's America winning, embrace it instead of being :triggered



> Winning Trump can't even keep the government open.


The government "shutting down" is even more winning, if the government never "opened up" again that would frankly be great for the country. The actually necessary parts of the government (DoD, DoJ, etc.) are still operating and will continue to operate, bloated federal bureaucracies like the IRS and the Department of the Treasury sending 90% of their useless employees home is awesome


----------



## Stephen90

deepelemblues said:


> 69% of those polled by NBC are either somewhat satisfied (48%) or very satisfied (21%) with the economy
> 
> That's America winning, embrace it instead of being :triggered
> 
> 
> 
> The government "shutting down" is even more winning, if the government never "opened up" again that would frankly be great for the country. The actually necessary parts of the government (DoD, DoJ, etc.) are still operating and will continue to operate, bloated federal bureaucracies like the IRS and the Department of the Treasury sending 90% of their useless employees home is awesome


What's even worse is he can't keep it open with a Republican majority.:bryanlol


----------



## deepelemblues

Stephen90 said:


> What's even worse is he can't keep it open with a Republican majority.:bryanlol


Looks like we got a Jim Acosta here (aka ignorant af and childishly proud of his ignorance)

60 votes are required in the Senate to pass a CR to fund the government, "a majority" is not enough if it is less than 60 Senate votes


----------



## Cabanarama

deepelemblues said:


> 69% of those polled by NBC are either somewhat satisfied (48%) or very satisfied (21%) with the economy
> 
> That's America winning, embrace it instead of being :triggered


It's funny you ignore that the same poll gives Trump a 39% approval and 57% approval, 26% strong approval vs. 51% strong disapproval, or the fact that most Americans acknowledge that Obama deserves the credit for the booming economy.
But, hey nice cherrypicking


----------



## Cabanarama

deepelemblues said:


> Looks like we got a Jim Acosta here (aka ignorant af and childishly proud of his ignorance)
> 
> 60 votes are required in the Senate to pass a CR to fund the government, "a majority" is not enough if it is less than 60 Senate votes


*ignores the fact that they couldn't even get 50 Republicans to vote on it... or the fact that they had reached a bi-partisan compromise before Trump blew it up when Tom Cotton and Stephen Miller got into his ear
And yet you call others ignorant... :lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

When one party controls all three branches of government and it shutdowns, it's 100% on that party. It takes a special kind of stupid to think the Democrats are responsible for the shutdown. Of course, it takes a special kind of stupid to still support Trump.


----------



## Figure4Leglock

whose income actually has suffered during Trump`s administration here? how is your life affected? im pretty curious.


----------



## Vic Capri

> 60 votes are required in the Senate to pass a CR to fund the government, "a majority" is not enough if it is less than 60 Senate votes


The Democrats hold this L and it will come back to haunt them in November.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> The Democrats hold this L and it will come back to haunt them in November.
> 
> - Vic


Trump said in 2013 Govt shut downs are always on the President and most of the US blames the GOP for the shutdown but sure keep telling yourself the dems are to blame and they will pay for it in Nov LOL

The dems are going to route the GOP


----------



## Art Vandaley

The idea that the gov is shutting down while the Republicans hold all three houses will lead to the Democrats losing support is wishful thinking at best.


----------



## Cabanarama

Alkomesh2 said:


> The idea that the gov is shutting down while the Republicans hold all three houses will lead to the Democrats losing support is wishful thinking at best.


I'm not so sure about that. I don't really have enough faith in the majority of the American public to not buy into the bullshit the Republicans are peddling over this...


----------



## Miss Sally

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Us get's about 33% of it's Oil from Canada,Mexico and Venezuela,that would significantly increase our gas prices.


We don't get much oil from Canada and Venezuela is having issues because their oil is suffering in quality due to needing updated equipment or repairs, pair this with a hostile Government and you got no reason to not look for someone else to sell you oil.

Besides even guys like Bernie Sanders thinks NAFTA is crap and doesn't benefit enough. 

Though I wonder what would happen if the US used it's own oil and went Green.. what would happen to all those poor Nations who's main export is oil..>


----------



## Tater

Miss Sally said:


> Though I wonder what would happen if the US used it's own oil and went Green.. what would happen to all those poor Nations who's main export is oil..>


It's been said many times before but I'll say it again. People think the Middle East is fucked up now. Wait until the rest of the world doesn't need their oil anymore.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump said in 2013 Govt shut downs are always on the President and most of the US blames the GOP for the shutdown but sure keep telling yourself the dems are to blame and they will pay for it in Nov LOL
> 
> The dems are going to route the GOP












:lol Now look at what Democrats said in 2013


----------



## birthday_massacre

Cabanarama said:


> I'm not so sure about that. I don't really have enough faith in the majority of the American public to not buy into the bullshit the Republicans are peddling over this...


They are not, there was a poll down before the shut down who they would blame and most Americans said het GOP


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> :lol Now look at what Democrats said in 2013



What does this have to do with whose to blame for the shut down?

Oh right just more deflection


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> What does this have to do with whose to blame for the shut down?
> 
> Oh right just more deflection


Just pointing out hypocrisy is all, that's why you've failed to comment on it and resorted to deflecting :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> Just pointing out hypocrisy is all, that's why you've failed to comment on it and resorted to deflecting :lol


I did comment on it, we are talking about this shutdown and who is to blame. You posted about a shut down from 2013, 

But keep deflecting because you can't admit this shut down is Trumps and the GOPs fault.


----------



## yeahbaby!

birthday_massacre said:


> I did comment on it, we are talking about this shutdown and who is to blame. You posted about a shut down from 2013,
> 
> But keep deflecting because you can't admit this shut down is Trumps and the GOPs fault.


You both have valid points IMO.


----------



## birthday_massacre

yeahbaby! said:


> You both have valid points IMO.


Nothing the Dems said in 2013 has any bearing on who is the blame for the 2018 shutdown.

Trump saying its always the president does. Not to mention, it is Trumps fault because every time he comes to an agreement with the Dems he goes back to the GOP and then Trump goes back on his word and blows up the agreement.

that is all on Trump not the dems or what they said in 2013

If Trump did not go back on is word on the DACA deal the govt probably does not shut down. How can anyone claim that is not on Trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

http://thehill.com/policy/technolog...tdown-becomes-top-hashtag-used-by-russia-bots

Advocacy group: #SchumerShutdown becomes top hashtag used by Russian bots



#SchumerShutdown became the top trending topic promoted by Russian bots on social media on Sunday night, a national security group found.

The Alliance for Securing Democracy, an organization led by national security officials from both political parties housed at The German Marshall Fund of the United States, found that the phrase was the top trending hashtag promoted by Russian bots as of 10 p.m. on Sunday.

The news was first reported by HuffPost.

The group tracks activity by about 600 Twitter accounts that are tied to Russian influence projects.

The hashtag has been used by Republicans to blame Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Democrats for the government shutdown.
#ReleaseTheMemo, a slogan calling for the release of a memo that some Republicans say proves bias in special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russia's election interference, was the second highest trending hashtag at the time.

Russian-linked bots on Twitter were found to have fueled #ReleaseTheMemo as well.

Both parties have utilized hashtags blaming the other for the government shutdown, which will enter its third day on Monday after senators failed to strike a funding deal.

#TrumpShutdown became Twitter's top trending topic worldwide on Friday, shortly before the government shutdown began.


----------



## virus21

Fuckers just want the world to blow up, don't they?


----------



## Stephen90

I keep hearing how peaceful Republicans are .
http://www.cbs46.com/story/37323169/feds-man-threatened-to-kill-cnn-employees


----------



## Cabanarama

Stephen90 said:


> I keep hearing how peaceful Republicans are .
> http://www.cbs46.com/story/37323169/feds-man-threatened-to-kill-cnn-employees



It's funny to me, how you'll have some left wing rally with thousands of people, and a few of them get out of hand and break some windows and/ or set something on fire, and the right starts screaming about how violent the left is, meanwhile three quarters of the terrorist attacks in this country are done by right wing extremists...

For all the fear mongering from the right about Muslims or immigrants, the biggest threat to this country and its people are Republicans.


----------



## Stephen90

Cabanarama said:


> It's funny to me, how you'll have some left wing rally with thousands of people, and a few of them get out of hand and break some windows and/ or set something on fire, and the right starts screaming about how violent the left is, meanwhile three quarters of the terrorist attacks in this country are done by right wing extremists...
> 
> For all the fear mongering from the right about Muslims or immigrants, the biggest threat to this country and its people are Republicans.


Imagine if this person had did this to Fox News or Breitbart instead. The Trump supporters on here would be losing their minds.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Cabanarama said:


> It's funny to me, how you'll have some left wing rally with thousands of people, and a few of them get out of hand and break some windows and/ or set something on fire, and the right starts screaming about how violent the left is, meanwhile three quarters of the terrorist attacks in this country are done by right wing extremists...
> 
> For all the fear mongering from the right about Muslims or immigrants, the biggest threat to this country and its people are Republicans.


:lol The downplaying is amusing. Apparently shooting Republican politicians at a baseball game or a cop killer who supported BLM isn't nearly as bad as some whack job sending death threads :lol Apparently conservatives never receive death threats either :lol

You purposely ignoring leftist violence and actively downplaying it is the most telling thing of all


----------



## Cabanarama

Stinger Fan said:


> :lol The downplaying is amusing. Apparently shooting Republican politicians at a baseball game or a cop killer who supported BLM isn't nearly as bad as some whack job sending death threads :lol Apparently conservatives never receive death threats either :lol
> 
> You purposely ignoring leftist violence and actively downplaying it is the most telling thing of all


I never said there wasn't such thing as leftist violence, it would be foolish to say it doesn't exist at all, but it pales it comparison to violence from the right. For every instance like the ones you cited from the left (and I would hardly call the one in dallas an example of left-wing violence, and it shows that you can only come up with one actual instance where nobody died), there are about ten from the right. 

But nice try with the strawman and false equivalency...


----------



## Stinger Fan

Cabanarama said:


> I never said there wasn't such thing as leftist violence, it would be foolish to say it doesn't exist at all, but it pales it comparison to violence from the right. For every instance like the ones you cited from the left (and I would hardly call the one in dallas an example of left-wing violence, and it shows that you can only come up with one actual instance where nobody died), there are about ten from the right.
> 
> But nice try with the strawman and false equivalency...


More downplaying and deflection. You even resorted to misrepresented the whole "three quarters of the terrorist attacks in this country are done by right wing extremists" which is only in reference to the past 10-15 years and not every single terrorism attack in USA history. The 70s and 80's saw plenty of communist and left wing terrorist attacks in the USA :lol There's even eco-terrorism too 

Just sayin


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> :lol The downplaying is amusing. Apparently shooting Republican politicians at a baseball game or a cop killer who supported BLM isn't nearly as bad as some whack job sending death threads :lol Apparently conservatives never receive death threats either :lol
> 
> You purposely ignoring leftist violence and actively downplaying it is the most telling thing of all


The only thing that is downplayed is right winged violence. But keep deflecting.


----------



## virus21

> What’s being called the secret “FISA memo” – which has been seen by numerous lawmakers – is supposedly “worse than Watergate,” according to conservative Fox News host Sean Hannity and reveals KGB-like tactics, according to a GOP lawmaker.
> The reactions by GOP lawmakers who have seen the four-page document have a lot of people wondering what’s in the memo that some say documents abuses in how the Department of Justice and FBI wielded the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act against Donald Trump campaign officials during the Obama administration.
> 
> 
> 
> When will the FISA memo be released? Will it be released?
> Hannity and some GOP lawmkaers in Congress are leading the charge for the FISA memo’s release. “Our sources are telling us that the abuse of power is far bigger than Watergate,” Hannity said, according to Fox News. “Remember, Watergate was a third-rate break-in. What we’re talking about tonight is the systematic abuse of power, the weaponizing of those powerful tools of intelligence and the shredding of our Fourth Amendment constitutional rights.” Some lawmakers and others were using the hashtag #releasethememo on Twitter.
> 
> Getty
> Former FBI Director Robert Mueller, special counsel on the Russian investigation, leaves following a meeting with members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee at the US Capitol in Washington, DC on June 21, 2017.
> According to Town Hall, steps have been taken to release the FISA memo to the public. “The House Intelligence Committee voted to release a four-page memo on FISA abuses that have disturbed lawmakers to their core. Some were saying the actions described were akin to the KGB,” Town Hall reported. The vote was along party lines with all Democrats voting against it.
> The memo could be released soon, Fox News reported. “The process for releasing it to the public involves a committee vote, a source said. If approved, it could be released as long as there are no objections from the White House within five days,” reported Fox on January 18, 2018. Intercept suggests four other ways Republicans could release the memo. Among them: Reading it on the House floor as occurred with part of the Pentagon Papers and having President Trump declassify it.
> 
> Getty
> President Donald Trump at the White House, on January 11, 2018.
> 
> ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> Enter to Win an XBox One & XBox One Games
> 
> Type in your Email and Press ENTER on your keyboard to Submit *
> 
> Rules for the The XBox One & XBox One Game Bundle Sweepstakes Available HERE
> 
> I have read and accepted the Official Rules for the The XBox One & XBox One Game Bundle Sweepstakes
> 
> 
> As of January 19, 2018, the memo had not yet been released to the public, but some lawmakers were allowed to view it in private on January 18, sparking the hue and cry. According to The New York Daily News, “Members of the lower chamber of Congress were allowed to see a memo from the House intelligence committee on Thursday, with some voicing outrage about what they saw in a restricted room at the Capitol.”
> The FISA memo’s release seemed to be most widely reported by conservative media outlets, leading some to question why CNN and other news media outlets were not giving it bigger play. Hannity is not the only conservative raising grave concerns about the memo; a group of Republican lawmakers is too. “It is so alarming the American people have to see this,” Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan said to Fox News.
> “It’s troubling. It is shocking,” North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows said to the network. “Part of me wishes that I didn’t read it because I don’t want to believe that those kinds of things could be happening in this country that I call home and love so much.”
> “You think about, ‘is this happening in America or is this the KGB?’ That’s how alarming it is,” Pennsylvania Rep. Scott Perry said to Fox. “I believe the consequence of its release will be major changes in people currently working at the FBI and the Department of Justice,” said Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz to Fox.
> 
> (Getty)
> 
> ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina wrote on Twitter, “I viewed the classified report from House Intel relating to the FBI, FISA abuses, the infamous Russian dossier, and so-called “Russian collusion.” What I saw is absolutely shocking. This report needs to be released–now. Americans deserve the truth. #ReleaseTheMemo.”
> Rep. Ron DeSantis also called for the memo’s release, writing, “The classified report compiled by House Intelligence is deeply troubling and raises serious questions about the upper echelon of the Obama DOJ and Comey FBI as it relates to the so-called collusion investigation.”
> Republicans, concerned about the Robert Mueller investigation, have raised questions about the partly Hillary Clinton campaign funded dossier into unverified and salacious allegations about President Donald Trump and whether it was used, at least in part, to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Trump campaign officials. Democrats have accused the Republicans of using the issue to shift attention from the Mueller probe. “A report from the New York Times and testimony from the founder of Fusion GPS, which commissioned the document, have said American intelligence was already investigating meddling before they knew of its existence,” The New York Daily News reports. The memo’s viewing also comes on the heels of the news that an FBI investigator involved in the Mueller probe was reassigned after it emerged that he sent anti Trump and pro Hillary Clinton texts.


http://archive.is/MRpCw#selection-433.0-718.3


----------



## birthday_massacre

Seems like the GOP is waiting to release this MEMO when Trump goes down for having Russia ties so they can distract everyone from Trump.

If this memo is such a huge deal why dont they just release it


----------



## Smarky Mark

BlueSanta said:


> Bruh, your arguments are straight up idiotic. No one's "running away" from you. They're choosing to no longer waste their time on you because they have better things to do and I don't blame them.
> 
> Read your arguments, and understand why they don't work. *Until you do, no one is going to side with you on this.*


Sorry pal, the majority of the people in the U.S. already _do_ agree on this.

Most Americans are not socialists and they do not believe that working an entry level unskilled labor job entitles you to a middle class living.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Stinger Fan said:


> More downplaying and deflection. You even resorted to misrepresented the whole "three quarters of the terrorist attacks in this country are done by right wing extremists" which is only in reference to the past 10-15 years and not every single terrorism attack in USA history. The 70s and 80's saw plenty of communist and left wing terrorist attacks in the USA :lol There's even eco-terrorism too
> 
> Just sayin


 @Stinger @Cabanarama @Stephen90

Jesus christ, aren't we all too quick to jump into turning things into another tired old binary Right vs Left issue? What about all the majority lefties and righties who are completely normal and wouldn't dream of sending death threats to news organisations.

(Not singling you out Stinger, just decided to quote you regarding the topic)

Personally I think it points more to the individual sort of person and their social background, possible mental issues etc - mostly these sorts of death threat people I'd be willing to bet are social pariahs with not much going on in their lives, probably with a world of unresolved issues they're taking out on their enemy of choice just to feel like they matter in the world. 

If they weren't a zealous political party members there's a good chance they might be taken in by some weird cult.

Reducing things to Left vs Right sometimes is just too easy and might be missing the real story.


(Edit: Maybe I've just been watching too much MindHunter and I'm full of shit. Great show though)


----------



## Stephen90

yeahbaby! said:


> @Stinger @Cabanarama @Stephen90
> 
> Jesus christ, aren't we all too quick to jump into turning things into another tired old binary Right vs Left issue? What about all the majority lefties and righties who are completely normal and wouldn't dream of sending death threats to news organisations.
> 
> (Not singling you out Stinger, just decided to quote you regarding the topic)
> 
> Personally I think it points more to the individual sort of person and their social background, possible mental issues etc - mostly these sorts of death threat people I'd be willing to bet are social pariahs with not much going on in their lives, probably with a world of unresolved issues they're taking out on their enemy of choice just to feel like they matter in the world.
> 
> If they weren't a zealous political party members there's a good chance they might be taken in by some weird cult.
> 
> Reducing things to Left vs Right sometimes is just too easy and might be missing the real story.
> 
> 
> (Edit: Maybe I've just been watching too much MindHunter and I'm full of shit. Great show though)


I'm not saying every right winger does this. But when somebody on left does this we never hear the end of it on this board.


----------



## El Grappleador

Hi, again!

Last week expressed about cronie capitalism, liberalism and politics. 
Now, on Second year from Trump Era, I wanna explain the "America First"'s ideology from philosophical and psychological.

Firs at all, allow me to clear something: The world is not as it is. You only have a map about it. These "maps" can guide you around the territory, but one thing is the map and another matter is the territory. You can't know what do you find in your way. These "maps" are represented by our social group, information who we receive and our customs. And these maps are known as ideologies.

What is an ideology?
It's a group of thoughts or beliefs who learns about the previous told factors, and these are what create our Worldview. There are routes to follow. However, there was something ideologies which can drive us into rigid behaviors and distorted. 

*And how do you know if you're witness from are toxic ideology?*
-It obeys selfish interest and benefits from their postulants instead of common benefit. I.E.: American Caucasian People, the supposedly Real American People, the greatness of America through war; "represents" the common benefit. But behind this thought, there are too many cronies looking for a popular election charge, because according with corporatism, political mightness is all the mightness. Or in other words, in Mexico we have a slang for this kind of situations... They're looking for a bone. Don't you believe me? What about Wilbur Ross, his economics secretary whose saved Trump from bankruptcy on 1990's? Or Jeff Sessions, the General Attorney? or Steve Bannon, his campaing chief? Or Linda McMahon, which failed tries to ocuppy a charge on U.S. Senate is Secretary of little commerce and she's Vince McMahon's wife, the wife or Trump's BBF? Or the Verizon's Attorney at law whose Trump Named FCC's headmaster with purpose of censorship internet and allow to express in exchange of money? Or John Hazard, Colossus of Pharmaceutical Industry?
_-It owns a bunch of rigid solutions for social problematics._ -I.E.: Build a Wall, Renegociate or Deny NAFTA, inmigrants massive deportation, migratory bans, etc.
-It's Ideas are dogmatic, undoubtable and uncheckable.
-It broadcasts around propaganda and indoctrination.
-And if something makes wrong, always blame outern agents. I.E.: Blame Mexicans, Blame African Americans, blame blame North Korea (?), Blame Asian Americans, Blame Poors, Blame Riches who are not agree, Blame Democrats, Blame CNN, Blame "Betrayer" Republicans, Blame Native Americans... Blame, Blame, Blame.

Surely, you will call somebody who follows a fanatist ideology... at least you're from one of those ideologies and you utters the world is wrong.

*
Symptoms*:
-Anxiety.
-Depression.
-Low Frustration Tolerance.
-Paranoid Thoughts.


Anyway, somebody who sickly defends an ideology got no normal relations. Moreover, he/she ends with a limited and unreal sense of how does world works. As Seth McFarlane's Franchises Characters.


*How do you know if you're trapped on an ideology?*
-You exhibits against you're ideology are more than the proofs in favor: It which means, criticize violently the proofs who rejects your ideology but just check your acceptable proofs. I.E.: "Fake News."
-Consider Any Critic against your ideology as a personal attack: "The fact that I said inmigrants come from those shitholes is an excuse from democrats."
-You are reluctant to learn something about it is against your ideology: "Global Warming is a Chinese invention."
-Any fact, no matter how insignificant, confirms your theory.
-You Suppose speaking for everybody who represent your ideology, justifying the Common Benefit's excuse, even these collectives that are unindentified.
-Judges cruelty who is not agree with your ideology. "Merryl Streep is Overrated"


*Psychologic Effects:*
-Confirmation bias: Accepting confirmant ideas and Rejecting contradictory ideas.
-Endogroup/Exogroup Dilemma: perceive all on our reference group as acceptable and out perceive out of this as rejectable.
-Halo Effect: Association of strength or weakness about something or someone based on one or a few features.


*Ellis's Unreasonables beliefs denominations:*
-Tagging: Set tags that carries stiffness and emotional load.
-Dichotomic thought: Or good or bad, or all or nothing, or acceptable or unacceptable, or allowing or abolition of weapons, or Fox News or CNN, or Democrat or Republican, Or NY Yankee or LA Dodgers, Or Dallas Cowboys or Washington Redskins. Middle ways don't exist.
-Emotional Reasoning: Take your emotions as proofs of truth. It becomes fact, not performances. "Kim-Jong-Un drives me pissed me out. Troops: Prepare for Nuclear War!"
-Maximization or Minimization: Shrink or enlarge your perspective on an extreme way. "I made a mistake. No problem", "I was right... In your fuckin' faces!"


Ladies and gentlemen, we will be undoubtly influenced, but in doesn't take out our right to decide if wanna be distorted or find an answer to our questions. Bough, if wanna defend violently our ideas justifying us with social slogans, then, we have a problem. In fact: Do you know where may find these cognitive distortions? Simply, when we defend conspiranoid theories... but this a theme apart.

Now. How may we convice somebody affected with a damaging ideology? pfffft... The Mostly Cases, influencing is hard, but with reasoning, good emotional indetification, showing him/her truthful information that refutes his/her ideas and too much patience, they use to convince... But let's take an extreme case: There are three steps to make a brainwash... isolate the subject, punish the unwishable behaviors and enforce the wishable. And how may we reverse all that? Then, more or less the same but with less polemic methods... well, we can't do it ourselves, it escapes out of our bounds, it's on hands of proffesionals. However, there are some affirmations that can be useful...
...
...
-"There is not mean people. People do the things with one reason. Nobody gets up from the bed with ardor of screw the world and concretly your life."
-"You Judge people by their actions when values you for your intentions. Would happen the same if reverse your way of evaluate?"
-"You can think you're surrounded or morons. Moreover, you can drive on the highway and see how drivers goes upside down, when really happen is that you are driving your car upside down."
-"You think about are intellectually or moralty better than everyelse, but how do you know it if don't accept ideas that are not yours?"
-"Suffering doesn't become you an expert of the thread, it becomes you a witness, but not a master of the thread."
-"Everyone makes mistakes. It's impossible don't fail. You got right to fail more than point alien mistakes."
-"Think more, investigate more, be kinder, but not everyone else, nothing else but you."

Personal note:
From middle 2016, I had fear of this guy. I had paranoid toughts and fears of lose my job if he would quit NAFTA. Moreover, I grown up with fantastic stories about good poors and mean millonaries. And when Trump Won, it was the cornerstone of my fear. I've believed in USA will destroy the world, I've attacked foreingner celebs on facebook, I has been banned from five different forums. But in the end, someone on myself it's keeping me out from the asylum. 2017 taughts me difference about corporatism and capitalism; about neoliberalism, fake liberalism and classic liberalism; about authoritarism regardless its be or from right or from left; about fair and unfair riches; about all that I learned was a series of cognitive distortions; about finally I got a job and I don't need to cross the border as *******; about existence of multiple perspectives and unexistence of one absolute truth; about Money is not the IT Factor to be mean... The IT Factor is on your attitude; about heroes, villians and antiheroes; ... 2017 taughts me that and anything else, and the most important thing is about I survived Trump Era Year One, and It's the proof that Life is like a wrestling ring. You must train your skills, train your mind, train your spirit. It's just a matter of hard work.

God Forgives America... or I should say, God Forgives Americas. They don't know what do.

I rest my case.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Stephen90 said:


> I'm not saying every right winger does this. But when somebody on left does this we never hear the end of it on this board.


No I know you weren't but you gotta rise above the rightie YT slaves on this board maaaan.


----------



## Stinger Fan

yeahbaby! said:


> @Stinger @Cabanarama @Stephen90
> 
> Jesus christ, aren't we all too quick to jump into turning things into another tired old binary Right vs Left issue? What about all the majority lefties and righties who are completely normal and wouldn't dream of sending death threats to news organisations.
> 
> (Not singling you out Stinger, just decided to quote you regarding the topic)
> 
> Personally I think it points more to the individual sort of person and their social background, possible mental issues etc - mostly these sorts of death threat people I'd be willing to bet are social pariahs with not much going on in their lives, probably with a world of unresolved issues they're taking out on their enemy of choice just to feel like they matter in the world.
> 
> If they weren't a zealous political party members there's a good chance they might be taken in by some weird cult.
> 
> Reducing things to Left vs Right sometimes is just too easy and might be missing the real story.
> 
> 
> (Edit: Maybe I've just been watching too much MindHunter and I'm full of shit. Great show though)


Got no issue with you quoting me amigo

I'll say this. I've made mention of this a few times in the past, I think most people are more towards the centre politically while only leaning one side or the other. When I talk about "leftists" I only speak of the far left which while is a minority, but they are seemingly gaining a lot of ground. Most liberals on here are fine , maybe they hate me :lol but I have no issue with anyone who just disagrees with me , no harm no foul ,at least on my end . I just have a problem with the people who you disagree with think you're any kind of "ist" or "phobe" or a "fear monger" purely because you disagree with them. Which like I said I don't think is the majority by any means, most liberals aren't like that . So for me, its not so much "the other side is terrible!!" its "the far end of that otherside I'm not a fan of"


----------



## Tater

Looking at you liberals who believe replacing Trumpism with the same people who facilitated the rise of Trumpism in the first place is somehow an acceptable response to Trumpism.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955920775571234817


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> Looking at you liberals who believe replacing Trumpism with the same people who facilitated the rise of Trumpism in the first place is somehow an acceptable response to Trumpism.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955920775571234817


I'm more surprised by the "Educated people who are Atheists" believing the Democrats and Republicans aren't on the same side. It's like saying you don't believe in Jesus but every Christmas eve you leave out milk and cookies because you think Santa really will come. 

People are stuck because we're completely locked into a two party system and when a third party could make a little noise they promote people like Gary Johnson.. like really?


----------



## Tater

Miss Sally said:


> I'm more surprised by the "Educated people who are Atheists" believing the Democrats and Republicans aren't on the same side. It's like saying you don't believe in Jesus but every Christmas eve you leave out milk and cookies because you think Santa really will come.
> 
> People are stuck because we're completely locked into a two party system and when a third party could make a little noise they promote people like Gary Johnson.. like really?


...or a guy who spends his entire political career running as an Independent, and as soon as he gets some real political power, uses it to prop up the duopoly.


----------



## Draykorinee

Yup bipartisan sucks, even though we historically have a triopoly of sorts, we still have other vices that are big. The greens and UKIP (nearly dead though) for example. 

All of them have fucked up the country when they get in.


----------



## DesolationRow

Was arguing with friends at lunch in the first week of December that Bitcoin would crash by the end of the winter. Turns out the inevitable Bitcoin crash is occurring in the middle of winter. :lol

Now calling my friends asking, "Bit by Bitcoin?" :troll :curry2 

As I was saying to friends, "Bitcoin may serve certain goals, but it is not an investment, and should not be thought of as such." Bitcoin was fundamentally being leveraged through the masters-of-universe's typical crazy outlook. It was never about buying Bitcoin. As one friend admitted, it was all about selling Bitcoin, turning the commodity into cash. Highly reminiscent of the tech-boom craze in the late 1990s leading into 2000 and 2001. Nobody wanted to actually own those stocks of companies with enormous negative-profit margins. The stocks were seen as items which could be readily flipped for cash. Which is why so many foolish people became suckered by the craze. Presently most people involved with Bitcoin are not buying it; they are selling it, which means that downward pressure is what occurs, and consequently a crash was baked into the Bitcoin cake. 

This is not meant to say that there is no value whatsoever in the crypto-currency market or that there are no good ideas involved in that sphere. It's ultimately a highly useful medium of exchange: anonymous and technologically aware, and it surpasses the sovereignty and autonomy of governments and gifts people high-end yields for a transitory period. In many ways Bitcoin as an entity is more helpful than it is harmful for what it signposts and suggests, but this crash was always coming.


----------



## DOPA

There's no doubt in my mind that Schumer caved into McConnell on the issue of DACA and the shutdown knowing full well he's at least partly responsible for it occurring to begin with by pushing DACA to be part of the spending bill to keep the government operational when it had nothing to do with it. His pushing to make it a priority along with most of the Democrats who originally went with this mean't that there was never going to be enough votes to keep the government open.

But most importantly, he has agreed to fund the government in return for a *promise* by McConnell that DACA will be debated on the floor and a bill will be voted on in the next two weeks. The progressive base have to be absolutely livid that Schumer did not press on this issue to try and get the Republicans and Trump to blink first in order to get the DACA bill thrusted through congress. DACA has been a pet project for the Democrats for a while, mainly to try and control the narrative that Trump and the Republicans are tearing families apart and are uncaring. Now the narrative is backfiring, with even some CNN analysts suggesting that it is the Democrats that are obstructing the process of keeping the government open by grandstanding on the issue of DACA.

Many will continue to argue that it is Trump's fault for not taking the deal on the funding for the border wall that was laid out by Schumer and thus causing the government shutdown and there is an argument for that. I'm not in the business of laying blame here but whether you like it or not, it's pretty clear that Trump at the moment is winning on this issue with the Democrats split on Schumer's decision to reopen the government with essentially nothing in return. Many will feel betrayed and will feel that Schumer is being way too trusting of the Republicans. On the flip side, should a deal not be done on DACA, Schumer and the Democrats could use this as leverage to cast the Republicans as the villains in this piece. A lot of politics being played at the moment.

On a personal level, I think it was the right decision to actually have this debated on the floor and voted on a proper separate DACA deal rather than it being rammed through on a unrelated bill like the Democrats and a few Republicans wanted. Keep in mind this is only a temporary measure for 17 days. If nothing is worked out, we could very well see another government shutdown in just over 2 weeks.

In other news: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/370171-trump-imposes-30-tariffs-on-solar-panel-imports



> President Trump on Monday imposed tariffs of 30 percent on imported solar panel technology in a bid to protect domestic manufacturers while signaling a more aggressive approach toward China.
> 
> The move is a major blow for the $28 billion solar industry, which gets about 80 percent of its solar panel products from imports.
> 
> The Solar Energy Industries Association predicted the tariffs would increase prices and kill 23,000 jobs. The group represents manufacturers as well as installers, sellers and others in the field.
> 
> “While tariffs in this case will not create adequate cell or module manufacturing to meet U.S. demand, or keep foreign-owned Suniva and SolarWorld afloat, they will create a crisis in a part of our economy that has been thriving, which will ultimately cost tens of thousands of hard-working, blue-collar Americans their jobs,” Abigail Ross Hopper, the group's president, said in a statement.
> 
> Suniva and SolarWorld Americas, the bankrupt companies which requested the tariffs, say tariffs would boost domestic manufacturing and add more than 100,000 jobs.
> 
> The tariffs unveiled Monday apply to all imported solar photovoltaic cells and modules, the main technology on panels that convert solar energy into electricity.
> While the action is targeted at imports from China, Trump’s tariffs apply to all imports, since Chinese manufacturers have moved operations to other countries.
> 
> “The president’s action makes clear again that the Trump administration will always defend American workers, farmers, ranchers and businesses in this regard,” U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said in a statement Monday announcing the decision along with a decision to impose tariffs on imported washers.
> 
> SolarWorld Americas, a unit of a German company, said in a statement that it was grateful for Trump’s work, but it is still reviewing whether the tariffs are high enough. It had sought 50 percent tariffs.
> 
> “We are still reviewing these remedies, and are hopeful they will be enough to address the import surge and to rebuild solar manufacturing in the United States,” Juergen Stein, the company’s CEO, said in a statement.
> 
> “We will work with the U.S. government to implement these remedies, including future negotiations, in the strongest way possible to benefit solar manufacturing and its thousands of American workers to ensure that U.S. solar manufacturing is world-class competitive for the long term.”
> 
> Suniva, meanwhile, cheered the tariffs.
> 
> "Over the last 5 years, nearly 30 American solar manufacturers collapsed; today the President is sending a message that American innovation and manufacturing will not be bullied out of existence without a fight," the company said. "This is a step forward for this high-tech solar manufacturing industry we pioneered right here in America.”
> The move is the first major tariff decision Trump has made unilaterally in office. Through his presidential campaign and his first year in office, Trump repeatedly promised to aggressively go after China and other nations that he feels conduct unfair trade practices and hurt domestic industries.
> 
> The new tariff falls to 25 percent after a year, and then 20 percent and 15 percent each year after, before phasing out entirely. The first 2.5 gigawatts of imports each year are exempt.
> 
> Solar panels already are subject to significant tariffs when imported from China and Taiwan.
> 
> Suniva and SolarWorld Americas requested tariffs of 50 percent on imported panels last year, saying their operations were decimated by cheap imports. The International Trade Commission endorsed tariffs of up to 35 percent after it ruled that domestic manufacturers suffered "serious injury" from the imports, a finding required to impose tariffs under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974.
> 
> Most of the rest of the solar industry, including installers and companies that make related technology, oppose the tariffs, saying they would threaten tens of thousands of jobs.
> 
> The right-wing R Street Institute said Trump's decision was a disappointing loss for free trade.
> 
> “More good-paying jobs will be jeopardized by today’s decision than could possibly be saved by bailing out the bankrupt companies that petitioned for protection," said Clark Packard, trade policy counsel for the group. "Today's decision also will jeopardize the environment by making clean energy sources less affordable."
> 
> The tariffs have attracted opposition from numerous corners, including renewable energy industries, environmentalists, free-market advocates, conservative activists and advocates for other energy sources.
> 
> The dispute is likely to be settled eventually by the Switzerland-based World Trade Organization (WTO), where China and other countries are nearly certain to challenge the tariffs as a violation of international law.
> 
> The provision under which Trump took action has been used rarely, and its tariffs are almost always struck down by the WTO. The last time it was used was in 2001 for steel imports, and the WTO overturned the penalties.



This is economically such a terrible decision which is going to hurt an already struggling solar industry. We're going to see now even higher prices for solar panels, meaning that even less people are going to buy them thus hurting the chances of the US diversifying it's energy sector. Not to mention with more capital going towards actually importing the panels, we could see job cuts as a result of this move.

Obama's insistence of subsidizing the solar industry was a bad enough move as we had seen over 30 solar energy companies collapse in the last 5 years partly due to his policies on energy. This move by Trump will not help matters, these interventionist economic policies may even make things worse.


----------



## Tater

Makise Kurisu said:


> There's no doubt in my mind that Schumer caved into McConnell on the issue of DACA and the shutdown knowing full well he's at least partly responsible for it...


*Or*, it's all political theater and once the cameras are turned off, Chucky and Turtle Boy are sharing a drink behind closed doors and laughing at all the gullible rubes who still believe they're on opposing teams.


----------



## Vic Capri

Chuck The Schmuck buckled because he realized it would cost his party more seats down the road. They made a bad gamble.

- Vic


----------



## Arkham258

Me when the truth comes out and all the Trump haters look like fools



















Democrats are gonna be going down in flames when the REAL collusion story comes out (i.e. Obama, Hilary, the DOJ and the FBI). And I'm not a supporter of either party, I just like seeing shitheads get what they deserve.

The amount of OBVIOUS evidence that the Trump/Russia collusion is made up bullshit is so obvious it's ridiculous.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

I'm actually pretty surprised the Russia collusion stuff is still going on, you'd think either way it would've been wrapped up by now. I'm not sure what they hope to achieve dragging it out for so long if in fact there is no evidence of any wrong doing. Has to be a colossal waste of money too if it turns out to be a lot of smoke without fire.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> Chuck The Schmuck buckled because he realized it would cost his party more seats down the road. They made a bad gamble.
> 
> - Vic


How would he cost the party more seats when most of the country is for DACA LOL

He is going to cost them seats for backing down and not fighting for it.




RavishingRickRules said:


> I'm actually pretty surprised the Russia collusion stuff is still going on, you'd think either way it would've been wrapped up by now. I'm not sure what they hope to achieve dragging it out for so long if in fact there is no evidence of any wrong doing. Has to be a colossal waste of money too if it turns out to be a lot of smoke without fire.


Because there is evidence but people on this forum just seem to ignore it lol



There is a thread full of evidence and its even posted in this thread but whenever it is, the Trump supporters just ignore the evidence


----------



## yeahbaby!

Arkham258 said:


> Me when the truth comes out and all the Trump haters look like fools
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are gonna be going down in flames when the REAL collusion story comes out (i.e. Obama, Hilary, the DOJ and the FBI). And I'm not a supporter of either party, I just like seeing shitheads get what they deserve.
> 
> The amount of OBVIOUS evidence that the Trump/Russia collusion is made up bullshit is so obvious it's ridiculous.


Any proof of anything you say Batman, or just gifs?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Arkham258 said:


> Me when the truth comes out and all the Trump haters look like fools
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are gonna be going down in flames when the REAL collusion story comes out (i.e. Obama, Hilary, the DOJ and the FBI). And I'm not a supporter of either party, I just like seeing shitheads get what they deserve.
> 
> The amount of OBVIOUS evidence that the Trump/Russia collusion is made up bullshit is so obvious it's ridiculous.


You do know its not an either-or type of situation right?

Hillary and Trump could BOTH have Russian collusion. Just because one does not mean the other does not.

Anyone claiming Trump does not have ties to Russia with all the evidence is just lying to themselves

Funny how no Trump supporters are commenting on the possible money laundering between Trump, the NRA and Russia


There is a reason why Trump is against everyone looking into this investigation. Because Trumps knows they are getting closer and closer brining him down.


----------



## Stephen90

yeahbaby! said:


> Any proof of anything you say Batman, or just gifs?


I'm shocked he's not posting his LU gifs


----------



## Warlock

Link to collusion evidence in thread pls. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Stephen90

birthday_massacre said:


> You do know its not an either-or type of situation right?
> 
> Hillary and Trump could BOTH have Russian collusion. Just because one does not mean the other does not.
> 
> Anyone claiming Trump does not have ties to Russia with all the evidence is just lying to themselves
> 
> Funny how no Trump supporters are commenting on the possible money laundering between Trump, the NRA and Russia
> 
> 
> There is a reason why Trump is against everyone looking into this investigation. Because Trumps knows they are getting closer and closer brining him down.


If Trump was innocent then he wouldn't give a shit if people were looking into his money laundering.


----------



## Cabanarama

Arkham258 said:


> Me when the truth comes out and all the Trump haters look like fools
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are gonna be going down in flames when the REAL collusion story comes out (i.e. Obama, Hilary, the DOJ and the FBI). And I'm not a supporter of either party, I just like seeing shitheads get what they deserve.
> 
> The amount of OBVIOUS evidence that the Trump/Russia collusion is made up bullshit is so obvious it's ridiculous.


Enjoying your little fantasy world?
Fact is, if there was nothing to the Russia stuff, the Republicans wouldn't be grasping at straws to try to put an end to it and discredit Mueller. If there was nothing there, why not let it play it?
Why obstruct justice, if there is no actual justice to obstruct?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Warlock said:


> Link to collusion evidence in thread pls.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


Here is a whole thread full of Trump Russia articles

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anyth...obstruction-justice-investigation-thread.html

here was the latest article from that thread


http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-firm-suspected-trump-russia-money-laundering
*
Steele dossier' firm suspected Trump-Russia money laundering*

*In more than 150 pages of testimony released by the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday, Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of the firm behind the so-called “Steele dossier,” alleged a constellation of business deals that he said suggested the Russians could be laundering money through then-candidate Donald Trump. 
*
Simpson stopped short of saying the firm had found definitive proof of such dealings, telling investigators that, “evidence, I think, is a strong word.”

*Some of Trump’s dealings, Simpson told lawmakers, showed “patterns of buying and selling that we thought were suggestive of money laundering.” *

The testimony is likely to reinforce battle lines surrounding the dossier, a compendium of opposition research memos compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele as part of the firm’s research into the real estate mogul.
Some of the allegations in the memos have been disproven, and Republicans have largely argued that the document is a politically motivated hit job on the president. 

Democrats, meanwhile, have argued that the dossier could provide the framework for meaningful inquiry into Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, citing Steele’s credibility in the intelligence community. Other elements of the dossier have been confirmed and supporters of the document say it broadly describes an observable pattern of concerning contacts between Moscow and the Trump campaign. 

Simpson’s firm, Fusion GPS, was contracted initially by the conservative organization Washington Free Beacon and later by the law firm Perkins Coie acting on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), as he confirmed in his testimony to the Intelligence Committee.

The testimony provided a handful of new details about the production of the dossier.

Simpson told investigators that, to his knowledge, Steele did not pay any of his sources for the memos.

He revealed that Fusion was paid about $50,000 a month by Perkins Coie, a fee he described as a flat rate. Steele was paid $160,000 he said, with an original engagement of about $20,000 to $30,000. 

Democrats immediately used the release of the transcript to urge further investigation of what Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) described as *“serious allegations that the Trump Organization may have engaged in money laundering with Russian nationals.”*

“Thus far, Committee Republicans have refused to look into this key area and we hope the release of this transcript will reinforce the importance of these critical questions to our investigation,” Schiff said.

Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), who is leading the investigation, declined to comment through a spokesperson.

Some committee Republicans, including chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), have consistently said they have seen no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The interview with Simpson took place in November. 

Simpson pointed to a series of Trump’s business dealings that he viewed as particularly suspicious, suggesting that some of his previous property sales could have potentially been used as leverage against him. 

“Generally speaking, the patterns of activity that we thought might be suggestive of money laundering were, you know, fast turnover deals and deals where there seemed to have been efforts to disguise the identity of the buyer,” Simpson told the lawmakers. 

Those patterns, Simpson said, first came to his attention when the project was funded by the Washington Free Beacon.

S*impson suggested that the business mogul did deals with Russian oligarchs, who doubled as mafia members, who remain largely under the control of Putin.

“If people who seem to be associated with the Russian mafia are buying Trump properties or arranging for other people to buy Trump properties, it does raise a question about whether they're doing it on behalf of the government," he continued.
*
The document is the second congressional interview with Simpson to be released to the public. The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), earlier in the month bypassed Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to release the transcript of that committee’s 10-hour interview with Simpson.

In the Intelligence Committee testimony, as in the Senate document, Simpson put forward a full-throated defense of Fusion’s work, and described the decision by Steele to brief the FBI on his findings out of “a citizenship obligation.”

*The release of the transcript comes as the political fight over the dossier continues to roil Capitol Hill. Some Republicans have suggested that the bureau inappropriately used the dossier — once described by former FBI Director James Comey as “salacious and unverified” — as the sole basis for the federal investigation into possible Trump campaign ties to Russia.*

Earlier this month, Grassley and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked the Department of Justice to open a criminal investigation into Steele, with Graham accusing the former spy of “shopping this dossier all over the world” while acting as an informant for the FBI.


----------



## Cabanarama

birthday_massacre said:


> Here is a whole thread full of Trump Russia articles
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anyth...obstruction-justice-investigation-thread.html
> 
> here was the latest article from that thread
> 
> 
> http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-firm-suspected-trump-russia-money-laundering
> *
> Steele dossier' firm suspected Trump-Russia money laundering*
> 
> *In more than 150 pages of testimony released by the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday, Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of the firm behind the so-called “Steele dossier,” alleged a constellation of business deals that he said suggested the Russians could be laundering money through then-candidate Donald Trump.
> *
> Simpson stopped short of saying the firm had found definitive proof of such dealings, telling investigators that, “evidence, I think, is a strong word.”
> 
> *Some of Trump’s dealings, Simpson told lawmakers, showed “patterns of buying and selling that we thought were suggestive of money laundering.” *
> 
> The testimony is likely to reinforce battle lines surrounding the dossier, a compendium of opposition research memos compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele as part of the firm’s research into the real estate mogul.
> Some of the allegations in the memos have been disproven, and Republicans have largely argued that the document is a politically motivated hit job on the president.
> 
> Democrats, meanwhile, have argued that the dossier could provide the framework for meaningful inquiry into Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, citing Steele’s credibility in the intelligence community. Other elements of the dossier have been confirmed and supporters of the document say it broadly describes an observable pattern of concerning contacts between Moscow and the Trump campaign.
> 
> Simpson’s firm, Fusion GPS, was contracted initially by the conservative organization Washington Free Beacon and later by the law firm Perkins Coie acting on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), as he confirmed in his testimony to the Intelligence Committee.
> 
> The testimony provided a handful of new details about the production of the dossier.
> 
> Simpson told investigators that, to his knowledge, Steele did not pay any of his sources for the memos.
> 
> He revealed that Fusion was paid about $50,000 a month by Perkins Coie, a fee he described as a flat rate. Steele was paid $160,000 he said, with an original engagement of about $20,000 to $30,000.
> 
> Democrats immediately used the release of the transcript to urge further investigation of what Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) described as *“serious allegations that the Trump Organization may have engaged in money laundering with Russian nationals.”*
> 
> “Thus far, Committee Republicans have refused to look into this key area and we hope the release of this transcript will reinforce the importance of these critical questions to our investigation,” Schiff said.
> 
> Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), who is leading the investigation, declined to comment through a spokesperson.
> 
> Some committee Republicans, including chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), have consistently said they have seen no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The interview with Simpson took place in November.
> 
> Simpson pointed to a series of Trump’s business dealings that he viewed as particularly suspicious, suggesting that some of his previous property sales could have potentially been used as leverage against him.
> 
> “Generally speaking, the patterns of activity that we thought might be suggestive of money laundering were, you know, fast turnover deals and deals where there seemed to have been efforts to disguise the identity of the buyer,” Simpson told the lawmakers.
> 
> Those patterns, Simpson said, first came to his attention when the project was funded by the Washington Free Beacon.
> 
> S*impson suggested that the business mogul did deals with Russian oligarchs, who doubled as mafia members, who remain largely under the control of Putin.
> 
> “If people who seem to be associated with the Russian mafia are buying Trump properties or arranging for other people to buy Trump properties, it does raise a question about whether they're doing it on behalf of the government," he continued.
> *
> The document is the second congressional interview with Simpson to be released to the public. The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), earlier in the month bypassed Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to release the transcript of that committee’s 10-hour interview with Simpson.
> 
> In the Intelligence Committee testimony, as in the Senate document, Simpson put forward a full-throated defense of Fusion’s work, and described the decision by Steele to brief the FBI on his findings out of “a citizenship obligation.”
> 
> *The release of the transcript comes as the political fight over the dossier continues to roil Capitol Hill. Some Republicans have suggested that the bureau inappropriately used the dossier — once described by former FBI Director James Comey as “salacious and unverified” — as the sole basis for the federal investigation into possible Trump campaign ties to Russia.*
> 
> Earlier this month, Grassley and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked the Department of Justice to open a criminal investigation into Steele, with Graham accusing the former spy of “shopping this dossier all over the world” while acting as an informant for the FBI.


why even bother?

Footage can surface of Trump doing something illegal or scandalous, or even completely 100% prove all the Russia stuff as fact, and the Trumptards either brush it off as "fake news", or they'll cry about the real scandal is the footage being revealed.

Yet some random lunatic makes a claim on Twitter or on their blog or on some right wing "news" site about Hillary, Obama, some other Democrat, or someone involved in the Trump investigation, and all the Trumptards will say "OMG HERES THE ALL PROOF WE NEED LOCK THEM ALL UP THIS IS THE WORST SCANDAL EVAR!!1!!!"


----------



## birthday_massacre

Cabanarama said:


> why even bother?
> 
> Footage can surface of Trump doing something illegal or scandalous, or even completely 100% prove all the Russia stuff as fact, and the Trumptards either brush it off as "fake news", or they'll cry about the real scandal is the footage being revealed.
> 
> Yet some random lunatic makes a claim on Twitter or on their blog or on some right wing "news" site about Hillary, Obama, some other Democrat, or someone involved in the Trump investigation, and all the Trumptards will say "OMG HERES THE ALL PROOF WE NEED LOCK THEM ALL UP THIS IS THE WORST SCANDAL EVAR!!1!!!"



Because that is what Trump supporters want. For the real evidence to stop being presented. The more info we present the more they ignore it the more you know you can't take them seriously.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Cabanarama said:


> why even bother?
> 
> Footage can surface of Trump doing something illegal or scandalous, or even completely 100% prove all the Russia stuff as fact, and the Trumptards either brush it off as "fake news", or they'll cry about the real scandal is the footage being revealed.
> 
> Yet some random lunatic makes a claim on Twitter or on their blog or on some right wing "news" site about Hillary, Obama, some other Democrat, or someone involved in the Trump investigation, and all the Trumptards will say "OMG HERES THE ALL PROOF WE NEED LOCK THEM ALL UP THIS IS THE WORST SCANDAL EVAR!!1!!!"


I'll get you the secret invitation to Project Veritas, you'll see how wrong you are. I'll need to meet you in an underground carpark however....


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> You do know its not an either-or type of situation right?
> 
> Hillary and Trump could BOTH have Russian collusion. Just because one does not mean the other does not.
> 
> Anyone claiming Trump does not have ties to Russia with all the evidence is just lying to themselves
> 
> Funny how no Trump supporters are commenting on the possible money laundering between Trump, the NRA and Russia
> 
> 
> There is a reason why Trump is against everyone looking into this investigation. Because Trumps knows they are getting closer and closer brining him down.


Corruption and collusion are not the same thing. Does Trump have corrupt business dealings with Russians? Of course he does, so does every other oligarch and with many other countries. That's par for the course. What Trump didn't do is collude with Russia to steal the election. That shit has already been thoroughly debunked. The only reason Democrats are still pushing the narrative is because they are desperate to distract from the epic failure of their own party.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> Corruption and collusion are not the same thing. Does Trump have corrupt business dealings with Russians? Of course he does, so does every other oligarch and with many other countries. That's par for the course. What Trump didn't do is collude with Russia to steal the election. That shit has already been thoroughly debunked. The only reason Democrats are still pushing the narrative is because they are desperate to distract from the epic failure of their own party.


Oh so you admit I was right all along Trump has shady business ties to Russia.

Also, why do people keep saying it has been debunked Russia helped Trump win the election, not saying that happened but it has not been debunked.

Also, Trump having shady business dealings with the Russians could make it so Russia can control Trump by blackmail for things he does not want to come out, especially if those things would put him in jail.


Not sure how people don't see this as a problem.

There is also that issue about Trump obstructing which is clear he has been doing over and over again by firing Comey and trying to fire anyone investing this whole Russia thing. Trump is doing everything he can to get it shut down.

If Trump had nothing to hide he would all for it.


----------



## Arkham258

Cabanarama said:


> Enjoying your little fantasy world?
> Fact is, if there was nothing to the Russia stuff, the Republicans wouldn't be grasping at straws to try to put an end to it and discredit Mueller. If there was nothing there, why not let it play it?
> Why obstruct justice, if there is no actual justice to obstruct?


Put an end to it? How? Didn't Trump just agree to an interview with that lying shithead Mueller? 

Who shut down the government? Oh that's right, democrats. Because they are pissing themselves about that memo coming out. Tell me why they are trying to put an end to that? 

And you want to talk about discrediting Mueller, the asshole who has been trying to DISCREDIT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? 

I'm not in a fantasy land. I got red pilled, unlike the rest of you


----------



## Arkham258

yeahbaby! said:


> Any proof of anything you say Batman, or just gifs?


Any proof of Trump colluding with Russia?

Oh that's right, no. BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY

The Fisa memo on the other hand, IS FUCKING REAL. 

And isn't it interesting how desperately the Democrats don't want it coming out?

Hmmm, wonder why that is? They shut down the government just to put a stop to it, then caved in three days like the pussies that they are. 

Hmmm, wonder why the FBI conveniently lost 50,000 text messages. What could be in there?

Maybe you all should be asking questions like Q does.


----------



## Arkham258

Stephen90 said:


> I'm shocked he's not posting his LU gifs


Way to stay relevant

Not to mention I haven't talked about LU or even gone to that forum in ages, but way to stay up to date on the subject of your insults


----------



## Stephen90

Arkham258 said:


> Way to stay relevant
> 
> Not to mention I haven't talked about LU or even gone to that forum in ages, but way to stay up to date on the subject of your insults


Are gifs and images the best you have?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Arkham258 said:


> Any proof of Trump colluding with Russia?
> 
> Oh that's right, no. BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY
> 
> The Fisa memo on the other hand, IS FUCKING REAL.
> 
> And isn't it interesting how desperately the Democrats don't want it coming out?
> 
> Hmmm, wonder why that is? They shut down the government just to put a stop to it, then caved in three days like the pussies that they are.
> 
> Hmmm, wonder why the FBI conveniently lost 50,000 text messages. What could be in there?
> 
> Maybe you all should be asking questions like Q does.


Keep ignoring all the evidence. 

And isn't it interesting how desperately Trump wants the Russia investigation to end.

There is a reason why Trump keeps asking everyone if they are loyal to him. 

Also here is a Trump quote Trump has denied any collusion between his 2016 presidential campaign and Russia, and told the Times that “even if there was, it’s not a crime.”

Wake up


----------



## DOPA

Honestly, you guys should take a playbook from what Jimmy Dore has been saying and shut the fuck up about Russia. It's only going to hurt you in the long run :draper2.


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh so you admit I was right all along Trump has shady business ties to Russia.


You say that like I was someone who denied it. Did you forget who you were responding to? Of course Trump has shady business ties with Russia and dozens of other countries, just the same as every other oligarch. File that in the duh category. I've never said otherwise. What I *have* done is point out that corruption is not the same thing as colluding to steal an election.



birthday_massacre said:


> Also, why do people keep saying it has been debunked Russia helped Trump win the election, not saying that happened but *it has not been debunked*.


Yes, yes it has. 






Read some of Caitlin Johnstone's work. She has thoroughly shredded the Russiagate bullshit in at least a dozen different articles. https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone

And then there was this glorious interview done by Aaron Maté of some jackass who wrote an entire book about Trump and collusion but when he was asked real questions by a real reporter, he couldn't offer up a single shred of proof that any of it was legit.

Original interview:






Jimmy's interview of Aaron:






Caity's article about it:

*What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater*

You're not helping your cause by continuing to be suckered in by the Russiagate propaganda.



Makise Kurisu said:


> Honestly, you guys should take a playbook from what Jimmy Dore has been saying and shut the fuck up about Russia. It's only going to hurt you in the long run :draper2.


I was already cueing up Jimmy before I saw this response. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> You say that like I was someone who denied it. Did you forget who you were responding to? Of course Trump has shady business ties with Russia and dozens of other countries, just the same as every other oligarch. File that in the duh category. I've never said otherwise. What I *have* done is point out that corruption is not the same thing as colluding to steal an election.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes it has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read some of Caitlin Johnstone's work. She has thoroughly shredded the Russiagate bullshit in at least a dozen different articles. https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone
> 
> And then there was this glorious interview done by Aaron Maté of some jackass who wrote an entire book about Trump and collusion but when he was asked real questions by a real reporter, he couldn't offer up a single shred of proof that any of it was legit.
> 
> Original interview:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy's interview of Aaron:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Caity's article about it:
> 
> *What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater*
> 
> You're not helping your cause by continuing to be suckered in by the Russiagate propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> I was already cueing up Jimmy before I saw this response. :lol


Everyone's had dirty dealings, Dubbyah, the Clintons, even Obama was chastising Wall Street but now makes money off them. Trump didn't need Russia to win, Hillary was that shitty of a Candidate.

The Russian nonsense is hot though, a good seller, great way to make money off conspiracy theories and to speak without saying anything. What's funny to me is in this thread I see bitching about Trump Supporters not being in touch with reality and always spouting off about Trump by the very people who believe any conspiracy about Trump and cannot go throughout the day without whining about him.


----------



## samizayn

Trump levies tariffs on solar panels in favour of #cleancoal

:mj4


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Miss Sally said:


> Everyone's had dirty dealings, Dubbyah, the Clintons, even Obama was chastising Wall Street but now makes money off them. Trump didn't need Russia to win, Hillary was that shitty of a Candidate.
> 
> The Russian nonsense is hot though, a good seller, great way to make money off conspiracy theories and to speak without saying anything. What's funny to me is in this thread I see bitching about Trump Supporters not being in touch with reality and always spouting off about Trump by the very people who believe any conspiracy about Trump and cannot go throughout the day without whining about him.


Tbh though, from someone who's in neither group, they both seem to be living in cloud cuckoo land a lot of the time :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> You say that like I was someone who denied it. Did you forget who you were responding to? Of course Trump has shady business ties with Russia and dozens of other countries, just the same as every other oligarch. File that in the duh category. I've never said otherwise. What I *have* done is point out that corruption is not the same thing as colluding to steal an election.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes it has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read some of Caitlin Johnstone's work. She has thoroughly shredded the Russiagate bullshit in at least a dozen different articles. https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone
> 
> And then there was this glorious interview done by Aaron Maté of some jackass who wrote an entire book about Trump and collusion but when he was asked real questions by a real reporter, he couldn't offer up a single shred of proof that any of it was legit.
> 
> Original interview:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy's interview of Aaron:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Caity's article about it:
> 
> *What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater*
> 
> You're not helping your cause by continuing to be suckered in by the Russiagate propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> I was already cueing up Jimmy before I saw this response. :lol



Most people (Trump supporters to be precise) love to claim Trump has no ties to Russia at all which has always been my stance. I don't remember what you said on that before but as long as you agree Trump has Russian ties then good.

As for what has and has not been debunked, I don't have time right now to watch a 30-minute video.

I think we can all agree there is zero evidence that Russia hacked voting machines but Russia put out tons of propaganda especially using bots to be Pro Trump.

If you are claiming the latter part has been debunked then sorry but I disagree it has not. If you are talking about it's been debunked that Russia hacked the voting booths, then yes I agree with that. I never believed that part.

There is tons of evidence out there about all the Russian bots out there during the election.

So in short, Trump has ties to Russia which could affect how he deals with Russia especially if he owes Russia a favor.
And Russia put out tons of pro-Trump propaganda during the election. But there is no evidence the hacked voting machines.


----------



## CamillePunk

samizayn said:


> Trump levies tariffs on solar panels in favour of #cleancoal
> 
> :mj4


Seems to be more about protecting American solar companies actually. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/25/al-...not-to-blame-for-tariffs-on-solar-panels.html



> Former Vice President Al Gore, by his own admission, does not make a habit of defending President Donald Trump.
> 
> The U.S. president approved controversial tariffs on imported washing machines and solar cells on Monday. The move, which is aligned to Trump's "America First" stance on trade, aims to protect domestic manufacturers from foreign competitors.
> 
> "I don't typically defend him," Gore said during a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Wednesday.
> 
> "(But) I will say in this case it really did not start with him. This was a trade action brought by private companies. They chose a kind of midpoint in the range of alternatives ... It could have been handled differently, should have been handled differently but it's not an utter catastrophe," he added.
> 
> US imposed tariffs are an 'overreaction'
> The U.S. will impose duties of up to 30 percent on solar equipment made around the world, in a move which prompted outcry from China and South Korea — two primary targets of the measure. Some U.S. businesses which rely on imported products have also expressed concern with the decision.
> 
> *The U.S. International Trade Commission had recommended a 35 percent tariff in 2017, after receiving complaints by two solar panel manufacturers, Sunvia and SolarWorld. Both firms had long protested cheap Chinese solar imports had undercut the industry.*
> 
> "The large subsidies from China for exporting solar panels has put some other companies in the world at a disadvantage," Gore added.
> 
> Fueled by government subsidies, China is the world's biggest producer of solar panels. And in response to the Trump administration's announcement at the start of the week, Beijing said the move was an "overreaction."


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Seems to be more about protecting American solar companies actually.
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/25/al-...not-to-blame-for-tariffs-on-solar-panels.html


Too bad it won't protect solar jobs for Americans

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...tariffs-will-kill-american-jobs-idUSKBN1FC2OC


*U.S. solar sector says Trump tariffs will kill American jobs*

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s move to slap steep tariffs on imported panels will kill tens of thousands of jobs, raise the cost of going solar and quash billions of dollars of investment, the U.S. Solar Energy Industries Association warned on Tuesday.

A production operator checks a panel at the SolarWorld solar panel factory in Hillsboro, Oregon, U.S., January 15, 2018. REUTERS/Natalie Behring
*The criticism from the industry’s top trade association raises questions about whether Trump’s tariff, billed by the administration as a move to protect U.S. manufacturing jobs, will backfire by forcing layoffs in what had been one of the energy industry’s fastest growing sectors.*

“We are not happy with this decision,” SEIA President Abigail Ross Hopper said on a conference call with reporters. “It’s just basic economics -- if you raise the price of a product it’s going to decrease demand for that product.”

The administration announced the tariffs on imported solar panels, as well as washing machines, on Monday. The 30 percent tariff on imported panels in the first year will decline over four years, and 2.5 gigawatts of solar cell imports will be exempted each year. There is still uncertainty on when the tariffs will be imposed.

The tariffs could decrease the projected 11 gigawatt of solar forecasted to be installed in the United States this year by 2 GW, Hopper said, and result in 6.7 GW less solar over the four years of the tariffs’ implementation.

“It means billions of dollars of lost investment, 1.2 million homes that won’t be powered by solar,” Hopper said.

*SEIA also expects the decision to cause the loss of 23,000 jobs this year, with more losses in subsequent years. The U.S. solar industry employs more than 260,000 workers - about five-times more than the coal industry.*

Only about 14 percent of those 260,000 jobs are in manufacturing. Installers make up most of the rest of the industry and rely on low-priced imports.

The petitioners who sought trade relief, U.S.-based solar manufacturers Suniva and SolarWorld, had asked for the equivalent of a 50 percent tariff.

Bankrupt Suniva, majority-owned by Hong Kong-based Shunfeng International Clean Energy, and SolarWorld, the U.S. arm of Germany’s SolarWorld AG, had said they cannot compete with the influx of cheap imports which has caused panel prices to fall more than 30 percent since 2016.

In a note to clients, Raymond James analyst Pavel Molchanov said the 30 percent tariff, while not ideal, would be “manageable” for most of the industry. He estimated that it would increase the cost of a residential system by about 3 percent, and boost the price of a utility-scale project by about 10 percent.

SEIA, which spent nine months lobbying aggressively against trade remedies, acknowledged the outcome was better than feared for the industry, but still damaging.

“This administration really grappled with the understanding that solar is creating jobs,” Hopper said, “It does show restraint on the part of the president.”

Reporting by Nichola Groom; Editing by Susan Thomas
Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.


----------



## deepelemblues

I've had just about enough of this memo teasing, release it already. These guys are getting as bad as Vince McMahon with all their teases that don't have a payoff


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> Most people (Trump supporters to be precise) love to claim Trump has no ties to Russia at all which has always been my stance. I don't remember what you said on that before but as long as you agree Trump has Russian ties then good.
> 
> As for what has and has not been debunked, I don't have time right now to watch a 30-minute video.
> 
> I think we can all agree there is zero evidence that Russia hacked voting machines but Russia put out tons of propaganda especially using bots to be Pro Trump.
> 
> If you are claiming the latter part has been debunked then sorry but I disagree it has not. If you are talking about it's been debunked that Russia hacked the voting booths, then yes I agree with that. I never believed that part.
> 
> There is tons of evidence out there about all the Russian bots out there during the election.
> 
> So in short, Trump has ties to Russia which could affect how he deals with Russia especially if he owes Russia a favor.
> And Russia put out tons of pro-Trump propaganda during the election. But there is no evidence the hacked voting machines.


You're worse than trying to explain evolution to a creationist. Seriously dude, you are out spouting a whole bunch of nonsense based on propaganda with no proof whatsoever. You know why most people in this thread mock you and don't take you seriously? Shit like this is why. You want oh so badly for Trump to be in bed with Putin that you are willing to toss every critical thinking skill you've ever had in the garbage just to believe it.

Here's a novel idea. Actually take the time to go through the information I gave you. Don't have time now? Do it later. In the meantime, maybe don't continue spewing this bullshit when evidence to the contrary was just presented to you.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> You're worse than trying to explain evolution to a creationist. Seriously dude, you are out spouting a whole bunch of nonsense based on propaganda with no proof whatsoever. You know why most people in this thread mock you and don't take you seriously? Shit like this is why. You want oh so badly for Trump to be in bed with Putin that you are willing to toss every critical thinking skill you've ever had in the garbage just to believe it.
> 
> Here's a novel idea. Actually take the time to go through the information I gave you. Don't have time now? Do it later. In the meantime, maybe don't continue spewing this bullshit when evidence to the contrary was just presented to you.



LOL Keep ignoring all the evidence dude. You are as bad a creationist.

FFS dude wake up.

http://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-found-more-russian-bots-trump-interacted-with-many-2018-1


http://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-found-more-russian-bots-trump-interacted-with-many-2018-1



Twitter says it found more Russia-linked accounts that shared US election-related material during the 2016 race for the White House.
The social-media platform published the analysis on its blog Friday.
In addition to other findings, Twitter said it discovered 13,512 accounts engaged in what it believed to be "automated, election-related activity originating out of Russia," bringing the total number of such accounts to 50,258.
These accounts, sometimes referred to as "bots," played a significant role in the spread of misinformation and propaganda-style messages favoring Donald Trump and criticizing his 2016 Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.


*
Twitter found more than 50,000 Russia-linked accounts that actively shared election-related material — and Trump interacted with them hundreds of times*

Twitter posted new information Friday that sheds light on US-election interference activity linked to Russia that was carried out on its platform.

The company said that it found another 13,512 accounts that engaged in what it believed to be "automated, election-related activity originating out of Russia." That brings the total number of such accounts to 50,258, according to Twitter.

In a blog post published Friday, Twitter said those accounts represented about 0.016% of the total subscribers on the platform at the time, but it emphasized the seriousness of the findings.

"Any such activity represents a challenge to democratic societies everywhere," Twitter said. "We're committing to continuing to work on this important issue."

The potential Russia-linked activity on Twitter is just one wrinkle in the comprehensive and wide-ranging influence campaign that boosted Donald Trump during the 2016 election.

Accounts and bots on Twitter and Facebook engaged in a systematic routine of promoting misinformation and propaganda-style messages — ostensibly to praise Trump and denigrate is then-opponent, Hillary Clinton.

When he was a candidate, Trump's Twitter account engaged with bots hundreds of times.

His massive following on the platform meant that any questionable content his account retweeted or quote-tweeted further amplified the material. Some of the bot accounts were quickly suspended.

Tech companies received strong criticism for, among other things, the lack of oversight that allowed misinformation to flourish on their social-media platforms.

The most notable among those companies is Facebook, which announced last week that it would tweak its algorithm to promote less content from news organizations and brands, and rank news items based in part on what users deem to be "trustworthy."


But sure Russia was not trying to influence the election.


----------



## deepelemblues

How much influence did RUSSIAN BOTZ have on the election

How many votes did RUSSIAN BOTZ sway

How many views did tweets and retweets by RUSSIAN BOTZ on twitter get

How many hashtags did RUSSIAN BOTZ get trending (Not #ReleaseTheMemo, an internal twitter investigation has *allegedly* showed)

These and other questions are kind of important

The amount of money spent and ads played on Facebook that allegedly traced back to RUSSIANZ was incredibly small compared to the overall amount of money spent and ads played on Facebook during the election

There is no real information about just what influence RUSSIANZ had, if any 

Because after 18 months of one MUH RUSSIA narrative after another being given prominence then tossed aside as it failed to gain traction, the new craze seems to be RUSSIAN BOTZ INTERWEB INFLUENCE. After it fails to gain traction I wonder what the new RUSSIAN narrative will be


----------



## Tater

deepelemblues said:


> How much influence did RUSSIAN BOTZ have on the election
> 
> How many votes did RUSSIAN BOTZ sway
> 
> How many views did tweets and retweets by RUSSIAN BOTZ on twitter get
> 
> How many hashtags did RUSSIAN BOTZ get trending (Not #ReleaseTheMemo, an internal twitter investigation has *allegedly* showed)
> 
> These and other questions are kind of important
> 
> The amount of money spent and ads played on Facebook that allegedly traced back to RUSSIANZ was incredibly small compared to the overall amount of money spent and ads played on Facebook during the election
> 
> There is no real information about just what influence RUSSIANZ had, if any
> 
> Because after 18 months of one MUH RUSSIA narrative after another being given prominence then tossed aside as it failed to gain traction, the new craze seems to be RUSSIAN BOTZ INTERWEB INFLUENCE. After it fails to gain traction I wonder what the new RUSSIAN narrative will be


Some people are just gonna believe what they want to believe and actual evidence or the lack thereof has no bearing on their beliefs. It's just as bad in politics as it is with religion. Whaddyagonnado? :shrug


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> How much influence did RUSSIAN BOTZ have on the election
> 
> How many votes did RUSSIAN BOTZ sway
> 
> How many views did tweets and retweets by RUSSIAN BOTZ on twitter get
> 
> How many hashtags did RUSSIAN BOTZ get trending (Not #ReleaseTheMemo, an internal twitter investigation has *allegedly* showed)
> 
> These and other questions are kind of important
> 
> The amount of money spent and ads played on Facebook that allegedly traced back to RUSSIANZ was incredibly small compared to the overall amount of money spent and ads played on Facebook during the election
> 
> There is no real information about just what influence RUSSIANZ had, if any
> 
> Because after 18 months of one MUH RUSSIA narrative after another being given prominence then tossed aside as it failed to gain traction, the new craze seems to be RUSSIAN BOTZ INTERWEB INFLUENCE. After it fails to gain traction I wonder what the new RUSSIAN narrative will be


what matters most is what influence Russia has over Trump since Trump is president.

If Trump owes Russia all kinds of money because of his business ties, you don't see that as an issue?

Or are you going to pretend Trump does not have shady business deals with Russia


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Makise Kurisu said:


> Honestly, you guys should take a playbook from what Jimmy Dore has been saying and shut the fuck up about Russia. It's only going to hurt you in the long run :draper2.


"Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake." :trump3

I'm not saying you're my enemy @birthday_massacre , but no smoking gun makes MUH RUSSIA one of the indisputably worst hills to die on. :quite


----------



## birthday_massacre

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> "Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake." :trump3
> 
> I'm not saying you're my enemy @birthday_massacre , but no smoking gun makes MUH RUSSIA one of the indisputably worst hills to die on. :quite


Keep ignoring the evidence, there has been article after article posted on it.
Hell go look in the Trump Russia thread

Also how many people connected to Trump have to meet with Russia and lie about their meeting before you wake up

But sure, there is no evidence.

Are you really going to pretend there is no Trump Russia connections


----------



## DOPA

Tater said:


> I was already cueing up Jimmy before I saw this response. :lol


The Trump Russiagaters are the Obama birthers of 2017/18. Absolute nonsense conspiracy theorists grasping for any straws they can possibly find to tie Trump and Russia together in some elaborate conspiracy. It's honestly embarrassing at this point.


------------------------------------------


Here's some really big updates concerning the government shutdown and funding. I'll post from both a left and right wing source:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018...eamer-demand-with-budget-deal-in-reach-366992



> *Senate Democrats are willing to drop their demand that relief for Dreamers be tied to any long-term budget agreement* — a potential boost for spending talks, but one that could face opposition from their House counterparts.
> 
> The shift comes in response to the deal struck between Senate leaders Monday to reopen the government and begin debate on an immigration bill next month. Meanwhile, budget negotiators are expressing optimism that a two-year agreement to lift stiff caps on defense and domestic spending is increasingly within reach.
> 
> “We’re viewing [immigration and spending] on separate terms because they are on separate paths,” Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Tuesday.
> 
> Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s “procedural concession means we’ve got a deadline and a process,” Durbin added. “That to me is a significant step forward. It’s not everything I wanted, that’s for sure, but it’s a step forward.”
> 
> But House Democrats have signaled they are not ready to go along with a long-term budget deal without a fix to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that President Donald Trump is ending.
> 
> “We are insisting that these things be in the same negotiation,” said a senior House Democratic aide. “To us, what’s important is are these talks linked or not linked? To us, they are linked.”
> 
> The division among Democrats is complicating negotiations, as lawmakers in both parties face intense pressure — and a two-week time crunch — to show progress on government funding, immigration and a raft of other issues that have resulted in the government operating on stopgap spending bills since September.
> 
> Both parties are eager for a long-term budget agreement, with GOP defense hawks furious about uncertainty for the Pentagon and liberal Democrats concerned about deep cuts to domestic programs. But any legislation to boost spending by upwards of $250 billion over two years would likely need broad bipartisan backing in both chambers, as House conservatives have already hinted they’ll balk.
> 
> Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), another member of Democratic leadership, said that although she would prefer a deal to protect young undocumented immigrants be part of budget negotiations, the agreement reached with McConnell could make that impossible. The Kentucky Republican has said the Senate would turn to an immigration bill only if the government is still funded, and few Democrats seem to want another shutdown.
> 
> “Feb. 8, we’re going to have another [stopgap bill]. But we have to have that budget agreement in order to move forward. … That’s the goal,” Murray said. “And then the deal is that if DACA is not part of that, then it will be the next thing considered.”
> 
> “Everyone’s first preference is to get it all done by the 8th,” a Senate Democratic aide said on Wednesday. “We haven’t speculated on what happens if it doesn’t all come together.”
> 
> If Democrats are indeed willing to deal on spending caps without a firm commitment on DACA, it would represent a significant shift in the budget talks, which have stalled for months over immigration.
> 
> “I think everybody has a pretty general idea about where it’s going to end up. But this has been again another casualty of the DACA issue, that they’ve refused to conclude those,” Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said Wednesday when asked how close leaders are to a spending caps deal.
> 
> “There’s gonna have to be some agreement on the spending caps, I believe [by Feb. 8], because I am skeptical whether the House in particular will vote for another continuing resolution. That’s the dilemma created by our Democratic colleagues,” Cornyn added.
> 
> Without a solution for Dreamers, Democrats have largely refused to acknowledge that they are making progress on a spending deal. But sources familiar with the talks say the distance between Republicans and Democrats has been narrowing for weeks.
> 
> Negotiators have already agreed to a massive boost to the Pentagon’s budget. While the figures are still in flux, multiple sources say Congress would raise military spending by at least $70 billion above the caps for fiscal 2018 and $80 billion in fiscal 2019.
> 
> That huge increase, much more than the White House’s most recent budget request, would deliver assurance to the GOP’s long-suffering defense hawks who have grudgingly voted for four short-term funding bills this fiscal year alone.
> 
> What remains is how much to spend on domestic programs, including everything from homeland security to the Department of Education.
> 
> GOP leaders have pitched a deal that would boost domestic agencies’ budgets by $45 billion to $50 billion over the caps for the next two years, sources say. Democrats, however, are insisting on at least $60 billion.
> 
> Under current spending caps, military funding would be limited to $549 billion in fiscal 2018. Domestic funding would be capped at $516 billion.
> 
> As Democrats have insisted on “parity” between the defense and nondefense spending boosts, GOP negotiators are eyeing creative budgetary maneuvers to get there.
> 
> Republican leaders are proposing tens of billions of dollars in additional domestic spending that wouldn’t count toward the caps, sources say. That would likely include billions in emergency funding to address the nation’s opioid epidemic, which both parties have called a priority.
> 
> Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), an ally of House GOP leadership, said in a phone interview Wednesday that opioid funding would be included “for sure” — likely in a way that wouldn’t count toward the caps.
> 
> Negotiators are also floating potential changes in mandatory spending — another budgetary gimmick — to further dodge the strict caps on discretionary spending. That could mean that programs with bipartisan support, like VA Choice, the private-sector health care program for veterans, would be moved to the mandatory side of the budget for good.
> 
> “They’re so close on these numbers,” said Bill Hoagland, a former top Senate staffer now with the Bipartisan Policy Center.
> 
> Publicly, though, House and Senate spending talks have been stalled since Thanksgiving, when Senate and House Democrats declared they wouldn’t agree on spending until Dreamers were helped.
> 
> “In some way, the most important budget negotiations are the negotiations on DACA,” added Cole, a senior appropriator who writes the House’s health, education and labor spending bill.
> 
> “The phrase used to me [is], ‘We’re six inches away from a spending deal.’ It’s just simply the DACA issue and the immigration question.”





> Senate Democrats now say that they will not seek any compromise involving the DACA or DREAM Acts in return for a long-term spending bill, codifying an agreement made Monday to end a government shutdown — and officially abandoning progressive activists.
> 
> This time, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) was the bearer of bad news and not Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who is being actively protested for caving in to President Donald Trump's demands after three pointless days of a federal government shutdown.
> 
> "We’re viewing [immigration and spending] on separate terms because they are on separate paths,” Durbin said, according to Politico.
> 
> This likely means that Democrats will seek a compromise on a long-term spending solution, ending the endless parade of continuing resolutions in favor of a budget. But it also means that Democrats are giving in to Republican demands, sitting down to the bargaining table without seeking any ironclad timeline for immigration reform, leaving DACA recipients and DREAMers in the lurch, even as the March deadline looms large.
> 
> That's a far cry from the Democratic line during all of November and December, that no spending bill would ever pass a house of Congress without action on immigration.
> 
> The deal spells trouble mostly for American taxpayers, though: a long-term spending deal will likely cost more than $250 billion, and when Democrats and Republicans get together on a bipartisan spending agreement, the cost can go even higher as each party jockeys to fund their preferred entitlement programs.
> 
> Now, progressive and immigration activists have only one hope left: House Democrats, who want a compromise on immigration more than their Senate colleagues because all of their seats are on the line in 2018, and progressive activists, have pledged to dog Democratic candidates on how they plan to oppose the Trump agenda.









The Democrats *CAVED AGAIN on DACA * :HA :lmao!

Now the Senate Democrats aren't even holding the Republicans promise for a vote on the DREAM act to account and are just agreeing to fund the government anyway :lmao.

It is actually embarrassing how weak the Democrats are at this point and how little fight they have in them. There are people in this thread who could have done a better job arguing for policy positions that they want.

You might as well just give Trump the 2020 election if this is how the Democrats are going to be going forward when it comes to policies and compromises.

So weak :HA.


----------



## Vic Capri

> What's funny to me is in this thread I see bitching about Trump Supporters not being in touch with reality and always spouting off about Trump by the very people who believe any conspiracy about Trump and cannot go throughout the day without whining about him.


They need to start therapy classes.

- Vic


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

birthday_massacre said:


> Keep ignoring the evidence, there has been article after article posted on it.
> Hell go look in the Trump Russia thread
> 
> Also how many people connected to Trump have to meet with Russia and lie about their meeting before you wake up
> 
> But sure, there is no evidence.
> 
> Are you really going to pretend there is no Trump Russia connections


It's a simple concept: No smoking gun = No buys. :trumpout


----------



## Tater

Makise Kurisu said:


> The Trump Russiagaters are the Obama birthers of 2017/18. Absolute nonsense conspiracy theorists grasping for any straws they can possibly find to tie Trump and Russia together in some elaborate conspiracy. It's honestly embarrassing at this point.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Here's some really big updates concerning the government shutdown and funding. I'll post from both a left and right wing source:
> 
> https://www.politico.com/story/2018...eamer-demand-with-budget-deal-in-reach-366992
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats *CAVED AGAIN on DACA * :HA :lmao!
> 
> Now the Senate Democrats aren't even holding the Republicans promise for a vote on the DREAM act to account and are just agreeing to fund the government anyway :lmao.
> 
> It is actually embarrassing how weak the Democrats are at this point and how little fight they have in them. There are people in this thread who could have done a better job arguing for policy positions that they want.
> 
> You might as well just give Trump the 2020 election if this is how the Democrats are going to be going forward when it comes to policies and compromises.
> 
> So weak :HA.


Does anyone still doubt that they are paid to lose? Controlled opposition.


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> They need to start therapy classes.
> 
> - Vic


Kind of like you and your excessive defending of him.


----------



## yeahbaby!

THE MEMO IS ABOUT A SECRET ORDER OF 100 CASES OF RUSSIAN VODKA TO A MR T. RUMP!!!!


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/956707908254760960
Goddamn, I just fucking love it when Jimmy rips into TYT for their bullshit. It's a beautiful thing to behold.


----------



## birthday_massacre

So if The NRA gets busted for laundering money from Russia to Trump's campaign, are all the Russia naysayers going to admit Russia was colluding with Trump to help him win the election?


----------



## Beatles123

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/956707908254760960
> Goddamn, I just fucking love it when Jimmy rips into TYT for their bullshit. It's a beautiful thing to behold.


Tater.




You're my friend.


----------



## Tater

Beatles123 said:


> Tater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're my friend.


Back atcha, brotha.

:saul


----------



## Beatles123

Tater said:


> Back atcha, brotha.
> 
> :saul


No, for realz. When I started the OG Trump thread, my goal was to BRIDGE the political gap, not showcase how wide it was. I wanted the people to be able to discuss the good about him as well as the bad from an entirely neutral standpoint. Although I expressed (and still maintain) MY personal views, I didn't expect only those who agreed with me to comment. I never wanted that. I wanted only to get a sense of where people stood on him without the prevailing "LOL HITLER" narrative. You are one of the few that at LEAST don't act as if the Dems are some all holy angelic army defending the downtrodden from the eeeeeeeeeevil people who hale from the south, who need to be eradicated because they're somehow lesser beings because they believe different than whatever the latest social justice talking point is. Yeah, I'm right wing, but I shit on republicans for that kind of division as well. I have gay friends who suffer because of republican talking points just as much as I suffer from a lot of the bullshit people peddle on the left. Thank you then for at LEAST taking those who represent the absolute worst of your side (you know who they are ) to task. If more were like you, @Miss Sally, @BruiserKC and @CamillePunk in DC, we could fix the whole damn world :mj2


----------



## Tater

Beatles123 said:


> No, for realz. When I started the OG Trump thread, my goal was to BRIDGE the political gap, not showcase how wide it was. I wanted the people to be able to discuss the good about him as well as the bad from an entirely neutral standpoint. Although I expressed (and still maintain )MY personal views, I didn't expect only those who agreed with me to comment. I never wanted that. I wanted only to get a sense of where people stood on him without the prevailing "LOL HITLER" narrative. You are one of the few that at LEAST don't act as if the Dems are some all holy angelic army defending the downtrodden from the eeeeeeeeeevil people who hale from the south, who need to be eradicated because they're somehow lesser beings because they believe different than whatever the latest social justice talking point is. Yeah, I'm right wing, but I shit on republicans for that kind of division as well. I have gay friends who suffer because of republican talking points just as much as I suffer from a lot of the bullshit people peddle on the left. Thank you then for at LEAST taking those who represent the absolute worst of your side (you know who they are ) to task. If more were like you, @Miss Sally, @BruiserKC and @CamillePunk in DC, we could fix the whole damn world :mj2


Well said. I couldn't agree more. Many people in this country, especially amongst mainstream liberals and conservatives, act like it's their turn to punish the other side when their team wins. They don't go out there and behave like they want to improve the lives of people who disagree with them. For example, I find it disgusting when liberals taunt conservatives who lost their healthcare because Republicans got elected. These are people and they are your fellow Americans. It's kind of fucked up that they are taking joy in the suffering of others. I know a lot of conservatives who are completely aware that life is worse for them when Republicans are elected but would still rather vote for Republicans than vote some self-righteous prick who talks down to them. This is apparently an amazing fact to some people but you can build a lot more bridges when you don't treat people like shit. I reach out to conservatives because I believe I can sway them with the power of my arguments and show them that my ideas will improve their lives. What I don't do is try to browbeat them into submission. There's nothing wrong with a little healthy political debate but it's important to remember that the entire purpose of this is to create a society that is best for all Americans. Somewhere along the line, people forgot that.

Of course, that's just how the ruling elite want it. The more division that is amongst us commoners, the better it is for them. I know who my enemy is and it's not Joe Six Pack who just wants to have a job and a little financial security for his family.


----------



## Vic Capri

Michael Wolff is feeding a rumor that Nikki Haley is having an affair with The President. Anything to sell a book.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> Michael Wolff is feeding a rumor that Nikki Haley is having an affair with The President. Anything to sell a book.
> 
> - Vic



When it was rumored Trump is having an affair with someone at the WH, she is the first person that sprang to mind.

And you find it hard that Trump cheats on his wife? Or just with Nikki Haley?


----------



## Tater

Vic Capri said:


> Michael Wolff is feeding a rumor that Nikki Haley is having an affair with The President. Anything to sell a book.
> 
> - Vic


I don't particularly give a shit if Trump is fucking Haley. What I do care about is that psycho cunt running around the world trying to start more wars.


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> Michael Wolff is feeding a rumor that Nikki Haley is having an affair with The President. Anything to sell a book.
> 
> - Vic


Well he did cheat on Ivana with Marla Maples.


----------



## yeahbaby!

@Beatles123










You poor victim


----------



## Beatles123

Tater said:


> Well said. I couldn't agree more. Many people in this country, especially amongst mainstream liberals and conservatives, act like it's their turn to punish the other side when their team wins. They don't go out there and behave like they want to improve the lives of people who disagree with them. For example, I find it disgusting when liberals taunt conservatives who lost their healthcare because Republicans got elected. These are people and they are your fellow Americans. It's kind of fucked up that they are taking joy in the suffering of others. I know a lot of conservatives who are completely aware that life is worse for them when Republicans are elected but would still rather vote for Republicans than vote some self-righteous prick who talks down to them. This is apparently an amazing fact to some people but you can build a lot more bridges when you don't treat people like shit. I reach out to conservatives because I believe I can sway them with the power of my arguments and show them that my ideas will improve their lives. What I don't do is try to browbeat them into submission. There's nothing wrong with a little healthy political debate but it's important to remember that the entire purpose of this is to create a society that is best for all Americans. Somewhere along the line, people forgot that.
> 
> Of course, that's just how the ruling elite want it. The more division that is amongst us commoners, the better it is for them. I know who my enemy is and it's not Joe Six Pack who just wants to have a job and a little financial security for his family.


Its funny, people are freaking out about Trump saying "RESIST"--what does that mean? Like, don't you (they, rather) WANT Trump to work with you? How can that work unless you WANT to see what we see? And further, what do they think is gonna happen when Socialist #8675309 gets elected? Like we on my side won't "RESIST" them too? Shoe, meet other foot as long as this continues.

I remember when there wasn't a difference between REP and DEM. not this bad anyway :cry


----------



## Beatles123

yeahbaby! said:


> @Beatles123
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You poor victim


Yer tellin porkies, mate! C'mon, that aint AUS enough. Don't forget the bloomin onions! NO RULES JUST ROIT M8 

(No issues with you here. )


----------



## Art Vandaley

Vic Capri said:


> Michael Wolff is feeding a rumor that Nikki Haley is having an affair with The President. Anything to sell a book.
> 
> - Vic


Considering he's already sold 1.7 Mill copies, and at a conservative estimate of making $2.00 per copy that's a cool 3.4 Mill for him.

It's sales are about the same as Taylor Swifts latest album apparently. 

Whatever else happens, dude has made a mint out of this.


----------



## Miss Sally

Alkomesh2 said:


> Considering he's already sold 1.7 Mill copies, and at a conservative estimate of making $2.00 per copy that's a cool 3.4 Mill for him.
> 
> It's sales are about the same as Taylor Swifts latest album apparently.
> 
> Whatever else happens, dude has made a mint out of this.


Watch Trump be a private backer of all this and making money!

I could write a book about Trump and the two scoops of ice cream and probably sell a few hundred thousand.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Alkomesh2 said:


> Considering he's already sold 1.7 Mill copies, and at a conservative estimate of making $2.00 per copy that's a cool 3.4 Mill for him.
> 
> It's sales are about the same as Taylor Swifts latest album apparently.
> 
> Whatever else happens, dude has made a mint out of this.


Nothing beats Michael Knowles' book "Reasons to Vote Democrat"











:lol Its so absurd


----------



## Undertaker23RKO

Stinger Fan said:


> Nothing beats Michael Knowles' book "Reasons to Vote Democrat"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lol Its so absurd


I wish I had come up with that. Dude has made bank.


----------



## Rational

Moral of the story: sometimes an hour of cleverness beats years of hard work.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Miss Sally said:


> Watch Trump be a private backer off all this and making money!
> 
> I could write a book about Trump and the two scoops of ice cream and probably sell a few hundred thousand.


I would laugh if Trump turned out to be a secret backer. I still think he comes across reasonably good in the book, senile and arrogant, but otherwise positive. 



Stinger Fan said:


> Nothing beats Michael Knowles' book "Reasons to Vote Democrat"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lol Its so absurd


I feel for anyone who bought that naively expecting a real book, you'd hope for at least a connect the dots of Bill playing jazz to be fair.


----------



## virus21

> WASHINGTON — A senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign who was accused of repeatedly sexually harassing a young subordinate was kept on the campaign at Mrs. Clinton’s request, according to four people familiar with what took place.
> Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager at the time recommended that she fire the adviser, Burns Strider. But Mrs. Clinton did not. Instead, Mr. Strider was docked several weeks of pay and ordered to undergo counseling, and the young woman was moved to a new job.
> Mr. Strider, who was Mrs. Clinton’s faith adviser, was a founder of the American Values Network and sent the candidate scripture readings every morning for months during the campaign, was hired five years later to lead an independent group that supported Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 candidacy, Correct the Record, which was created by a close Clinton ally, David Brock.
> He was fired after several months for workplace issues, including allegations that he harassed a young female aide, according to three people close to Correct the Record’s management.
> Mr. Strider did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
> Those familiar with the accounts said that, over the years, a number of advisers urged Mrs. Clinton to sever ties with Mr. Strider, and people familiar with what took place did not want to see Mrs. Clinton blamed for the misconduct of men she was close to.
> 
> The complaint from the young woman was initially brought to Jess O’Connell, who was the national director of operations for the Clinton campaign.
> Ms. O’Connell, who is currently the chief executive officer of the Democratic National Committee, handled the investigation and advised the Clinton campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, that Mr. Strider should be fired, according to three people familiar with the events.
> Ms. O’Connell told colleagues that she was concerned that the young woman making the allegations should not be demoted when she was moved from Mr. Strider’s supervision. The woman requested to have no more interactions with Mr. Strider, and she was moved to a different job within the campaign, reporting directly to Mike Henry, the deputy campaign manager.
> The investigation into Mr. Strider’s conduct was described as brief, but it included a review of a number of emails he sent the young woman, who had shared an office with him.
> A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton provided a statement from Utrecht, Kleinfeld, Fiori, Partners, the law firm that had represented the campaign in 2008 and which her advisers said has been involved on sexual harassment issues.
> “To ensure a safe working environment, the campaign had a process to address complaints of misconduct or harassment. When matters arose, they were reviewed in accordance with these policies, and appropriate action was taken,” the statement said. “This complaint was no exception.”
> Late Friday night, more than a day after The New York Times reached out to her aides for comment, Mrs. Clinton posted on Twitter that she was “dismayed when it occurred.”
> She added that she called the woman on Friday “to tell her how proud I am of her and to make sure she knows what all women should: we deserve to be heard.”
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. Clinton did not address why she ignored advisers’ recommendations that she fire Mr. Strider.
> The woman’s experience and the reaction to it have not been previously reported. Until now, former Clinton associates were unwilling to discuss the events for publication.
> But that changed after the start of the #MeToo movement, in which dozens of men across the country and across different industries have been fired or suspended for sexual misconduct.
> This account was based on interviews with eight former campaign officials and associates of Mrs. Clinton’s.
> They said that Ms. Solis Doyle, the campaign manager, and other senior campaign officials discussed the situation involving Mr. Strider and Mrs. Clinton’s response at the time. Some of them were troubled that he was allowed to remain on the campaign.
> The complaint against Mr. Strider was made by a 30-year-old woman who shared an office with him. She told a campaign official that Mr. Strider had rubbed her shoulders inappropriately, kissed her on the forehead and sent her a string of suggestive emails, including at least one during the night, according to three former campaign officials familiar with what took place.
> The complaint was taken to Ms. Doyle, the campaign manager, who approached Mrs. Clinton and urged that Mr. Strider, who was married at the time, be fired, according to the officials familiar with what took place. Mrs. Clinton said she did not want to, and instead he remained on her staff.
> Ms. Doyle was fired shortly after that in a staff shake-up in response to Mrs. Clinton’s third-place finish in the 2008 Iowa caucuses. And Mr. Strider never attended the mandated counseling, according to two people with direct knowledge of the situation.
> The woman who made the accusation against Mr. Strider in 2008 has not spoken publicly about it. She, like most campaign staff members, signed a nondisclosure agreement that barred employees from publicly discussing internal dynamics on the campaign, according to two people with direct knowledge of the contract. Reached by a reporter, she declined to comment.
> Ms. Solis Doyle also declined to comment.
> Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy has been cited as an inspiration for the #MeToo movement, but she has not played a visible role in it. After several Hollywood actresses told The Times and The New Yorker that Harvey Weinstein, a longtime friend and donor to the Clintons, had harassed or assaulted them, Mrs. Clinton spoke out against his behavior, saying in a statement that she was “shocked and appalled by the revelations.”
> Weeks later the actress Lena Dunham, one of Mrs. Clinton’s most visible celebrity supporters in her 2016 presidential bid, told The Times that she warned two Clinton campaign aides against associating with Mr. Weinstein. “I just want you to know that Harvey’s a rapist and this is going to come out at some point,” Ms. Dunham said she told the campaign.
> Nick Merrill, the communications director for Mrs. Clinton, said at the time Ms. Dunham spoke publicly that she was mistaken. “As to claims about a warning, that’s something staff wouldn’t forget,” he said.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/us/politics/hillary-clinton-chose-to-shield-a-top-adviser-accused-of-harassment-in-2008.html?smid=tw-share


----------



## Tater

> *Russiagate Isn't About Trump, And It Isn't Even Ultimately About Russia*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSNBC's Chris Hayes recently asked a question of his Twitter following that was so heavily loaded it wouldn't be permitted on most interstate highways: "Aside from genuine cranks, is there anyone left denying it was the Russians that committed criminal sabotage in the American election?"
> 
> Hayes asked this fake question because he works for MSNBC and it is therefore his job, and he asked it in response to a report first made viral by deranged espionage LARPer Eric Garland that a Dutch intelligence agency had been observing Russian hackers attacking US political parties in advance of the 2016 election. Like all "bombshell" Russiagate reports, this one roared through social media like wildfire carried on the wings of liberal hysteria about the current administration, only to be exposed as being riddled with gaping plot holes as documented here by independent journalist Suzie Dawson. The report revolves around an allegedly Russian cyber threat now known in the west as "Cozy Bear", which as Real News' Max Blumenthal notes is not a network of hackers but "a Russian-sounding name the for-profit firm Crowdstrike assigned to an APT to market its findings to gullible reporters desperate for Russiagate scoops."
> 
> This "bombshell" overlapped with another as it was reported by the New York Times that at one point many months ago Trump had wanted to fire Robert Mueller, but then didn't.
> 
> *Cough.*
> 
> Why does this keep happening? Why does the public keep getting sold a mountain of suspicion with zero substance? Over and over and over again these "bombshell" stories come out about Trump and Russia, Russia and Trump, only to be debunked, retracted, or erased from the spotlight after people start actually reading the allegations and thinking critically about them and see they're not the shocking bombshells they purport to be? These allegations are all premised upon claims made the US intelligence community, which has an extensive and well-documented history of lying to advance its agendas, as well as porous claims made by an extremely shady and insanely profitable private cyber security company, and yet all we're ever shown is smoke and mirrors with no actual fire.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can begin finding your way toward the answer to that question by envisioning the following hypothetical scenario. Imagine what would happen if, instead of promoting the Russiagate narrative, the faces of the consent-manufacturing machine known as the mass media began telling mainstream America that in order to ensure that the US will remain capable of dominating the other countries on this planet, there's going to have to be an aggressive campaign to re-inflame the Cold War with the goal of disrupting and undermining China and its allies.
> 
> That would be a very different narrative with a very different effect, wouldn't it? But that's exactly what's going on here, and if the US power establishment and its propaganda machine were in the business of telling people the truth, that's precisely what they'd say.
> 
> It's not a secret that China has been working to surpass the United States as the world's leading superpower as quickly as possible. Hell, Xi Jinping flat-out said so during a three and a half hour address last October, and many experts think it might happen a lot sooner than Xi's 30-year deadline. An editorial from China's state press agency about the Davos World Economic Forum asserts that the time has come for the world to choose between the “Xi-style collaborative approach” and Trump's “self-centred America First policy (which) has led his country away from multiple multilateral pacts and infused anxiety into both allies and the broader world”. China has been collaborating with Russia to end the hegemony of the US dollar, to shore up control of the Arctic as new resources become available, and just generally build up its own power and influence instead of working to remain in Washington's good graces as most western nations have chosen to do.
> 
> Preventing this is the single most important goal of the US power establishment, not just its elected government but the unelected plutocrats, defense and intelligence agencies which control the nation's affairs behind the scenes. This agenda is so important that in a letter to his successor the outgoing President Barrack Obama made the "indispensable" nature of American planetary leadership his sole concrete piece of advice, and pro-establishment influence firms like Project for a New American Century have made preventing the rise of a rival superpower their stated primary goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what Russiagate is ultimately about. Democrats think it's about impeaching Trump and protecting the world from a nigh-omnipotent supervillain in Vladimir Putin, Trump's supporters think it's a "deep state coup" to try and oust their president, but in reality this has nothing to do with Trump, and ultimately not a whole lot to do with Russia either. When all is said and done, Russiagate is about China.
> 
> In an essay titled "Russia-China Tandem Changes the World", US-Russia relations analyst Gilbert Doctorow explains how the surging economic power China depends upon Russia's willingness to go head-to-head with America and its extensive experience with US attempts to undermine the USSR during the Cold War. Alone both nations are very vulnerable, but together their strengths are complimentary in a way that poses a direct threat to America's self-appointed role as world leader.
> 
> "Russia is essential to China because of Moscow’s long experience managing global relations going back to the period of the Cold War and because of its willingness and ability today to stand up directly to the American hegemon," writes Doctorow, "whereas China, with its heavy dependence on its vast exports to the U.S., cannot do so without endangering vital interests. Moreover, since the Western establishment sees China as the long-term challenge to its supremacy, it is best for Beijing to exercise its influence through another power, which today is Russia."
> 
> So the strategic value of taking Russia out of the equation is clear, and that's exactly what the US power establishment is attempting to do. California Representative Eric Swalwell, one of the lead congressional promoters of both anti-Russia sentiment and the Trump-Russia "collusion" narrative, admitted last year that he'd like to see tougher sanctions stacked up until they "isolate Russia from the rest of the world" after much badgering from Fox's Tucker Carlson about his incendiary claims that the alleged cyberattacks constituted an "act of war". It is worth noting here that despite Swalwell's repeated hysterical claims about Trump and Russia, he recently voted to renew the treasonous Kremlin-colluding president's godlike surveillance powers anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Establishment muppets like Swalwell and the unelected elites who own them don't care about Trump, they care about crippling China's right arm Russia so that they can set about sabotaging the agendas of a potential rival superpower unimpeded by the skilful opposition of a nuclear superpower. But, getting back to the hypothetical situation I asked you to envision earlier, they can't just come right out and say that.
> 
> They can't. The US oligarchs, the oligarch-owned media outlets, and the oligarch-aligned intelligence/defense agencies can't just come right out and say "Hey America, we need to ensure our power structures remain unrivalled for the foreseeable future, so we're going to have to try and shut down Russia's influence using ever-tightening economic sanctions, NATO expansionism, proxy wars and troops along Russia's border to squeeze them until they lose the capacity to interfere with our ability to crush China. We'll also need a vastly inflated military budget to help facilitate our geopolitical agendas and prepare for a possible world war, please." A few Americans might consent to it, but by and large the US public would rather see those resources spent on making their lives better.
> 
> Just as importantly, the rest of the world would recoil in revulsion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they lie. They use America's deliberately constructed partisan enmity and culture wars to fan the flames of mass hysteria about a new president so that enough Americans will permit continuous escalations with Russia under the mistaken impression that they are helping to resist Trump. They think they're lying to you for your own good, because you can't understand how important it is that they do what they're trying to do. That's why there are so many gaping plot holes and none of this ever quite adds up; they're lying to you like a parent telling a child he needs to eat his broccoli if he doesn't want a lump of coal for Christmas. Except instead of eating broccoli it's consenting to dangerous escalations and military expansionism, and instead of a parent it's a class of elitist sociopaths, and you're always going to get coal.
> 
> And sure, an argument can be made that the world is better off under the watchful domination of the US power establishment than it would be with multipolar power arrangements, and I encounter many establishment loyalists who make precisely that argument. Personally I would argue that the death, destruction and mayhem caused by the intrinsically evil things the US establishment must do in order to maintain dominance completely invalidate that argument, but it's a debate that people deserve to have, and they can't have it when they're being lied to about what's really going on.
> 
> Insist on the truth. Keep pushing back against this pernicious psyop. Spread the word.
> 
> SOURCE


The first video about manufacturing consent is a pretty good explanation of how the MSM propaganda machine works. Anyone in the USA who still believes we have anything even remotely resembling a so-called "free and open press" that reports the news is a chump. It hasn't been talked about in here for awhile but the United States' "pivot to Asia" had already started years ago. The administration may have changed but the foreign policy remains the same. Basically, the one and only goal of our military is global hegemony. It's why we are in the Middle East and it's also why a new Cold War is being ramped up with Russia. The owners of the USA don't care about silly little things like peace and human rights. That's all just bullshit propaganda put out there to manufacture consent because as the above accurately points out, Americans would revolt in horror if our government and their MSM propaganda arm was ever honest with them about their intentions.

And guess who gets to foot the bill for global hegemony? You guessed it, the taxpayer. Oh but none of the military adventurism benefits us. We fund the military. The military brutalizes the world for power and control. The benefits go into the pockets of the owner class. Meanwhile, the USA crumbles from within.

If you're a liberal who is still buying the Russiagate narrative at this point, you're just as stupid as a conservative who believes Trump is on their side. It's a big club and you ain't in it.


----------



## Pratchett

Tater said:


> Well said. I couldn't agree more. Many people in this country, especially amongst mainstream liberals and conservatives, act like it's their turn to punish the other side when their team wins. They don't go out there and behave like they want to improve the lives of people who disagree with them. For example, I find it disgusting when liberals taunt conservatives who lost their healthcare because Republicans got elected. These are people and they are your fellow Americans. It's kind of fucked up that they are taking joy in the suffering of others. I know a lot of conservatives who are completely aware that life is worse for them when Republicans are elected but would still rather vote for Republicans than vote some self-righteous prick who talks down to them. This is apparently an amazing fact to some people but you can build a lot more bridges when you don't treat people like shit. I reach out to conservatives because I believe I can sway them with the power of my arguments and show them that my ideas will improve their lives. What I don't do is try to browbeat them into submission. There's nothing wrong with a little healthy political debate but it's important to remember that the entire purpose of this is to create a society that is best for all Americans. Somewhere along the line, people forgot that.
> 
> *Of course, that's just how the ruling elite want it. The more division that is amongst us commoners, the better it is for them. I know who my enemy is and it's not Joe Six Pack who just wants to have a job and a little financial security for his family.*


Divide and Conquer is one of the oldest strategies humans have ever used against each other to gain and wield power. You would almost think, as "advanced as we are" that most of us would be able to grasp this simple concept by this time, the "current year".

:sip


----------



## deepelemblues

> The first video about manufacturing consent is a pretty good explanation of how the MSM propaganda machine works.


:heyman6

150 years later and still haven't come up with anything better than yelling mystification. Goddamn but that's just sad.



> Anyone in the USA who still believes we have anything even remotely resembling a so-called "free and open press" that reports the news is a chump.


That is a child's excuse. Don't be a child.



> It hasn't been talked about in here for awhile but the United States' "pivot to Asia" had already started years ago.


And? Fuck China.



> The administration may have changed but the foreign policy remains the same.


Of course it does, we're #1 and we're keeping it that way. That's worked out better for the rest of the world than it would have with any of the other available options.



> Basically, the one and only goal of our military is global hegemony.


As it should be, American global half-hegemony and then full hegemony has presided over the safest, most prosperous time in the history of the species. The world has never been as peaceful as it has been from 1992-today, and never so prosperous either. And, for that matter, the 1/2 of the globe that was under American hegemony from 1945 to 1991 had never previously been matched for peace and prosperity as well.



> It's why we are in the Middle East and it's also why a new Cold War is being ramped up with Russia.


Of course that's why, Russian hegemony over anywhere has been little of anything but failure soaked in the blood of tens of millions. For literally hundreds of years.



> The owners of the USA don't care about silly little things like peace and human rights.


Oddly strange that both peace and human rights have been more in existence during the period of American hegemony than they ever were before, and more than they will be for some time after the end of American hegemony. Unless there are large changes to only two other nations on the planet capable of attaining hegemony. The idea that a Russian or Chinese world will be more peaceful or more respectful of human rights than an American world is laughable on its face. 

Of course they care about peace and human rights, doing so is part of the reason the American hegemony came into being in the first place. Open your eyes.



> That's all just bullshit propaganda put out there to manufacture consent because as the above accurately points out, Americans would revolt in horror if our government and their MSM propaganda arm was ever honest with them about their intentions.


You'd revolt in horror if you would ever realize that Americans are quite aware of the intentions of their government to dominate geopolitically and are by and large in agreement with the principle :heston



> And guess who gets to foot the bill for global hegemony? You guessed it, the taxpayer. Oh but none of the military adventurism benefits us. We fund the military. The military brutalizes the world for power and control. The benefits go into the pockets of the owner class. Meanwhile, the USA crumbles from within.


50 years of it certainly benefited the United States when the Iron Curtain was smashed. Before the Iron Curtain was smashed, the greatest military adventure in history ushered in a period of prosperity and power unmatched in history for the country. If the Russians and Chinese had sat the fuck down, the world could have enjoyed much greater peace and prosperity and human rights than it did while they were trying to shrink and eventually eradicate American hegemony.

Take a little bit longer of a perspective. I understand that the capitalist imperialist's own depradations and decadence causing their downfall is part of the dialectic and all that, but do please remember that the dialectic ended up on the ash heap of history :lmao



> I know a lot of conservatives who are completely aware that life is worse for them when Republicans are elected


:heyman6 

I could point out oh so many examples and reasons of why both this and the other side of that coin are hilariously wrong but I doubt a materialist could recognize them


----------



## Tater

Pratchett said:


> Divide and Conquer is one of the oldest strategies humans have ever used against each other to gain and wield power. You would almost think, as "advanced as we are" that most of us would be able to grasp this simple concept by this time, the "current year".
> 
> :sip


Sadly, there's still quite a lot of people who struggle with grasping simple concepts, like in the post above this one.


----------



## BruiserKC

Beatles123 said:


> No, for realz. When I started the OG Trump thread, my goal was to BRIDGE the political gap, not showcase how wide it was. I wanted the people to be able to discuss the good about him as well as the bad from an entirely neutral standpoint. Although I expressed (and still maintain) MY personal views, I didn't expect only those who agreed with me to comment. I never wanted that. I wanted only to get a sense of where people stood on him without the prevailing "LOL HITLER" narrative. You are one of the few that at LEAST don't act as if the Dems are some all holy angelic army defending the downtrodden from the eeeeeeeeeevil people who hale from the south, who need to be eradicated because they're somehow lesser beings because they believe different than whatever the latest social justice talking point is. Yeah, I'm right wing, but I shit on republicans for that kind of division as well. I have gay friends who suffer because of republican talking points just as much as I suffer from a lot of the bullshit people peddle on the left. Thank you then for at LEAST taking those who represent the absolute worst of your side (you know who they are ) to task. If more were like you, @Miss Sally, @BruiserKC and @CamillePunk in DC, we could fix the whole damn world :mj2


I am pretty much taking the stance that I will take what he does on a case by case basis. Where he does the conservative thing I will commend him. When he goes off the reservation I will hammer him. My stance has not changed and my goalposts have never moved. I still want him to succeed but still have my concerns and will not blindly cheer him on.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/957697382673625088
Yep.


----------



## deepelemblues

McCabe GONZO :mark:

Can't wait for Rosenstein and Wray to get BTFO 

The DOJ/FBI bureaucracy is a stinking hole, it needs purified 






House probably going to vote to release the memo today as well :mark:

The unaccountable bureaucracy that thinks it has carte blanche to run the country however it feels like and do whatever it wants with no say from the people is getting peeled off layer by layer :banderas


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> McCabe GONZO :mark:
> 
> Can't wait for Rosenstein and Wray to get BTFO
> 
> The DOJ/FBI bureaucracy is a stinking hole, it needs purified
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> House probably going to vote to release the memo today as well :mark:
> 
> The unaccountable bureaucracy that thinks it has carte blanche to run the country however it feels like and do whatever it wants with no say from the people is getting peeled off layer by layer :banderas



So that is why Trump wants Rosenstein fired LOL

Yes please release the memo lol

Secret Memo Hints at a New Republican Target: Rod Rosenstein

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/28/us/politics/rod-rosenstein-carter-page-secret-memo.html


WASHINGTON — A secret, highly contentious Republican memo reveals that Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein approved an application to extend surveillance of a former Trump campaign associate shortly after taking office last spring, according to three people familiar with it.

*The renewal shows that the Justice Department under President Trump saw reason to believe that the associate, Carter Page, was acting as a Russian agent*. But the reference to Mr. Rosenstein’s actions in the memo — a much-disputed document that paints the investigation into Russian election meddling as tainted from the start — indicates that Republicans may be moving to seize on his role as they seek to undermine the inquiry.

The memo’s primary contention is that F.B.I. and Justice Department officials failed to adequately explain to an intelligence court judge in initially seeking a warrant for surveillance of Mr. Page that they were relying in part on research by an investigator, Christopher Steele, that had been financed by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Democrats who have read the document say Republicans have cherry-picked facts to create a misleading and dangerous narrative. But in their efforts to discredit the inquiry, Republicans could potentially use Mr. Rosenstein’s decision to approve the renewal to suggest that he failed to properly vet a highly sensitive application for a warrant to spy on Mr. Page, who served as a Trump foreign policy adviser until September 2016.

A handful of senior Justice Department officials can approve an application to the secret surveillance court, but in practice that responsibility often falls to the deputy attorney general. No information has publicly emerged that the Justice Department or the F.B.I. did anything improper while seeking the surveillance warrant involving Mr. Page.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

Republicans Show Little Urgency on Legislation to Protect Mueller JAN. 28, 2018
Republicans Claim Surveillance Power Abuses in Russia Inquiry JAN. 19, 2018

Recent Comments
cl Just now

I have a suggestion: If any more people are fired or pressured to resign all of Mueller's work should be released (or unleashed) in as many...
charles doody Just now

Democratic Legislators need to get up off of their hindquarters if the Trumpista's go after Rosenstein. The security of his position needs...
Beth Grant DeRoos Just now

Wish people would remember that President Trump demands loyalty for anyone around him and thinks the FBI and everyone who works for the FBI...

See All Comments Write a comment 

Mr. Trump has long been mistrustful of Mr. Rosenstein, the Justice Department’s No. 2 official, who appointed the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and now oversees his investigation into Mr. Trump’s campaign and possible obstruction of justice by the president. Mr. Trump considered firing Mr. Rosenstein last summer. Instead, he ordered Mr. Mueller to be fired, then backed down after the White House counsel refused to carry out the order, The New York Times reported last week.

Mr. Trump is now again telling associates that he is frustrated with Mr. Rosenstein, according to one official familiar with the conversations.

It is difficult to judge whether Republicans’ criticism of the surveillance has merit. Although House members have been allowed to view the Republican memo in a secure setting, both that memo and a Democratic one in rebuttal remain shrouded in secrecy. And the applications to obtain and renew the warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court are even more closely held. Only a small handful of members of Congress and staff members have reviewed them.

Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, whose staff wrote the memo, could vote as early as Monday, using an obscure House rule, to effectively declassify its contents and make it available to the public. Mr. Trump would have five days to try to block their effort, potentially setting up a high-stakes standoff between the president and his Justice Department, which opposes its immediate release.

The White House has made clear to the Justice Department in recent days that it wants the Republican memo to be made public. Asked about the issue on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Marc Short, the White House’s head of legislative affairs, said that if the memo outlined serious concerns, “the American people should know that.”
Morning Briefing

Get what you need to know to start your day in the United States, Canada and the Americas, delivered to your inbox.

See Sample Privacy Policy Opt out or contact us anytime 

But Stephen E. Boyd, an assistant attorney general, warned in a letter last week to the committee’s chairman, Representative Devin Nunes of California, that it would be “extraordinarily reckless” to release a memo drawing on classified information without official review and pleaded with the committee to consult the Justice Department. He said the department was “unaware of any wrongdoing related to the FISA process.”

To obtain the warrant involving Mr. Page, the government needed to show probable cause that he was acting as an agent of Russia. Once investigators get approval from the Justice Department for a warrant, prosecutors take it to a surveillance court judge, who decides whether to approve it.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment, and a spokesman for Mr. Nunes did not reply to requests for comment. The people familiar with the contents of the memo spoke on the condition of anonymity because the details remained secret.

A White House spokesman, Hogan Gidley, said in a statement: “The president has been clear publicly and privately that he wants absolute transparency throughout this process. Based on numerous news reports, top officials at the F.B.I. have engaged in conduct that shows bias against President Trump and bias for Hillary Clinton. While President Trump has the utmost respect and support for the rank-and-file members of the F.B.I., the anti-Trump bias at the top levels that appear to have existed is troubling.”

Mr. Page, a former Moscow-based investment banker who later founded an investment company in New York, had been on the F.B.I.’s radar for years. In 2013, an investigation revealed that a Russian spy had tried to recruit him. Mr. Page was never charged with any wrongdoing, and he denied that he would ever have cooperated with Russian intelligence officials.

But a trip Mr. Page took to Russia in July 2016 while working on Mr. Trump’s campaign caught the bureau’s attention again, and American law enforcement officials began conducting surveillance on him in the fall of 2016, shortly after he left the campaign. It is unclear what they learned about Mr. Page between then and when they sought the order’s renewal roughly six months later. It is also unknown whether the surveillance court granted the extension.

The renewal effort came in the late spring, sometime after the Senate confirmed Mr. Rosenstein as the Justice Department’s No. 2 official in late April. Around that time, following Mr. Trump’s firing of James B. Comey as F.B.I. director in May, Mr. Rosenstein appointed Mr. Mueller, a former head of the bureau, to take over the department’s Russia investigation. Mr. Rosenstein is overseeing the inquiry because Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself.

Sean Hannity, the Fox News host, who is close to Mr. Trump and House Republicans, signaled interest in Mr. Rosenstein this month as news of the memo’s existence first circulated, asking on air if Mr. Rosenstein had played a role in extending the surveillance. “I’m very interested about Rod Rosenstein in all of this,” he said.

In a speech on Friday in Norfolk, Va., Mr. Sessions appeared to wade into the debate. Without mentioning the Republican memo, he said that federal investigations must be free of bias, and that he would not condone “a culture of defensiveness.” While unfair criticism should be rebutted, he added, “it can never be that this department conceals errors when they occur.”


----------



## Vic Capri

Andrew McCabe's resignation is the first of many to come.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> Andrew McCabe's resignation is the first of many to come.
> 
> - Vic


Including Trumps


----------



## deepelemblues

The House has voted to release the memo

If the president does not veto it within 5 days the memo will be released

Mueller pissing himself right now trying to figure out what he can leak between now and then because he knows he's got nothing


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> The House has voted to release the memo
> 
> If the president does not veto it within 5 days the memo will be released
> 
> Mueller pissing himself right now trying to figure out what he can leak between now and then because he knows he's got nothing


The only person pissing himself right now is Trump that is why he is doing everything he can to shut down the investigation and fire anyone looking into him. 

If he really had nothing, Trump wouldn't be trying so hard to get Mueller fired.

How many times does Trump have to obstruct or try to obstruct before Trump supporters realize Trump is guilty as hell


----------



## birthday_massacre

Of course, Trump told Putin that no one on the list will be sanctioned. LOL





US issues ‘Putin list’ of Russian politicians, oligarchs

https://apnews.com/0a96bed2bd7e4eb8...Putin-list'-of-Russian-politicians,-oligarchs

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration late Monday released a long-awaited list of 114 Russian politicians and 96 “oligarchs” who have flourished during the reign of President Vladimir Putin, fulfilling a demand by Congress that the U.S. punish Moscow for interfering in the 2016 U.S. election.

Yet the administration paired that move with a surprising announcement that it had decided not to punish anybody — for now — under new sanctions retaliating for the election-meddling. Some U.S. lawmakers accused President Donald Trump of giving Russia a free pass, fueling further questions about whether the president is unwilling to confront America’s Cold War foe.

Known informally as the “Putin list,” the seven-page unclassified document is a who’s who of politically connected Russians in the country’s elite class. The idea, as envisioned by Congress, is to name-and-shame those believed to be benefiting from Putin’s tenure just as the United States works to isolate his government diplomatically and economically.

Being on the list doesn’t trigger any U.S. sanctions on the individuals, although more than a dozen are already targeted under earlier sanctions.

Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev is among the 114 senior political figures in Russia’s government who made the list, along with 42 of Putin’s aides, Cabinet ministers such as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and top officials in Russia’s leading spy agencies, the FSB and GRU. The CEOs of major state-owned companies, including energy giant Rosneft and Sberbank, are also on the list.

So are 96 wealthy Russians deemed “oligarchs” by the Treasury Department, which said each is believed to have assets totaling $1 billion or more. Some are the most famous of wealthy Russians, among them tycoons Roman Abramovich and Mikhail Prokhorov, who challenged Putin in the 2012 election. Aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, a figure in the Russia investigation over his ties to former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is included.

The Trump administration had until Monday to issue the list under a law passed last year. After declining to answer questions about it throughout the day Monday, the Treasury Department released it with little fanfare 12 minutes before midnight.

Even more names, including those of less-senior politicians or businesspeople worth less than $1 billion, are on a classified version of the list being provided to Congress, officials said. Drawing on U.S. intelligence, Treasury also finalized a list of at least partially state-owned companies in Russia, but that list, too, was classified and sent only to Congress.

There was no immediate comment early Tuesday from the Kremlin or the Russian Embassy in Washington.

In the works for months, the list has induced fear among rich Russians who are concerned that it could lead to U.S. sanctions or to being informally blacklisted in the global financial system. It triggered a fierce lobbying campaign, with Russia hawks in Congress pushing the administration to include certain names and lobbyists hired by Russian businessmen urging the administration to keep their clients off.

The list’s release was likely to at least partially diffuse the disappointment from some lawmakers that Trump’s administration opted against targeting anyone with new Russia sanctions that took effect Monday.

Under the same law that authorized the “Putin list,” the government was required to slap sanctions on anyone doing “significant” business with people linked to Russia’s defense and intelligence agencies, using a blacklist the U.S. released in October. But the administration decided it didn’t need to penalize anyone, even though several countries have had multibillion-dollar arms deals with Russia in the works.

State Department officials said the threat of sanctions had been deterrent enough, and that “sanctions on specific entities or individuals will not need to be imposed.”

“We estimate that foreign governments have abandoned planned or announced purchases of several billion dollars in Russian defense acquisitions,” said State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert. She did not provide evidence or cite any examples.

Companies or foreign governments that had been doing business with blacklisted Russian entities had been given a three-month grace period to extricate themselves from transactions, starting in October when the blacklist was published and ending Monday. But only those engaged in “significant transactions” are to be punished, and the United States has never defined that term or given a dollar figure. That ambiguity has made it impossible for the public to know exactly what is and isn’t permissible.

Late last year, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said one reason the U.S. was proceeding cautiously was that major U.S. allies have much at stake. Turkey, a NATO ally, has a deal to buy the S-400, Russia’s most advanced air defense missile system. And key security partner Saudi Arabia recently struck an array of deals with Moscow, including contracts for weapons. It was unclear whether either country had since abandoned those deals to avoid running afoul of the U.S. sanctions.

New York Rep. Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, lambasted the move to punish no one, saying he was “fed up” and that Trump’s administration had chosen to “let Russia off the hook yet again.” He dismissed the State Department’s claim that “the mere threat of sanctions” would stop Moscow from further meddling in America’s elections.

“How do you deter an attack that happened two years ago, and another that’s already underway?” Engel said. “It just doesn’t make sense.”

___

Associated Press writer Jill Colvin contributed to this report.



https://apnews.com/a88eb4ee9e0944b0954d5ff8bc763ea6


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Latest on the Trump administration and Russia sanctions (all times local):

2:55 a.m.

Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny has lauded the Trump administration’s list of Russian oligarchs and politicians as a “good list.”

The list released late on Monday was required by a sanctions law, adopted last year against Russia for meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. Although it does not trigger any U.S. sanctions against the individuals, the very preparations for listing the Russian oligarchs has sent chills across the Russian business community and political elite in the past months.

Navalny, who came to prominence thanks to his investigations into official corruption, tweeted on Tuesday that he was “glad that these (people) have been officially recognized on the international level as crooks and thieves.” Navalny in his investigations has exposed what he described as close ties between government officials and some of the billionaires on the list.

He questioned, however, why some Russian businessmen with no apparent ties to the government were put on the list, including Sergei Galitsky, founder of retail chain Magnit, and Arkady Volozh, founder and CEO of the search engine Yandex. Both have been lauded as self-made men who built their successful businesses without any government support.

___

2:40 a.m.

A Russian businessman who is on the Trump administration’s list of Russian politicians and businessmen, released as part of a U.S. law aimed at punishing Russia for meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, says he will nevertheless advocate for better ties with the West.

Boris Titov, presidential ombudsman for business, is on the list along with two other Russian presidential envoys for human rights.

Titov, who is also running for Russian president in the March election, said he was surprised to find his name on the list: “We are working to protect people from authorities.”

Titov said he would keep doing his job, “part of which is to improve relations with the West.”

___

2:30 a.m.

A senior Russian lawmaker has described the Trump administration’s list of politicians and business figures released late on Monday as “political paranoia which, it turns out, is very hard to cure.”

In a Facebook post Tuesday, Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Federation Council’s foreign affairs committee, said U.S. intelligence failed to find compromising material on Russian politicians and “ended up copying the Kremlin phone book.”

Kosachev criticized the U.S. government for harming Russia-U.S. relations, saying that “the consequences will be toxic and undermine prospects for cooperation for years ahead.”

___

2:20 a.m.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich has dismissed the Trump administration’s list of Russian politicians and businessmen as simply a “who’s who” of Russian politics.

The list released by the Trump administration late on Monday includes 114 political figures and 96 people the U.S. Treasury deems to be “oligarchs.” The list, required by a law passed by Congress last year to punish Russia for meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, does not trigger any U.S. sanctions targeting the individuals.

Dvorkovich told Russian news agencies on Tuesday that he was not surprised to find his name on the list, too, saying that it “looks like a ‘who’s who’ book.” Dvorkovich stopped short of saying how Russia would react to it, saying that the government would “monitor the situation.”

___

12:15 a.m.

The Trump administration has released its highly anticipated list of Russian politicians and business figures in an attempt to increase pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The list includes 114 individuals deemed by the Treasury Department to be senior Russian political figures. It also includes 96 people deemed to be “oligarchs.” The Treasury says each has an estimated net worth of $1 billion or more.

The list was required by a law passed by Congress last year to punish Russia for meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. The Trump administration had until Monday to release the list, aimed at exposing those who have gained wealth or power through association with Putin. It’s been informally referred to as the “Putin list.”

The list does not trigger any U.S. sanctions targeting the individuals.

___

8:18 p.m.

The Trump administration has notified Congress that it will not impose new sanctions on Russia at this time.

The State Department says it’s confident that new legislation enacted last year is significantly deterring Russian defense sales.

Spokeswoman Heather Nauert estimates foreign governments have abandoned several billion dollars in planned or announced Russian purchases.

The decision comes amid ongoing concerns from critics of the president that his administration has been too soft on Russia. Investigations continue into Moscow’s efforts to influence the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win.

The Treasury Department was expected to release another list of businessmen who have grown rich under Russian President Vladimir Putin, but the day came and went with no word. The Treasury Department did not respond to multiple inquiries Monday about the list.






https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/tr...es-white-house-refuses-enforce-new-sanctions/

*Trump is ours again!’* Russian TV host celebrates after White House refuses to enforce new sanctions

Russia’s state television channel seems to be happy with President Donald Trump’s decision to not enforce sanctions against Russia that were overwhelmingly approved by both houses of Congress.

Julia Davis, who runs the Russian Media Monitor website, reports via Twitter that Russian TV show host Olga Skabeeva on Tuesday was positively gushing about the White House’s decision to not enforce new sanctions against her country.

*“Seemingly, Trump is ours again,*” said Skabeeva, according to Davis’ translation. *“So far, he’s being quiet and not supporting the sanctions.”*

Co-host Evgeny Popov seemingly agreed and told her, *“Well, it seems that way.”*


----------



## The Reaper

I'm back boys!

Good to see Trump is ruling out talks with the Taliban after the events in Kabul.

"They are killing people left and right. Innocent people are being killed left and right, bombing in the middle of children, in the middle of families, bombing, killing all over Afghanistan," said Trump, reported PTI.

"What nobody else has been able to finish we're going to be able to do it," said Trump yesterday, after the horrific terror attacks in Kabul.


----------



## Vic Capri

*The Dow's 31% gain during Trump's first year is the best since FDR.*

REMINDER: All the haters and "financial experts" said Donald Trump was going to cause immediate financial collapse when he won the election.

Oops!

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/itd-be-great-if-trump-were-right-about-the-economy-hes-not

It’d be great if Trump were right about the economy, but he’s not
Donald Trump boasted over the weekend, “Our economy is better than it has been in many decades.” I wish that were true. It’s not.

But the president is nevertheless convinced that everyone will be convinced of his awesomeness if only he can (a) persuade the nation that we’re in the midst of an economic boom; and (b) demand credit. To that end, Trump is painting a portrait that doesn’t reflect reality.

Take, for example, the president’s remarks on Friday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

“After years of stagnation, the United States is once again experiencing strong economic growth…. Since my election, we’ve created 2.4 million jobs, and that number is going up very, very substantially. “

Neither of these claims is accurate. Economic growth in 2017 – Trump’s first year in office – wasn’t bad at 2.3%, but GDP growth was better in 2010, 2014, and 2015. What’s more, while the president apparently hopes everyone has forgotten his campaign vows, GDP growth wasn’t just slower than it was across much of Barack Obama’s second term, it’s also short of Trump’s misguided promises.

As for job numbers, while I enjoyed the “since my election” feint – Trump wants credit for the jobs created in the months before he took office – the simple reality is that job growth fell to a six-year low in 2017. To date, the White House hasn’t even tried to explain this development.

At Davos, the president also pointed to the stock market and stock prices six times, failing to note that Wall Street growth was actually more robust under Obama.


In the same speech, Trump added, “The world’s largest company, Apple, announced plans to bring $245 billion in overseas profits home to America. Their total investment into the United States economy will be more than $350 billion over the next five years.”

No, actually, it won’t. As Vox explained, “What Apple actually promised was to make $30 billion in domestic capital investments, most of which will be data centers, offices, and Apple Store real estate upgrades rather than actual manufacturing facilities. The $350 billion measure is a rough five-year estimate of Apple’s total ‘contribution’ to the American economy. If you’re playing Infinite Golf on your iPhone and make an in-app purchase, that contributes to GDP. Since the contribution is routed through Apple, your spending becomes part of the Apple contribution to the American economy. It’s a semi-fake measure that’s basically a long-winded way of saying that Apple is a very big company.”

My point isn’t that the economy is somehow awful. It’s clearly not. I’m also not suggesting that Trump has somehow ruined the economy. He hasn’t.

But Trump, with few genuine accomplishments, is searching desperately for evidence of his success, which has led him to believe the economy “is better than it has been in many decades.” It’s a claim that props up his entire presidency: we should overlook the scandals, the corruption, the incompetence, the mismanagement, the lies, and the assaults on our institutions and political norms, the argument goes, because Trump is leading the nation to broad prosperity.

Whether this is a suitable trade-off would be a subject worthy of debate if it weren’t a sham. Job growth wasn’t bad in Trump’s first year, but it fell far short of what Americans have seen over the last several years. Growth wasn’t bad, either, but Americans have seen better growth – recently.

What’s more, the problem extends beyond the dishonesty of the pitch. There are also policy consequences to consider: if the president believes, genuinely but falsely, that he’s created the strongest economy “in many decades,” it will affect his thinking about how to make things better.

Will the president who already thinks he’s created an economic utopia for all fight for a higher minimum wage? How about his willingness to demand investments in education and infrastructure ? Will he encourage the Fed to prioritize growth over curbing inflation?

Or will he deem all of this unnecessary since he’s already created the healthiest economy “in many decades,” facts be damned?

Maybe Trump knows his economic record is underwhelming, and he’s just straight up lying. Perhaps the amateur president is confused and has convinced himself that his talking points are accurate.

Either way, wouldn’t it be better for everyone, including Trump, if he had an accurate grasp of economic realities?


----------



## birthday_massacre




----------



## birthday_massacre

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-raises-from-republican-tax-law-idUSKBN1FI16Q

*Few U.S. adults report bonuses, raises from Republican tax law*


WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - *Two percent of U.S. adults said they had gotten a raise, bonus or other additional benefits due to the Republican tax law* enacted a month ago by President Donald Trump, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Monday.


Hailed by Republicans as a boost for the middle class, the law is expected to be framed as a win by Trump in his State of the Union address on Tuesday and to be a key theme for both parties headed into November’s congressional elections.

While the Internal Revenue Service implements the law, Republicans in the U.S. Congress have been praising businesses, such as Wal-Mart (WMT.N) and JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), for announcing wage and benefit increases in response to the tax plan.

The full impact of the law will not be known for some time. Businesses’ and individuals’ 2017 tax returns will not be directly affected. Returns for 2018, when the law takes effect, will not be filed until 2019.

But the Reuters/Ipsos online poll of 5,254 adults done Jan. 12 to 23 offers insights into public perceptions of the law, which is expected to shape the 2018 midterm elections when all 435 House of Representatives seats and a third of 100 Senate seats will be up for grabs.

President Trump displays his signature after signing the $1.5 trillion tax overhaul plan. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
About 58 percent of U.S. adults surveyed said that large U.S. corporations or wealthy Americans stand to benefit most from the tax legislation. Just 13 percent said the middle class will benefit the most, the poll showed.

Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan pledged the tax bill’s benefits would become evident in February. At that time, they said, employees paychecks would grow after IRS tax withholding tables were updated for new tax rates.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc
107.73
WMT.NNEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE
-1.82(-1.66%)
WMT.N
WMT.NJPM.N
But views of the law’s impact were decidedly mixed: 24 percent of respondents in the poll said they expected to pay less tax under the new law; 27 percent said they expected to pay more; 23 percent said they expected no change.

Nearly one in four adults said they have tried to estimate the impact of the tax law by consulting with an accountant, a tax professional, their company’s payroll department or an online tax calculator, the poll showed. On the elections, about a quarter of adults surveyed said passage of the tax law would not make them more or less interested in voting, the poll showed.

A quarter of those surveyed, including more than half of Republicans, said they were more interested in voting for Republicans because of the law. Just 8 percent of Democrats and 16 percent of independents said the same.

About a third of respondents, including 62 percent of Democrats, said they were more interested in supporting Democrats due to the tax legislation; just 9 percent of Republicans and 19 percent of independents. The poll showed little change in the number of individuals who expect to itemize deductions on their 2018 tax returns versus 2017. One in three said they expected to itemize this year; one in three said they itemized last year. The online poll had a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of 2 percentage points.

Reporting By Amanda Becker in Washington and Chris Kahn in New York; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Cynthia Osterman





2% LOL


----------



## FITZ

Numbers are funny. Saying 2% makes it sound insignificant. But what if I said *5 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE GOT A RAISE OR BONUS BECAUSE OF TRUMP!!!!!* Then it sounds like it's a huge success. 

And the real effects won't be felt until you file your tax return this year. 

It sounds like most people in the middle class are going to save somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000. Not a fortune but not a small amount of money either.


----------



## birthday_massacre

FITZ said:


> Numbers are funny. Saying 2% makes it sound insignificant. But what if I said *5 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE GOT A RAISE OR BONUS BECAUSE OF TRUMP!!!!!* Then it sounds like it's a huge success.
> 
> And the real effects won't be felt until you file your tax return this year.
> 
> It sounds like most people in the middle class are going to save somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000. Not a fortune but not a small amount of money either.


Most of those bonuses were already in the works and were going to be given before Trump even did the tax cuts.



Also your 5 million number is just made up. The real number is between 1-3 million and like I said most were already going to be given so its even less than that.

And a good number of people in the middle-class taxes are going up and let's not forget the small percentage of the middle-class tax cuts go away by 2027.

the majority of the tax cuts when to the top 1%


----------



## FITZ

birthday_massacre said:


> Most of those bonuses were already in the works and were going to be given before Trump even did the tax cuts.
> 
> 
> 
> Also your 5 million number is just made up. The real number is between 1-3 million and like I said most were already going to be given so its even less than that.
> 
> And a good number of people in the middle-class taxes are going up and let's not forget the small percentage of the middle-class tax cuts go away by 2027.
> 
> the majority of the tax cuts when to the top 1%


If my 5 million number is made up then so is your 2% number. They are the same number. There are about 250 million adults in the US. YOU said 2% of them got raises. 2% of 250 million is 5 million.


----------



## birthday_massacre

FITZ said:


> If my 5 million number is made up then so is your 2% number. They are the same number. There are about 250 million adults in the US. YOU said 2% of them got raises. 2% of 250 million is 5 million.


Not every adult in the US is working.

Again stop making up numbers. I linked my 2% number, how about you link your 5 million number.

Trump claims the number is 3 million https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...-cut-bonuses-workers-largely-true/1081033001/ and this article is where Mnuchin claims it is just over a million.

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0248


----------



## FITZ

This is my source: 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-poll/few-u-s-adults-report-bonuses-raises-from-republican-tax-law-idUSKBN1FI16Q

It's your source. Your source said 2% of adults, not 2% of working adults. 2% of adults is about 5 million people. In 2014 there were 245 million adults. For simplicity sake I estimated about 250 million adults today. 5 million is 2% of 250 million.


----------



## birthday_massacre

FITZ said:


> This is my source:
> 
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-poll/few-u-s-adults-report-bonuses-raises-from-republican-tax-law-idUSKBN1FI16Q
> 
> It's your source. Your source said 2% of adults, not 2% of working adults. 2% of adults is about 5 million people. In 2014 there were 245 million adults. For simplicity sake I estimated about 250 million adults today. 5 million is 2% of 250 million.


Nowhere in the article does it say 5 million people got a bonus. And when they say, adults, they mean working adults since you have to be working to get a bonus.

You even said you estimated a number which means you made it up.

There is no numbers that show 5 million like you claimed.

Only in Trump land will someone include people that are not working lol

Tell me how someone can get a bonus from their work if they are not working?

Seriously dude. Just admit you are wrong and move on.


----------



## deepelemblues

I wish the State of the Union address was an actual State of the Union address instead of a very speshul off-year presidential campaign speech.


----------



## FITZ

birthday_massacre said:


> Nowhere in the article does it say 5 million people got a bonus. And when they say, adults, they mean working adults since you have to be working to get a bonus.
> 
> You even said you estimated a number which means you made it up.
> 
> There is no numbers that show 5 million like you claimed.
> 
> Only in Trump land will someone include people that are not working lol
> 
> Tell me how someone can get a bonus from their work if they are not working?
> 
> Seriously dude. Just admit you are wrong and move on.


Fine so your article is wrong and the results of the poll are wrong. 

Please post from a reputable source in the future.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

deepelemblues said:


> I wish the State of the Union address was an actual State of the Union address instead of a very speshul off-year presidential campaign speech.


It is great irony that a speech which is red meat for White Nationalist sentiments sounds an awful lot like a 1970's PRI Mexican Politician.


----------



## Ygor

Was good. I like.


----------



## deepelemblues

According to the BLS numbers for 2017 there's about 152 million employed who are 16 years or older

2% of that is 3,040,000 people

3 million people getting a raise or bonus in the short time since the tax bill was passed and signed into law is quite good and that number should get larger as a big part of the law isn't even really in effect yet 

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat08.htm

Now BM will say something feeble about how 3 million people is nothing and dumb Trump lovers


----------



## deepelemblues

BoFreakinDallas said:


> It is great irony that a speech which is red meat for White Nationalist sentiments sounds an awful lot like a 1970's PRI Mexican Politician.


I missed all the white nationalist sentiments, I heard sentiment for Americans and Americans can be any skin color.


----------



## birthday_massacre

FITZ said:


> Fine so your article is wrong and the results of the poll are wrong.
> 
> Please post from a reputable source in the future.


LOL you made up numbers so the poll is right, and Reuters not a reputable source LOL

Ok dude. 



And if you want to play your little game with your made up numbers, and including non-working adults then using Trumps 3 million number only 1.2 % of adults got a bonus and using Mnuchin numbers then only 0.4% of adults got a bonus.


So the poll of 2% is high.




deepelemblues said:


> According to the BLS numbers for 2017 there's about 152 million employed who are 16 years or older
> 
> 2% of that is 3,040,000 people
> 
> 3 million people getting a raise or bonus in the short time since the tax bill was passed and signed into law is quite good and that number should get larger as a big part of the law isn't even really in effect yet
> 
> https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat08.htm
> 
> Now BM will say something feeble about how 3 million people is nothing and dumb Trump lovers


It's not a huge number, especially when most of those three million were already getting those bonus's before the tax cut. But keep ignoring that.

Also even you know that 5 million number by Fritz is BS since you just backed me up saying its at most 3 million


----------



## birthday_massacre

I love how all the Trump supporters are ignoring the Russia articles but sure there is still no evidence of Trump colluding with Russia lol


----------



## FITZ

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL you made up numbers so the poll is right, and Reuters not a reputable source LOL
> 
> Ok dude.
> 
> 
> 
> And if you want to play your little game with your made up numbers, and including non-working adults then using Trumps 3 million number only 1.2 % of adults got a bonus and using Mnuchin numbers then only 0.4% of adults got a bonus.
> 
> 
> So the poll of 2% is high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a huge number, especially when most of those three million were already getting those bonus's before the tax cut. But keep ignoring that.
> 
> Also even you know that 5 million number by Fritz is BS since you just backed me up saying its at most 3 million


You want to know what I did? 

I read your article that said 2% of adults (not working adults it just says adults) got a raise or bonus. I googled how many American adults there are. I did math.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

deepelemblues said:


> I missed all the white nationalist sentiments, I heard sentiment for Americans and Americans can be any skin color.


Parents who's kids were murdered by Mexican gangs or NK govt,Ice Agents etc..... and Heather Heyers parent's nowhere to be found. But I guess it was an accidental death committed by very fine people.


----------



## birthday_massacre

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Parents who's kids were murdered by Mexican gangs or NK govt,Ice Agents etc..... and Heather Heyers parent's nowhere to be found. But I guess it was an accidental death committed by very fine people.


Its funny when an illegal kills someone OMG builds the wall, but when a white person or a white nationalist shoot and kills people, oh we don't need better gun control.

I laugh at Trump supporters who still claim Trump isn't racist


----------



## Scissor Me Daddy-O!!

I just enjoyed Trump clapping for all his points and encouraging people to stand and applaud him.

Plus, the USA chants were epic. I was surprised John Cena didn't come out and AA a democrat.


----------



## CamillePunk

lol who the actual fuck is joe kennedy even 

Powerful speech. :mj2 'Murica. AND APPARENTLY WHITE NATIONALISM OR SOMETHING LOLOL


----------



## Goku

:trump2


----------



## FriedTofu

BM stop embarrassing yourself and pick better fights. I am as anti-Trump as any poster in here. I still think Trump will be horrible if not checked by the bankers in his administration, but by most measures, Trump has had a good first year as president for most of his supporters, delivering on many of his key promises to his base. Economy is not worse off, conservative judges are appointed, manufacturing jobs are returning, higher employment, finally some wins in the culture wars after a decade of losses etc.

Whether it is because of Trump or in spite of Trump, the economy is doing well or at least on the same trajectory that Obama left him with. We have yet to see the doomsday scenario as his administration has been resisting the protectionist/isolationist rhetoric he made during his campaign. Remember he was threatening trade wars, pulling out of NAFTA and ignoring NATO commitments due to money that made everyone nervous as hell. Now everyone just choose to ignore his crazy tweets and try to get things done. In a way, Trump's recklessness shocked the bureaucracy and activists from their complacency and created more urgency in confronting issues.


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump has been an embarrassment for America to the outside world, yes, I know most of his voter base do not care and that's fine.
His inability to form a team around him with his constant firing was hilarious, besting even our troll of a PM Teresa May.
No wall or even any progress.
Tweets.
Stance on climate change.
The Russia scandal (could be fake news still)
Failing to get his travel ban through for ages.
Government shutdowns.
Failure to repeal Obama care.

Ultimately though, he's not busted the economy in his first year so now everyone can claim he's had a good year it seems.


----------



## birthday_massacre

FriedTofu said:


> BM stop embarrassing yourself and pick better fights. I am as anti-Trump as any poster in here. I still think Trump will be horrible if not checked by the bankers in his administration, but by most measures, Trump has had a good first year as president for most of his supporters, delivering on many of his key promises to his base. Economy is not worse off, conservative judges are appointed, manufacturing jobs are returning, higher employment, finally some wins in the culture wars after a decade of losses etc.
> 
> Whether it is because of Trump or in spite of Trump, the economy is doing well or at least on the same trajectory that Obama left him with. We have yet to see the doomsday scenario as his administration has been resisting the protectionist/isolationist rhetoric he made during his campaign. Remember he was threatening trade wars, pulling out of NAFTA and ignoring NATO commitments due to money that made everyone nervous as hell. Now everyone just choose to ignore his crazy tweets and try to get things done. In a way, Trump's recklessness shocked the bureaucracy and activists from their complacency and created more urgency in confronting issues.


You need to stop embarrassing yourself and ignoring all the facts and evidence. Sorry if you cant deal with facts that is not my problem. I will keep posting them.

Trump has had an awful first year only people that are delusional think he had a good year. Manufcatign jobs are also leaving but of course and job growth was much slower under Trump, the lowest it has been in years but, you ignore that


We have been over all this before. Not sure how much more egg on your face you can take


----------



## deepelemblues

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Parents who's kids were murdered by Mexican gangs or NK govt,Ice Agents etc..... and Heather Heyers parent's nowhere to be found. But I guess it was an accidental death committed by very fine people.


So people whose kids were murdered by Central American* gangs or the North Korean government shouldn't be brought before the public eye because someone could charge that doing so is an appeal to white nationalism. The brutal violence of MS-13 and the North Korean government should be swept under the rug because you're afraid of Nazis under the bed. Mmmmkay.

*MS-13 is not Mexican, it was created by Salvadorans in Los Angeles area jails and prisons and spread from there. Most of its members are Salvadoran, Honduran or Guatemalan. I guess everyone from south of the border is Mexican to you? How racist.


----------



## FriedTofu

draykorinee said:


> Trump has been an embarrassment for America to the outside world, yes, I know most of his voter base do not care and that's fine.
> His inability to form a team around him with his constant firing was hilarious, besting even our troll of a PM Teresa May.
> No wall or even any progress.
> Tweets.
> Stance on climate change.
> The Russia scandal (could be fake news still)
> Failing to get his travel ban through for ages.
> Government shutdowns.
> Failure to repeal Obama care.
> 
> Ultimately though, he's not busted the economy in his first year so now everyone can claim he's had a good year it seems.


One could say he is the bumbling useful idiot. :shrug. I said he had a good year for those that voted for him. For the rest of us, he just wasn't that bad and we need to acknowledge that to be taken seriously. 

Trump has been kept in check domestically because the constitution have checks and balance for what the executive can do in that area. Foreign policy wise, he has been a real mixed bag because there is nothing to prevent him from doing what he wants. He has ceded American global influence to Russia and China that could have huge strategic impact in years long after he is out of office. But that's something that is yet to play out for us to judge definitively. China and Russia can still screw up and allow American influence to be back in vogue. 



birthday_massacre said:


> You need to stop embarrassing yourself and ignoring all the facts and evidence. Sorry if you cant deal with facts that is not my problem. I will keep posting them.
> 
> Trump has had an awful first year only people that are delusional think he had a good year. Manufcatign jobs are also leaving but of course and job growth was much slower under Trump, the lowest it has been in years but, you ignore that
> 
> 
> We have been over all this before. Not sure how much more egg on your face you can take


You really are embarrassing to people that have legitimate concerns about this administration and undermining efforts to keep them in check. You are the one that can't deal in facts by trying to spin positive statistics as a negative to suit your partisan agenda.

Yes we have been over this before, but what egg on my face do you mean? The recent disagreement in this thread I had with you I can remember is you trying to pass off El Nino as something caused by climate change. (it isn't) And you were the one that ended up backtracking to save your own face.

As always you put everyone that disagree with you under one basket and reply to all of them as if they were one person. It is indeed embarrassing to be on the same side of an issue with you.


----------



## birthday_massacre

FriedTofu said:


> One could say he is the bumbling useful idiot. :shrug. I said he had a good year for those that voted for him. For the rest of us, he just wasn't that bad and we need to acknowledge that to be taken seriously.
> 
> Trump has been kept in check domestically because the constitution have checks and balance for what the executive can do in that area. Foreign policy wise, he has been a real mixed bag because there is nothing to prevent him from doing what he wants. He has ceded American global influence to Russia and China that could have huge strategic impact in years long after he is out of office. But that's something that is yet to play out for us to judge definitively. China and Russia can still screw up and allow American influence to be back in vogue.
> 
> 
> 
> You really are embarrassing to people that have legitimate concerns about this administration and undermining efforts to keep them in check. You are the one that can't deal in facts by trying to spin positive statistics as a negative to suit your partisan agenda.
> 
> Yes we have been over this before, but what egg on my face do you mean? The recent disagreement in this thread I had with you I can remember is you trying to pass off El Nino as something caused by climate change. (it isn't) And you were the one that ended up backtracking to save your own face.
> 
> As always you put everyone that disagree with you under one basket and reply to all of them as if they were one person. It is indeed embarrassing to be on the same side of an issue with you.


what is embarrassing is people like you who ignore all the facts and evidence and pretend it does not exist.

I am not spinning anything, just giving the facts. Sorry if you cant handle them. The only spinning going on is what Trump and his admin do. Giving the full context is not spinning, maybe you should learn that.
I even posted articles to back up what I say about Trump and his admin. So tell me what articles I have posted are not legit or wrong when it comes to the economy, jobs, or even the Russia stuff?

Go ahead and try to disprove any article Ill wait

as for El Nino, I admitted I had to backwards since I was wrong. That is what you do when you are wrong, admit it and move on.


----------



## FriedTofu

birthday_massacre said:


> what is embarrassing is people like you who ignore all the facts and evidence and pretend it does not exist.
> 
> I am not spinning anything, just giving the facts. Sorry if you cant handle them. The only spinning going on is what Trump and his admin do. Giving the full context is not spinning, maybe you should learn that.
> I even posted articles to back up what I say about Trump and his admin. So tell me what articles I have posted are not legit or wrong when it comes to the economy, jobs, or even the Russia stuff?
> 
> Go ahead and try to disprove any article Ill wait
> 
> as for El Nino, I admitted I had to backwards since I was wrong. That is what you do when you are wrong, admit it and move on.


Your attempt to spin 2% lulz into a negative says it all really. If you can't handle being called out on being dumb with statistics, then don't try to sell shit you don't understand. I don't think rational people are buying into Trump's hyperbole of the economy, but there is also no reason to downplay the economy to shit on him either.

What do you want me to disprove off? The articles all tried to paint the economy as growing but not as much as what Trump claim it is. I am of that opinion. YOU are the one that tried to spin it into 'only 2%' and paint it as a negative. You should be the one to explain or disprove shit with the articles you are posting.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...cording-to-his-own-goals-heres-what-we-found/

:shrug


----------



## birthday_massacre

FriedTofu said:


> Your attempt to spin 2% lulz into a negative says it all really. If you can't handle being called out on being dumb with statistics, then don't try to sell shit you don't understand. I don't think rational people are buying into Trump's hyperbole of the economy, but there is also no reason to downplay the economy to shit on him either.
> 
> What do you want me to disprove off? The articles all tried to paint the economy as growing but not as much as what Trump claim it is. I am of that opinion. YOU are the one that tried to spin it into 'only 2%' and paint it as a negative. You should be the one to explain or disprove shit with the articles you are posting.
> 
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...cording-to-his-own-goals-heres-what-we-found/
> 
> :shrug


LOL what exactly don't I understand about it? Trump was saying how much businesses were going to give out bonuses because of his tax cuts yet only 2% of people surveyed had gotten bonus's and AGAIN most of the people who got bonus's were already going to get those bonuses and lets not forgot how big companies still laid people off even though Trump claimed it would save jobs

Looks like the only one who does not understand here is you. 

Its also not a dumb static it just shows how full of shit Trump was. 

You are the one who claimed I am trying to spin all of Trump's economy and who gets credit for what. So disprove what I said about that and the articles that back up what I said.

But of course you can't do that.


----------



## FriedTofu

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL what exactly don't I understand about it? Trump was saying how much businesses were going to give out bonuses because of his tax cuts yet only 2% of people surveyed had gotten bonus's and AGAIN most of the people who got bonus's were already going to get those bonuses and lets not forgot how big companies still laid people off even though Trump claimed it would save jobs
> 
> Looks like the only one who does not understand here is you.
> 
> Its also not a dumb static it just shows how full of shit Trump was.
> 
> You are the one who claimed I am trying to spin all of Trump's economy and who gets credit for what. So disprove what I said about that and the articles that back up what I said.
> 
> But of course you can't do that.


Because the full impact of the new tax law can't be determined now. :shrug The people responding are due to their perspective on the new law instead of the actual impact of the law. 2% getting bonuses due to a new tax law outside of performance or recruitment incentive is not nothing either.

The facts are Trump hasn't torpedoed Obama's economy. Trying to paint it otherwise is disingenuous.


----------



## Vic Capri

Fantastic speech. Of course, liberals will still complain despite Trump acting Presidential like they wanted.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

FriedTofu said:


> Because the full impact of the new tax law can't be determined now. :shrug The people responding are due to their perspective on the new law instead of the actual impact of the law. 2% getting bonuses due to a new tax law outside of performance or recruitment incentive is not nothing either.
> 
> The facts are Trump hasn't torpedoed Obama's economy. Trying to paint it otherwise is disingenuous.


So you admit Trump trying to take credit for any bonuses this year is disingenuous then? 


This is the first year we are in Trump's economy last year was still Obamas outside of the stock market which Trump gets full credit for. 

Now its all on Trump


----------



## FriedTofu

birthday_massacre said:


> So you admit Trump trying to take credit for any bonuses this year is disingenuous then?
> 
> 
> This is the first year we are in Trump's economy last year was still Obamas outside of the stock market which Trump gets full credit for.
> 
> Now its all on Trump


For any? No. Because some supporters of his might be giving out bonuses because they liked to show support for Trump. For most, yes.

This year is going to be interesting to see whether your federal government can function as is with the serious cost-cutting and under staffing this administration has been advocating finally hits home.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Interesting stats from Trump's speech 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/958560475100434433

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/958556587626516480

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/958561330893611008

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/958561698046251010


----------



## birthday_massacre

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...union-garners-lowest-positive-reaction-in-two

Poll: Trump's first State of the Union garners lowest net positive reaction in two decade

Poll: Trump's first State of the Union garners lowest net positive reaction in two decades 
© Getty
President Trump's first State of the Union address garnered the lowest net positive reaction for such an address in 20 years, according to a new CNN poll.

Forty-eight percent of Americans polled said they had a "very positive" reaction to Tuesday night's address, the same number who had a "very positive" reaction to President Obama's maiden State of the Union address in 2010.

But while 70 percent of those watching on Tuesday had a very positive or somewhat positive reaction to Trump's address, 78 percent had a very positive or somewhat positive reaction to the Obama address.

Fifty-seven percent of viewers said they felt "very positive" after Trump's address to a joint session of Congress last year, which was not a formal State of the Union address.
Twenty-two percent of Americans said they felt "somewhat positive" about Trump's speech, while 28 percent said they felt "negative" about the address. 

The CNN poll was conducted on Jan. 30 among 549 Americans who tuned in to the address. The margin of error is 4.2 percentage points.


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *Train carrying members of Congress, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, hits a truck*
> 
> A train carrying members of Congress — including House Speaker Paul Ryan — to their legislative retreat in West Virginia hit a truck Wednesday, multiple sources told CNN.
> 
> An aide confirmed Ryan was on the train and is fine. Separately, a congressman on the train told CNN most of the staff and members on the train are OK.
> 
> Rep. John Faso, a New York Republican, who was on the train that crashed, said he was able to see the truck that hit the train, and that he was told that injuries were expected from people in the truck, not train.
> 
> “There was (what) looks like a tractor trailer carrying trash that was hit by the train,” Faso, who said he was in the third car of the train, told CNN.
> 
> “I think everyone on the train is OK,” Faso said. “I don’t know that for sure, it’s a long train. But most of the concern is for the people outside.”
> 
> One GOP source was unsure how many members of Congress were on the train or how many people were injured, but said there were injuries.
> 
> That source said members “hit the deck.”
> 
> Republican members of Congress were on their way to a retreat at The Greenbrier in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, starting Wednesday and ending Friday. Vice President Mike Pence, who was not on the train, is scheduled to speak to members later Wednesday and President Donald Trump is scheduled to address the event tomorrow.
> 
> The train left from Union Station in Washington earlier Wednesday.


http://fox2now.com/2018/01/31/train...cluding-house-speaker-paul-ryan-hits-a-truck/


----------



## birthday_massacre




----------



## TheConnor

Vic Capri said:


> Fantastic speech. Of course, liberals will still complain despite Trump acting Presidential like they wanted.
> 
> - Vic


Angry Libs will always suck the cock of fake news dry.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheConnor said:


> Angry Libs will always suck the cock of fake news dry.


The only fake news is what comes out of Trumps and his admins month and that has been proven over and over again.

But keep living in your delusions


----------



## deepelemblues

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_US_013118/

If the House of Representatives generic ballot is anywhere near 47-Dem 45-Rep in November, the GOP will pick up seats in the House. Republicans always outperform the generic ballot in the actual midterm elections.

The Senate elections would be a Democratic bloodbath. These numbers must improve YUGELY for the Democratic Party in the next 10 months. They've gone from being up 10-15 points to up 2-5 points in a month.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/pri...january-vs-185k-est-adp-moodys-analytics.html

It's the economy, stupid.

MUH WAVE


----------



## Kabraxal

At this point, the only reason to watch politics is to watch the almost satirical depths the mainstream media and its social media “progressive” parrots are sinking to. I thought the likes of Hannity and Rush were bad, but these last few years have been eye opening. There is a sickness in a large swath of our culture that has been nurtures by the idiocy of the tumblr generation.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> At this point, the only reason to watch politics is to watch the almost satirical depths the mainstream media and its social media “progressive” parrots are sinking to. I thought the likes of Hannity and Rush were bad, but these last few years have been eye opening. There is a sickness in a large swath of our culture that has been nurtures by the idiocy of the tumblr generation.


Yeah ignore what the White House has sunk too to cover for Trumps lies and bullshit.

With Trump and his WH you can never tell if an article is legit or an onion piece because of what a joke Trump and the WH are now


----------



## TheConnor

birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah ignore what the White House has sunk too to cover for Trumps lies and bullshit.
> 
> With Trump and his WH you can never tell if an article is legit or an onion piece because of what a joke Trump and the WH are now


The only jokes are the people mad at Trump, for example ISIS is almost dead now under Trump, under Obama they controlled most of Iraq and Syria, I dont think you understand that people such as Soros and the Rothschilds are funding the Democratic Party to make a left-wing dictatorship.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheConnor said:


> The only jokes are the people mad at Trump, for example ISIS is almost dead now under Trump, under Obama they controlled most of Iraq and Syria, I dont think you understand that people such as Soros and the Rothschilds are funding the Democratic Party to make a left-wing dictatorship.





TheConnor said:


> The only jokes are the people mad at Trump, for example ISIS is almost dead now under Trump, under Obama they controlled most of Iraq and Syria, I dont think you understand that people such as Soros and the Rothschilds are funding the Democratic Party to make a left-wing dictatorship.





Trump has little to do with ISIS being almost wiped out. You do know most of the country is against Trump right? And you dont have to tell me about the corrupt establshiment democrat party. They need to go. Don't act like the GOP isn't as bad, infact they are much worse.





https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/16945312/state-of-the-union-2018-isis



In the State of the Union, Trump took credit for defeating ISIS that he doesn’t deserve
Trump implied that “almost 100 percent” of ISIS territory was liberated under his watch. Untrue.


In his State of the Union address, President Trump claimed a very clear policy accomplishment: the military defeat of ISIS.

“Last year, I pledged that we would work with our allies to extinguish ISIS from the face of the earth,” the president said. “One year later, I’m proud to report that the coalition to defeat ISIS has liberated very close to 100 percent of the territory just recently held by these killers in Iraq and in Syria.”

There’s real truth here. The amount of territory controlled by ISIS declined by 60 percent between January and October 2017, according to a count by IHS Markit, a strategic intelligence firm. The group lost control over both Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, and Raqqa, which served as the de facto capital of ISIS’s so-called caliphate; it now no longer controls a major populated city in either country.

Yet Trump’s comment implies that nearly all of ISIS-held territory was liberated in the past year. This isn’t true. In fact, it’s not clear that Trump deserves much credit for these developments — if any. His counter-ISIS strategy has, for the most part, been a continuation of the one the Obama administration began back in 2014, which had already been steadily chipping away at the group’s territory.

“Whatever successes the Trump administration is claiming against ISIS are actually a product of the Obama administration’s approach,” says Jennifer Cafarella, the senior intelligence planner at the Institute for the Study of War.

To be fair, Trump’s approach wasn’t 100 percent identical to Obama’s. He did relax regulations designed to prevent civilian casualties, which appears to have led to a larger number of strikes on ISIS targets per day. It is certainly possible that this led ISIS to lose territory at a faster rate, but experts say there’s no way to tell for sure — and that the group’s losses would have been inevitable without Trump’s changes.

So while it’s true that ISIS lost a lot of territory under Trump’s watch, there’s little evidence to suggest that he can count it as his accomplishment.

How Trump did and didn’t change the ISIS war
The Obama administration’s strategy for countering ISIS, launched soon after the group seized huge amounts of Iraqi territory in June 2014, mostly slotted the US into a supporting role. The Iraqi military and various armed factions in Syria would take the lead in risky ground combat against ISIS; the US and its allies would provide training, weapons, limited special forces deployments, and airstrikes. The idea was to roll back ISIS’s territorial gains at a limited cost to the US, while building up the capacity of local partners to keep the group down once it was defeated.

On a purely military level, this strategy proved fairly effective. ISIS was outnumbered by its enemies in the region and outgunned by the coalition, and had no way to shoot down American planes. ISIS’s territorial conquests had basically been stopped by the end of 2014; by the time of the 2016 election, it had lost a third of its peak territory.

After Trump took office in January 2017, his administration didn’t change the basic parameters of the strategy — opting not to fix something that wasn’t broken. The overall strategy, to assist and empower local allies rather than win the ground war using large troop deployments, remained intact.


President Trump participated in a “Pol-Mil session” at the Pentagon on July 20, 2017, where he was briefed on national security issues and the fight against ISIS. Alex Wong/Getty Images
Trump did change how the airpower part of the strategy worked, in two distinct but related ways.

First, he loosened the Obama-era rules of engagement — rules that govern when it’s acceptable to launch an attack — in effect making it easier to launch airstrikes against ISIS targets that might unintentionally kill civilians. Second, he changed the procedure for ordering airstrikes, giving battlefield commanders more discretion to launch airstrikes with permission from people higher up the food chain.

The exact nature of these changes is classified: We don’t know how the Trump administration defines “too much risk” to civilians, or how different its standard is from Obama’s. But data suggests that Trump’s rule changes did have at least some measurable impact on the US air campaign in Iraq and Syria.

The following chart, from the watchdog group Airwars, shows the number of strikes per month by the US-led anti-ISIS coalition. You can see a clear increase in the pace of strikes beginning in early 2017 — right when Trump took over:


(Airwars)
During the same time period, you also see a significant spike in reports of civilian casualties caused by coalition strikes:


(Airwars)
So while the overall strategy may not have changed, there’s at least some evidence that Trump did change the way the war was being fought.

Did Trump hasten ISIS’s collapse?
Evaluating the broader effects of Trump’s changes to airstrike policy is extremely tricky, mostly because the Obama strategy had already set ISIS on a path to defeat. It wasn’t as if Trump came in and righted a sinking ship; in fact, if he had changed nothing at all about Obama’s policy, ISIS still would have been pushed out of its major cities eventually.

“The Trump administration didn’t screw up the Obama plan, which we were all kind of afraid of,” one former National Security Council official tells me. “They at the very least continued a working policy.”

So the question is less about whether Trump deserves sole or majority credit for ISIS’s collapse, as he clearly does not. It’s more about whether his changes to the rules of engagement hastened ISIS’s territorial collapse. And on that question, experts really aren’t sure.

“It was inevitable that the caliphate would fall,” says Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. “It wasn’t inevitable that the caliphate would collapse in a matter of months in the middle of 2017. As far as I know, most analysts were not predicting that to happen.”


Iraqi girls, holding their national flag, walk toward a ceremony for the reopening of the Bab al-Saray market in the old city of Mosul on January 11, 2018. Ahmad Muwafaq/AFP/Getty Images
Neither Gartenstein-Ross nor any other expert I spoke to would venture a guess as to how much, if at all, Trump’s changes to the rules of engagement caused that rapid collapse.

It’s possible that it did — the timing is certainly suggestive. But it’s also plausible that it made no difference whatsoever: that ISIS had been under pressure for years and eventually cracked all at once.

“It’s not unusual for an armed force to rapidly lose territory once its forward units are defeated or demoralized,” says Robert Farley, a political scientist who studies airpower at the University of Kentucky. “I don’t think you could say conclusively one way or the other that the loosened rules of engagement had an impact.”

So Trump’s claim of credit for ISIS’s defeat isn’t akin to his truly outlandish lies, like his claim that Obama “wiretapped” Trump Tower. It’s possible there’s some grounding in truth, that he really led to ISIS’s control over a large amount of territory disappearing a bit faster.

But the president’s comments during his speech — that “one year” since his inauguration, the coalition had “liberated very close to 100 percent” of ISIS-held territory — is deeply misleading. if you just listened to the speech, you never would have known that it was the Obama administration that put ISIS on the path to defeat, and that Trump only slightly tweaked their framework. You also wouldn’t get a sense that Iraqi and Syrian forces did the brunt of the fighting, and thus deserve the brunt of the credit.

And those fighters, for what it’s worth, seem skeptical of Trump’s claim. When CNN’s Peter Bergen interviewed Gen. Abdul Wahab al-Saadi, the leader of Iraq’s elite Golden Division, the general couldn’t fathom the idea that Trump had affected the war in any way.

“There was no difference,” al-Saadi said, “between the support given by Obama and Trump.”


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> The only fake news is what comes out of Trumps and his admins month and that has been proven over and over again.
> 
> But keep living in your delusions


I think someone needs to look at themselves before suggesting others live under delusions :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

I quite liked what I saw of Joe Kennedy's response to Trump's address, but then again, considering he's a Kennedy I fear he's actually one of about 5 interchangeable Kennedy cyborgs that can be swapped in and out of operation by the Illuminati at will. 

How many are out there.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> I think someone needs to look at themselves before suggesting others live under delusions :lol



Keep ignoring facts and evidence and calling the ones who use it delusional typical Trump/fake news 101 logic right there.

It does not matter how much evidence there is, people like you will just ignore it and claim here is no evidence.


----------



## FriedTofu

Kabraxal said:


> At this point, the only reason to watch politics is to watch the almost satirical depths the mainstream media and its social media “progressive” parrots are sinking to. I thought the likes of Hannity and Rush were bad, but these last few years have been eye opening. There is a sickness in a large swath of our culture that has been nurtures by the idiocy of the tumblr generation.


Don't pin this on the tumblr generation. Many Fox News watchers probably think tumblr is something people use to hold beverages and they are just as bad as the 'progressives' on social media with silly memes. How many older folks believe the pizzagate shit as much as the tumblr generation? 

It isn't a generational thing. Idiocy is present in every generation. It is the tools available now that allow idiots to broadcast their thoughts to anyone that made it seem like the world's gone mad. In the not so distant past, much of the idiocy would have just been random musings at the bar or at dinner with friends and families that nobody would give two shit about the next day. Nowadays these type of conversations are 24/7 due to the tools available.

If you must blame a generation for all the hoohah, blame it on the older folks or the less tech savvy of all generations with no filters who started using social media the past decade.


----------



## Draykorinee

TheConnor said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ignore what the White House has sunk too to cover for Trumps lies and bullshit.
> 
> With Trump and his WH you can never tell if an article is legit or an onion piece because of what a joke Trump and the WH are now
> 
> 
> 
> The only jokes are the people mad at Trump, for example ISIS is almost dead now under Trump, under Obama they controlled most of Iraq and Syria, I dont think you understand that people such as Soros and the Rothschilds are funding the Democratic Party to make a left-wing dictatorship.
Click to expand...

Obama had already done the lion's share of the work. 

Do you even facts at all?

The irony you have a go at angry libs for believing fake news and you eat this garbage up from Trump.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Obama had already done the lion's share of the work.


In your own words without looking up anything on the internet right now name what specific policies Obama enacted that is currently allowing the economy to continue to grow.

See, on the one hand liberals are claiming that Trump is undoing and has undone Obama's legacy and overturning his policies .. and at the same time you guys are crediting Obama's policies for continued economic growth. Can't really have both at the same time.


----------



## Laughable Chimp

Somehow, someway, I always wind up back at this thread.


----------



## Draykorinee

Merry Reaper said:


> In your own words without looking up anything on the internet right now name what specific policies Obama enacted that is currently allowing the economy to continue to grow.
> 
> See, on the one hand liberals are claiming that Trump is undoing and has undone Obama's legacy and overturning his policies .. and at the same time you guys are crediting Obama's policies for continued economic growth. Can't really have both at the same time.


I was talking about isis, in regards to the economy I credit Obama for the early growth of 2017 and credit Trump for enacting policies that have continued that and not hampered it. If growth continues as is then its on Trump for 2018, likewise if it doesn't.


----------



## FriedTofu

If you want to nitpick about it, neither Obama nor Trump deserve to claim most of the credit for the economy. Janet Yellen has more claim to that.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> I was talking about isis, in regards to the economy I credit Obama for the early growth of 2017 and credit Trump for enacting policies that have continued that and not hampered it. If growth continues as is then its on Trump for 2018, likewise if it doesn't.


So the military itself that has claimed to have become more efficient and effective citong that Trump has 'loosened the reigns' is lying but you and the media and liberal supporters have some insider's knowledge that the military itself is either unaware of or lying about.

Then again, I thought that Trump was a baffoon, a threat to national and global security and all these things that were supposed to make everyone miserable, make non whites suffer etc etc and yet metric after metric has shown quote literally the opposite. Can't be a baffoon or bull in a China shop and not destroy or even disrupt "something that is already in motion".


----------



## Vic Capri

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/112244047195803648
Trump = Nostradamus

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

He has the right idea, but again tax cuts need to happen alongside shrunken government spending - which is not happening. In fact, the Federal government is spending more than it was before the Tax Cuts: 










When the expectation is that everyone has money, it leads to an increase in demand and slow rise in inflation. People are already starting to borrow more on the expectation of bigger paychecks this year and many people are not saving at all. This will lead to inflation and rising interest rates. 



> News that the economy did all right in 2017 landed Friday with a benign thud, but behind that thud lurks a red flag.
> 
> For the duration of this economic expansion, consumer spending has been the dynamo driving growth in gross domestic product, or GDP. But now there are indications Americans are getting a little too dynamic.
> 
> Their actions are out of whack. For the past two years, spending has risen faster than disposable personal income, as has been pointed out by Jason Furman, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama. For most of the recovery, the two measures remained relatively close. But as the labor market tightens, consumers are getting frisky even though hourly earnings aren’t growing any faster than prices right now.
> 
> This surfaces most starkly in the personal saving rate, which is the biggest red flag in Friday’s otherwise benign report. According to Grant Thornton Chief Economist Diane Swonk, it’s been this high only one other time in history: when the popularity of home-equity lines of credit soared in the third quarter of 2005, at the peak of the housing boom.


http://www.businessinsider.com/federal-reserve-fomc-statement-interest-rate-decision-january-2018-1



> In a unanimous vote, the Federal Open Market Committee left its benchmark interest rate unchanged in a range of 1.25%-1.50%. It's expected to hike again during its meeting in March.
> 
> The biggest change to the Fed's statement was on inflation. The FOMC acknowledged that inflation expectations recently increased, and said it expected the rate of price changes "to move up this year" and stabilize around its 2% objective "over the medium term."
> 
> Although inflation is still not running at the Fed's 2% target, it has stopped falling. Additionally, the 10-year inflation breakeven rate — one of the market-based measures of inflation expectations that the Fed tracks — has risen to its highest level in over three years.


At the same time, I'm already noticing the impact of inflation on our monthly spending so we've decided to spend less while it seems like everyone is spending more. I feel like this is the right time to save rather than spend but I'm generally always more cautious than most fiscal conservatives.


----------



## Draykorinee

Merry Reaper said:


> So the military itself that has claimed to have become more efficient and effective citong that Trump has 'loosened the reigns' is lying but you and the media and liberal supporters have some insider's knowledge that the military itself is either unaware of or lying about.
> 
> Then again, I thought that Trump was a baffoon, a threat to national and global security and all these things that were supposed to make everyone miserable, make non whites suffer etc etc and yet metric after metric has shown quote literally the opposite. Can't be a baffoon or bull in a China shop and not destroy or even disrupt "something that is already in motion".


I didn't say Trump hasn't helped, he deserved credit for finishing the job, but it's only fair to also give Obama credit, which was why I had to put the other guy in his place.


----------



## Tater

@Makise Kurisu @DesolationRow @BruiserKC






This is _Reagan's_ budget director who is saying all the same things I've been saying about bubbles and the upcoming crash. Cavuto is a fucking moron but Stockman is a smart guy. I don't agree with his solutions but his analysis of what the Trump administration is doing is spot on.


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *DNC raises $67 million in 2017, half of RNC’s haul*
> 
> The Democratic National Committee will report raising $5.2 million in December, bringing its total 2017 fundraising to $67 million, according to paperwork that will be filed Wednesday.
> 
> That figure includes $1.2 million raised by the Democratic Grassroots Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee between the national and state parties launched in October, and over $30 million in grass-roots donations —averaging $21 dollars each — overall.
> 
> The total is slightly ahead of the party's haul in 2013 and 2015, the previous off-years when Democrats had the benefit of a president from their party in the White House. It's far behind the behind the $108 million that the DNC raised in 2011, however.
> 
> It also badly trails the Republican National Committee, which raised $11.1 million in December for a 2017 total of $132.5 million.
> 
> The RNC has $38.8 million cash on hand. *The DNC will report $6.5 million cash on hand, but its debt is now $6.2 million*.
> 
> Obama did one fundraiser for the DNC last year, but is planning on doing more in the year ahead.
> 
> The DNC saw a late uptick in contributions after last fall's statewide wins in Virginia and Alabama. Its fundraising report comes amid Democratic optimism about a wave in this year’s midterms but anxiety that it lacks the operational structure to take advantage. What's more, some officials fear they won't have the money needed to build up that structure this year or ahead of the 2020 presidential race.


https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/30/democratic-national-committee-fundraising-379360

Democrats having money problems ? Ya don't say


----------



## Tater

Stinger Fan said:


> https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/30/democratic-national-committee-fundraising-379360
> 
> Democrats having money problems ? Ya don't say


The donors see them failing and the base is slowly coming to the realization that not only do they not represent their interests, but they are the biggest impediments to them. Both halves of the duopoly need to be wiped out. If the Democrats go first, that just means it's the GOP's turn next.


----------



## virus21

> Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald has resigned as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention after a report said she traded Japan Tobacco while leading the agency.
> "Dr. Fitzgerald owns certain complex financial interests that have imposed a broad recusal limiting her ability to complete all of her duties as the CDC director," a Department of Health and Human Services spokesman said in a statement.
> Fitzgerald had been in the position since July.
> 
> 
> The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention just resigned.
> Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald, who had served as director since July, had financial interests that recused her from much of her duties.
> Politico reported Tuesday that Fitzgerald purchased stock in Japan Tobacco while serving as CDC director. Fitzgerald had also bought shares of the pharmaceutical companies Merck and Bayer and of the health insurer Humana.
> The purchase of the tobacco shares especially raised concerns, because one of the CDC's goals is to prevent smoking.
> "You don’t buy tobacco stocks when you are the head of the CDC," Richard Painter, a former chief ethics officer under President George W. Bush, told Politico. "It’s ridiculous; it gives a terrible appearance."
> Fitzgerald submitted her resignation to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, who was sworn in on Monday.
> "Dr. Fitzgerald owns certain complex financial interests that have imposed a broad recusal limiting her ability to complete all of her duties as the CDC director," an HHS spokesman, Matt Lloyd, said in a statement. "Due to the nature of these financial interests, Dr. Fitzgerald could not divest from them in a definitive time period."


http://archive.is/QV1sm#selection-915.0-993.337


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/112244047195803648
> Trump = Nostradamus
> 
> - Vic


https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-ca...r-getting-tax-cuts-from-trump.html/?a=viewall


These Companies Started Laying Off Employees Right After Taking Trump’s Tax Cuts

While GOP members of Congress wanted to pass their tax plan, they aimed to sell it on benefits for average Americans. Certainly, tax experts argued that low-income workers would hardly benefit at all. Meanwhile, anyone who crunched the numbers saw that CEOs and the richest Americans (including Donald Trump) would be the big winners.

Yet still Paul Ryan said Corporate America, which got a 40% reduction in its tax rate, would pass along its newfound riches to employees. Ryan released a statement saying his party’s plan would “create jobs, increase wages for workers, and level the playing field.”

There was one problem: The GOP tax plan provided no guarantees for workers. If a company wanted to lay off thousands of employees, “tax reform” allowed them to do it. For companies that wanted to pocket the money and boost their stock price, they could do that, too. Or they could just offshore the jobs to Asia.

Well, all those things happened. Within weeks of the tax bill passing, America’s richest corporations started laying off workers. By the third week of January, it had become a feeding frenzy, with one company saying it would lay off over 5,000 employees and use its tax cut for “restructuring.” Somehow, it doesn’t sound like a great deal for American workers.

Here are 11 U.S. companies that started firing employees right after they got their tax cut. 

1. Pfizer

Pfizer said it would eliminate 300 jobs in New England. | Spencer Platt/Getty Images
If you need a summary of the state of U.S. healthcare and/or employment, simply check the plans Pfizer announced in January 2018. According to Reuters, the company valued at $53 billion will cut 300 research jobs in New England.

Those employees conducted tests on drugs aimed at treating Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease. Pfizer, which will continue down the usual track with drugs like Viagra, is set to save billions from Trump’s tax cuts.

Next: Trump spoke too soon about this company’s moves after the tax cuts passed.

2. AT&T 
The AT&T logo
AT&T laid off hundreds of employees in Missouri just before Christmas 2017. | Etienne FRANCHI/Getty Images
“AT&T plans to increase U.S. capital spending $1 billion and provide $1,000 special bonus to more than 200,000 U.S. employees, and that’s because of what we did,” Trump told the nation on December 20.

That same night, hundreds of AT&T employees in Missouri learned they were being fired just in time for Christmas. Trump did not follow up with a statement on that development, but the local union president did.

“How can you lay people off and then give them $1,000 and say that there’s going to be more jobs available? I wish someone could tell me how that’s possible,” said Joseph Blanco of the Communication Workers of America Union.

AT&T continued announcing layoffs into the new year. At last count, some 4,000 people were expected to lose their jobs. A lawsuit filed in Texas will challenge the legality of over 700 layoffs in that state.

Next: This $42 billion company announced it will lay off at least 5,000 U.S. employees while closing 10 plants.

3. Kimberly-Clark

The maker of Kleenex said it would shut down 10 factories in 2018 .| Kimberly-Clark Corp. via Getty Images
This one will affect a large number of communities. Kimberly-Clark, the $42 billion company behind Huggies diapers and Kleenex tissues, said it would shut down 10 factories and lay off up between 5,000 and 5,500 workers in 2018, the Washington Post reported on January 23. The Dallas-based company spoke in very globalist terms about the move, which affects 13% of its employees.

“We anticipate ongoing annual cash flow benefits from tax reform,” CFO Maria Henry said in a conference call. Henry added that Kimberly-Clark now had the “flexibility to continue to allocate significant capital to shareholders” during its “restructuring program.”

So shareholders will get more money while thousands of workers get pink slips. These jobs won’t come back, and businesses near the shuttered factories will feel the impact, too.

Next: One of America’s most hated corporations couldn’t help laying off hundreds of employees before Christmas.

4. Comcast
comcast van
Comcast fired 500 employees shortly before Christmas 2017. | Joe Raedle/Getty Images
What was a $199 billion company to do? Tax reform obviously had the votes in the GOP Congress and would pass. In Comcast’s case, the company stood to gain over $12 billion in a single year.

So the corporation quietly fired over 500 sales employees in the Southeast and Midwest, the Philadelphia Inquirer confirmed. Those cuts came right before Christmas.

Comcast said the $1,000 bonus it splashed across the news would serve as severance for the laid-off employees. However, we learned the real benefits of tax reform in the final week of January.

Comcast raised stockholder dividend payouts 21% and said it will do $5 billion in stock buybacks in 2018. Compared to the $171 million it spent on employee bonuses, the cable giant spent 30 times as much on shareholders.

Next: You knew America’s biggest employer couldn’t resist a few thousand layoffs after the tax plan windfall.

5. Walmart
Sam's Club To Close Over 60 Stores
Walmart announced it would close 63 Sam’s Club stores. | Scott Olson/Getty Images
With Walmart, the country’s biggest employer, there were a couple of stories going around. First, we heard the company’s decision to raise the minimum wage for some employees and give bonuses to others. This bit of PR-bait made it all the way to the White House, and Trump celebrated. However, there was bad news that same day.

On January 11, the company abruptly closed 63 of its Sam’s Club stores, affecting thousands of employees. The company said some employees could find work in other locations; others wouldn’t. Apparently, the $313 billion company’s newfound billions could not protect a few thousand low-wage jobs.

But weren’t those wage hikes were a huge success for tax reform? “Given how low unemployment is, they would have had to hike wages anyway,” Brian Yarbrough, an Edward Jones analyst, told Reuters. “The tax bill just made that move easier.”

Next: The tech sector had a hard time weathering the storm caused by the added billions as well.

6. Microsoft
Microsoft Silicon Valley Center
Microsoft laid off hundreds in January 2018. | jejim/iStock/Getty Images
When you’re a tech giant with a market cap over $700 billion, you have to play it safe with employment levels. After all, Microsoft could repatriate $128 billion to the U.S. at discount tax rates.

None of that was enough to save “hundreds of employees” who got the axe in the final week of January. It’s almost as if corporate spending on development and workers had nothing to do with tax reform.

Next: Tax reform couldn’t save an extra 700 layoffs at this health care company.

7. Tenet Healthcare

Health care jobs were eliminated | Miya227/iStock/Getty Images
Several strange things happened with Tenet Healthcare, a company worth billions, both before and after Congress passed the tax plan. First, the company announced it would raise the number of jobs it was eliminating from 1,300 to 2,000 employees, with several hundred coming at Detroit Medical Center. The following day, the company’s stock price began a climb that left shares up nearly 25% within two weeks.

When people warned that CEOs would simply take the extra millions from tax reform and throw it on top of the pile, they were probably referring to this type of scenario.

Next: This European company took its tax plan windfall and eliminated dozens of Indiana workers.

8. Schneider Electric

The CEO of French electrical equipment giant Schneider Electric, Jean-Pascal Tricoire, speaks during the group’s general assembly on April 25, 2017. | Eric Piermont/AFP/Getty Images
If Indiana workers didn’t like the deal Trump and Vice President Mike Pence made with Carrier, maybe they hoped for better from European company Schneider Electric. After all, foreign investors were set to pocket $70 billion in just one year under the tax plan.

Unfortunately, in yet another sign capital investment and taxes are unrelated, Schneider announced 61 workers at an Indiana facility would lose their jobs in 2018.

Next: This $204 billion company couldn’t afford to keep 53 Atlanta-area employees.

9. Coca Cola

Coca Cola laid off dozens at a Georgia plant. | George Frey/Getty Images
When you hear of a company with a $204 billion market cap letting 53 employees go, you have to really worry about its state of affairs. If so, direct your concerns toward Coca Cola, the beverage giant that took its tax cut and laid off dozens of employees from a Georgia plant.

Reductions in the corporate tax rate (now way down at 20%) allow Coke executives to play with billions, but these low-wage jobs simply could not be saved.

Next: Speaking of Carrier, do you hear how many jobs the company eliminated in January 2018?

10. Carrier

Renee Elliott, 44, address a news conference on January 10, 2018, a day before she was to be laid off from her job at a Carrier factory in Indianapolis, Indiana. | NOVA SAFO/AFP/Getty Images
You may remember the Carrier episode from December 2016 in a few different ways. For Trump and Pence, it was a great day for America as the company got a $7 million tax break in exchange for keeping a few hundred jobs in Indiana.

Those who worked inside the plant saw it a different way: as a PR spectacle that meant nothing when it came to saving jobs.

One year later, with its corporate tax rate slashed, Carrier laid off 215 employees in January 2018. Those jobs went directly to Mexico, where workers will earn $3 per hour, Reuters reported.

Next: Dozens of employees won’t run on Dunkin’ anymore.

11. Dunkin’ Donuts
Dunkin Donuts
Dunkin’ Donuts said it would eliminate 40 jobs. | iStock/Getty Images
Finally, we close with Dunkin’ brands, a company with a $6 billion market cap. In total, the company said it would eliminate 40 jobs that are currently filled and leave another 40 unfilled jobs that way around the globe.

Apparently, those millions in saved taxes won’t help the company keep its U.S. employees — or fill jobs that it had staffed in the past. If we didn’t know any better, we’d say corporations didn’t think about employees when it planned what to do with their money.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> The donors see them failing and the base is slowly coming to the realization that not only do they not represent their interests, but they are the biggest impediments to them. Both halves of the duopoly need to be wiped out. If the Democrats go first, that just means it's the GOP's turn next.


GOP will fall apart because they're not true conservatives. The DNC will get lots of money from tech companies and other sources like it. There is a lot of shady companies that donate to the DNC. (Yes shady companies donate to the GOP, making the point companies will still invest.)


----------



## virus21




----------



## Vic Capri

Yeah, I thought that was weird since they've been plugging his book for weeks.



> Obama had already done the lion's share of the work.







This video didn't age well. Proof from Obama's own mouth that anyone giving him credit for Trump's boom is dead wrong. 

Trump also removed 800 Obama regulations to make it happen!

- Vic


----------



## BruiserKC

Tater said:


> @Makise Kurisu @DesolationRow @BruiserKC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is _Reagan's_ budget director who is saying all the same things I've been saying about bubbles and the upcoming crash. Cavuto is a fucking moron but Stockman is a smart guy. I don't agree with his solutions but his analysis of what the Trump administration is doing is spot on.


The tax cut may have put a few extra dollars in our pockets but has added $3 trillion to our national debt. At some point the market will correct itself, always does. Plus, I want to see job reports in a few months as that will tell the real impact on this plan. Trump talked during the campaign about making the playing field better for American companies to bring back jobs and create them as well.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

This is where Joe Kennedy III who gave that very emotional State of the Union rebuttal grew up: 










This is just one of 9 properties working class hero Mr. Michael Moore owns: 










This is where Ms. J K Rowling (advocate of mass refugee resettlements into Europe) lives ... To this date she has not taken in a single refugee: 










---

This is where 20 million Americans live: 










There are 21 NAMED "Tent Cities" in America. 









Safe-ground, Sacramento



> Named[edit]
> 
> Side Street in Dignity Village, Portland, Oregon
> 
> The Right 2 Dream Too camp in Portland, Oregon
> Camp Hope, Las Cruces, New Mexico [1]
> Camp Quixote, Olympia, Washington State[2]
> Camp Take Notice, Ann Arbor, Michigan[3]
> Dignity Village, Portland, Oregon
> Opportunity Village, Eugene, Oregon
> Maricopa County Sheriff's Tent City, Phoenix, Arizona
> New Jack City and Little Tijuana, Fresno, California[2]
> Nickelsville, located in Seattle[2][4]
> Right 2 Dream Too, Portland, Oregon[5]
> River Haven,[6] Ventura County, California[7]
> Safe Ground, Sacramento, California[2]
> The Jungle, San Jose, California[8]
> Temporary Homeless Service Area (THSA), Ontario, California[2]
> Tent City (100+ residents) of Lakewood, New Jersey[9][10]
> Tent City, Avenue A and 13th Street, Lubbock, Texas[11]
> Tent City, Bernalillo County, New Mexico[12]
> Tent City, banks of the American River, Sacramento, California[13][14][15][16][17][18][19]
> Tent City, Chicago, Illinois [1]
> Tent City 4, eastern King County outside of Seattle
> The Point, where the Gunnison River and Colorado River meet[20]
> The Village of Hope and Community of Hope, Fresno, California[2]
> Transition Park, Camden, New Jersey
> Tent City, Fayette County, Tennessee, [2]
> Camp Unity Eastside, Woodinville, WA [3]


Yeah ... These rich people really know what the "poor" needs :lmao

The rich (especially on the left) are also the ones claiming that a few hundred - thousand dollars "is chump change" ... of course it is to them.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reap said:


> This is where Joe Kennedy III who gave that very emotional State of the Union rebuttal grew up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just one of 9 properties working class hero Mr. Michael Moore owns:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where Ms. J K Rowling (advocate of mass refugee resettlements into Europe) lives ... To this date she has not taken in a single refugee:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> This is where 20 million Americans live:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ... These people really know what the "poor" needs :lmao
> 
> The rich (especially on the left) are also the ones claiming that a few hundred - thousand dollars "is chump change" ... of course it is to them.


The "Heroes" of the poor tend to be people who've never been poor and always had wealth or have wealth now. Yet they don't use their massive wealth to help others. How much of that 1 billion dollars does J.K need? Yet these jackals want to tax everyone and everything, not them though! Special loop holes for them, not so much anyone else.

Why anyone listens to these people is beyond me. These people advocating for everything be free often get loads of handouts and penny pinch and only help themselves.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> The "Heroes" of the poor tend to be people who've never been poor and always had wealth or have wealth now. Yet they don't use their massive wealth to help others. How much of that 1 billion dollars does J.K need? Yet these jackals want to tax everyone and everything, not them though! Special loop holes for them, not so much anyone else.
> 
> Why anyone listens to these people is beyond me. These people advocating for everything be free often get loads of handouts and penny pinch and only help themselves.


Well, I think that the reason is obvious. We don't teach kids econ 101 in HS so they have no clue how taxing stuff results in their own poverty. Especially the middle class. There's a reason why despite massive tax burdens rich people still make profits - and it's because the consumer is paying their taxes for them. The rich person's tax burden is built into the cost of the product he sells to you therefore the rich never actually pay a tax. 

You're paying his taxes every time you buy anything from him. 

They don't even realize that those who own capital always find a way to transfer the tax burden onto the consumer. That's why instead of becoming workers, people need to become capitalists. Instead of going to college and accumulating massive debt, most people would be better off using that debt to start a business or something like that. 

Selling products / services >>>> Selling labor. Simple solution to life.


----------



## The Absolute

Happy memo day, y'all.


----------



## Reaper

So it really is as bad as they were claiming it to be. I half thought for a while that it wouldn't be. 

Incredible.


----------



## Kabraxal

Reap said:


> So it really is as bad as they were claiming it to be. I half thought for a while that it wouldn't be.
> 
> Incredible.


“B b b but it’s nothing! The narrative isn’t falling to peices so utterly. Trump is bad! Bad bad bad! Impeach LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”

Think that summarises the reactions I’ve seen from the progressive side. 

It’s sickening that not only is the media and gov’t so fucked up, but that so many people want to ignore facts so they can hold on to their precious narratives.


----------



## Draykorinee

So we now have zero trust in the FBI.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> So we now have zero trust in the FBI.


Americans haven't trusted the FBI since its inception. FBI and CIA are a huge reason why there are so many people who simply want to "live off the grid" here. The push/pull between the Americans and federal agencies isn't new. 

All this did was remind us why we have always been suspicious and why we should continue to be. This is a big step towards reigning in the elite and I think it's a good thing.


----------



## Kabraxal

Reap said:


> Americans haven't trusted the FBI since its inception. FBI and CIA are a huge reason why there are so many people who simply want to "live off the grid" here. The push/pull between the Americans and federal agencies isn't new.
> 
> All this did was remind us why we have always been suspicious and why we should continue to be. This is a big step towards reigning in the elite and I think it's a good thing.


It’s saddening that so many are making light of all this... abuse of power and the amount of collusion between gov’t parties and the media highlighted in this should terrify everyone regardless of a D or R. This country is almost too far gone and yet partisan fools want to ignore it because it doesn’t help their side. 

Starting to get really pissed at those idiots. Wake the fuck up.


----------



## Reaper

Kabraxal said:


> It’s saddening that so many are making light of all this... abuse of power and the amount of collusion between gov’t parties and the media highlighted in this should terrify everyone regardless of a D or R. This country is almost too far gone and yet partisan fools want to ignore it because it doesn’t help their side.
> 
> Starting to get really pissed at those idiots. Wake the fuck up.


It is incredible that people are downplaying corruption at the highest level when we KNOW that the ENTIRE Iraq War fiasco was based on flawed intel.

People have already forgotten the Downing Street memo. It's crazy.


----------



## CamillePunk

Ben Shapiro's nuanced take on the memo: 



> The memo is out, and it’s damning.
> 
> But it’s not the end of the Mueller investigation. In fact, the memo provides evidence that if President Trump were to fire Mueller, he’d be doing so on the false pretense that the entire investigation was predicated on a Hillary/DOJ/FBI/Obama nexus of coordination. The memo itself disproves that notion. With that said, the Democrats’ attempts to stifle the memo on national security grounds appear to have been totally and completely specious and ridiculous to boot.
> 
> So, here’s what you need to know about the memo, if its allegations are true.
> 
> 1. The FBI and DOJ lied to the FISA Court about the grounds for a warrant on Trump foreign policy advisor Carter Page. According to the memo, the Fusion GPS dossier, compiled by Christopher Steele and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, was the central basis for the FISA warrant against Page. But that dossier was obviously biased — and that information was never turned over to the FISA court. The memo states, “The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of — and paid by — the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information.” Furthermore, the FBI did not independently verify the claims of the Steele dossier in any serious way before seeking the FISA warrant. Those involved in the application include current deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, which is likely why President Trump refused to rule out firing him today.
> 
> 2. The media helped garner the warrant. The Carter Page FISA application apparently cited a Yahoo News article that was based on leaks from Steele to the news outlet. But that was not independent corroborating evidence of the Steele dossier — it was a repetition of the information Steele was disseminating. Steele was later suspended and terminated from the FBI for “an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI.”
> 
> 3. Steele didn’t like Trump, but this information wasn’t included in the FISA application either. According to the memo, Steele told associate deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr that he was “desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” Ohr didn’t report that in the FISA application, nor was information that Ohr’s wife worked for Fusion GPS on compiling opposition research on Trump revealed to the FISA Court.
> 
> 4. Most importantly, the Carter Page application was NOT the launching point of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation. This is the most important point. If the Page FISA warrant had been the centerpiece and launching point of the investigation, Trump might have grounds to shut the whole thing down — Trump could claim, rightly, that the FBI, DOJ, and Hillary campaign worked together to trump up these charges, and then weaponized our intelligence and law enforcement community against him. But the memo itself states that “The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos. …The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok.” The memo points out that Strzok was also anti-Trump, but provides no evidence that the Papadopoulos investigation was biased — and that would be hard to prove, since Papadopoulos has now pled guilty to lying to the FBI. So the notion of the Mueller investigation as a sort of “fruit of the poisonous tree” springing from Page is undercut by the memo.
> 
> 5. This memo doesn’t endanger national security. It’s nearly impossible to see how this memo endangers national security. Democrats can’t express a clear reason. The FBI can’t. The DOJ can’t. Which makes it look as though they were all covering their asses in an attempt to avoid culpability for an attempted political hit on Trump.
> 
> So, here’s where we are: the FBI and DOJ clearly cut corners in an effort to push forward the Trump-Russia investigation. They worked with Fusion GPS materials to do so, and didn’t tell the FISA court. And then they apparently fibbed to the American people about the supposed risks to the intelligence community if the public found out about their original lies by omission. But the Page warrant isn’t the entirety of the investigation, and attempts to take down the entire investigation based on this memo will be a wild oversell.


Really makes no sense for the neocons, Dems, and intelligence folks to go around saying releasing this compromises national security. All it does is make the FBI look terrible, because they did terrible things and tried to play kingmaker. How does that compromise national security? Just fire everyone involved and move on. Trump should be in his comfort zone here.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/959498317783642113


----------



## birthday_massacre

The memo is most damning to Trump lol

Carter Page a possible Russian spy, just another Trump connection to Russia

Also this memo was written by the GOP and edited by the white house.

Trump is done.


----------



## Cabanarama

I don't know what's funnier...
This memo, which was meant to discredit the FBI and the Mueller investigation, has if anything, done more to validate than discredit
or
That even though this memo has turned out to be a complete and utter epic fail, all the Trumptards in their fantasy world are pretending as if it actually has any merit to it


----------



## birthday_massacre

Cabanarama said:


> I don't know what's funnier...
> This memo, which was meant to discredit the FBI and the Mueller investigation, has if anything, done more to validate than discredit
> or
> That even though this memo has turned out to be a complete and utter epic fail, all the Trumptards in their fantasy world are pretending as if it actually has any merit to it


Yeah reading the memo shows how little biased there is even when it was written by a pro GOP point of view. This is the best they could do lol


----------



## Kabraxal

Cabanarama said:


> I don't know what's funnier...
> This memo, which was meant to discredit the FBI and the Mueller investigation, has if anything, done more to validate than discredit
> or
> That even though this memo has turned out to be a complete and utter epic fail, all the Trumptards in their fantasy world are pretending as if it actually has any merit to it


Proving my point. I’d love being proven right so easily if it wasn’t over something do serious....


----------



## Cabanarama

Kabraxal said:


> It’s sickening that not only is the media and gov’t so fucked up, but that so many people want to ignore facts so they can hold on to their precious narratives.


You pretty much described every Trump supporter to a T



Kabraxal said:


> It’s saddening that so many are making light of all this... abuse of power and the amount of collusion between gov’t parties and the media highlighted in this should terrify everyone regardless of a D or R. This country is almost too far gone and yet partisan fools want to ignore it because it doesn’t help their side.
> 
> Starting to get really pissed at those idiots. Wake the fuck up.


Again, you pretty much described everything that's going on with Trump, all his propagandists in the media, and his braindead base of supporters.



birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah reading the memo shows how little biased there is even when it was written by a pro GOP point of view. This is the best they could do lol


It's like, they don't even need to release Adam Schiff's version of the memo. Nunez has done enough for them


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> Proving my point. I’d love being proven right so easily if it wasn’t over something do serious....


Trump is doing everything he can to shut down this investigation because Trump has something to hide

He is guilty. No one that is innocent would do what Trump has done.


----------



## Cabanarama

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is doing everything he can to shut down this investigation because Trump has something to hide
> 
> He is guilty. No one that is innocent would do what Trump has done.


Exactly. Bottom line is, if Trump didn't do anything wrong, then they would welcome this investigation so they could clear themselves of wrongdoing. The fact that Trump and his shills are doing everything they can to put an end to it and are grasping and straws shows that they are scared shitless of being exposed as the corrupt criminals that they are


----------



## Kabraxal

Cabanarama said:


> You pretty much described every Trump supporter to a T
> 
> 
> Again, you pretty much described everything that's going on with Trump, all his propagandists in the media, and his braindead base of supporters.
> 
> 
> It's like, they don't even need to release Adam Schiff's version of the memo. Nunez has done enough for them


Jesus fucking christ put you god damned hatred for Trump aside. I don’t give a fuck about Trump’s association with this memo, i care about the fucking FACT that gov’t parties are directly toying with shit and the media is colluding with them. That is terrifying.

But you and others want to scream “Trump Trump Trump!”. You are calling others beaindead but are here screaming partisan bullshit instead of dealing with shit that leads to tyrannies and dominance of gov’t over its people.

Grow up.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> Jesus fucking christ put you god damned hatred for Trump aside. I don’t give a fuck about Trump’s association with this memo, i care about the fucking FACT that gov’t parties are directly toying with shit and the media is colluding with them. That is terrifying.
> 
> But you and others want to scream “Trump Trump Trump!”. You are calling others beaindead but are here screaming partisan bullshit instead of dealing with shit that leads to tyrannies and dominance of gov’t over its people.
> 
> Grow up.


You should care about Trump’s association with this memo especially if he had part in writing it or having input on what went in it or what was left out.

Trump having an associating with this memo is huge if we want to talk about biases.


----------



## Cabanarama

Kabraxal said:


> Jesus fucking christ put you god damned hatred for Trump aside. I don’t give a fuck about Trump’s association with this memo, i care about the fucking FACT that gov’t parties are directly toying with shit and the media is colluding with them. That is terrifying.
> 
> But you and others want to scream “Trump Trump Trump!”. You are calling others beaindead but are here screaming partisan bullshit instead of dealing with shit that leads to tyrannies and dominance of gov’t over its people.
> 
> Grow up.


You're right about government parties directly toying with shit, media colluding with them. But it's Nunez and the rest of the Trump shills in congress that are doing it, with the help of Fox "News" and the rest of the right wing propaganda outlets that are screaming partisan bullshit, and it's Trump and crew that are doing the shit that leads to tyrannies and dominance of government over its people. The only thing that's preventing this country from turning this country into a dictatorship (aside for the utter incompetence of Trump and his cronies) is the opposition towards Trump and the GOP.


----------



## Kabraxal

Cabanarama said:


> You're right about government parties directly toying with shit, media colluding with them. But it's Nunez and the rest of the Trump shills in congress that are doing it, with the help of Fox "News" and the rest of the right wing propaganda outlets that are screaming partisan bullshit, and it's Trump and crew that are doing the shit that leads to tyrannies and dominance of government over its people. The only thing that's preventing this country from turning this country into a dictatorship (aside for the utter incompetence of Trump and his cronies) is the opposition towards Trump and the GOP.


My lord... I can’t with you anymore. So far gone into the partisan rabbit hole you are just beyond hope. You are the exact type of person I was talking about. So lost in the partisan bullshit you are missing the facts in front of you.


----------



## Vic Capri

Everything that disagrees with haters is propaganda. :lol

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> My lord... I can’t with you anymore. So far gone into the partisan rabbit hole you are just beyond hope. You are the exact type of person I was talking about. So lost in the partisan bullshit you are missing the facts in front of you.


LOL yeah ignore all the facts against Trump. Oh the projection by posters like you

You are so lost in the Trump BS you ignore reality


----------



## Kabraxal

Vic Capri said:


> Everything that disagrees with haters is propaganda. :lol
> 
> - Vic


It’s absolutely terrifying we are seeing “divide and conquer” in action... so many aren’t pissed about this information because of the actual revelations, they are pissed (or pleased) because of which side it might help.

The only side I’m on is the one that isn’t okay with the gov’t abusing power and parts of that gov’t willingly colluding with the media to get what it wants. Fuck republicans. Fuck democrats. I don’t give a singke shit about those parties here. I give a massive, heart sinking terrified fuck about more concrete proof our gov’t is not just teetering toward tyranny, but actively working for it. 

Instead, a bunch of ignorant fools are screaming about their precious fucking party. I just want to slap them all and tell them to wake the fuck up.


----------



## Cabanarama

Kabraxal said:


> My lord... I can’t with you anymore. So far gone into the partisan rabbit hole you are just beyond hope. You are the exact type of person I was talking about. So lost in the partisan bullshit you are missing the facts in front of you.


You've really mastered this whole projection thing haven't you?
I'm not the one living in the Trumptard fantasy world filled with alternative facts....



Vic Capri said:


> Everything that disagrees with haters is propaganda. :lol
> 
> - Vic


So now, disconnecting yourself from reality and spreading whatever made up bullshit you can come up with is now called "disagrees with haters" according to your Trumptard lingo :lol


----------



## Kabraxal

Cabanarama said:


> You've really mastered this whole projection thing haven't you?
> I'm not the one living in the Trumptard fantasy world filled with alternative facts....
> 
> 
> So now, disconnecting yourself from reality and spreading whatever made up bullshit you can come up with is now called "disagrees with haters" according to your Trumptard lingo :lol


Keep bleeting about Trump and using juvenile insults. Clear intelligent and reasoned discussion is not possible with you. Good day.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Kabraxal said:


> Keep bleeting about Trump and using juvenile insults. Clear intelligent and reasoned discussion is not possible with you. Good day.


LOL you are the one who started the juvenile insults because you can't refute what he said. Just more projection from you.

You are just pissed because the memo was a huge nothing burger.


----------



## FriedTofu

So people that dislike the targets cannot be credible sources for an application for investigations? The Memo is nothing but a propaganda tool I've seen from my own authoritarian government over the years. The investigative results do not matter because they do not like the leadership. :lmao

Is Nunes working for Russia to get Carter Page off the hook on something?


----------



## virus21




----------



## Arkham258

LOL at certain people in this thread who continue to spout bullshit even as facts supporting everything Trump says come to light

What's hilarious is that there is more stuff coming and even as more facts come out they'll still tell us we're in fantasy land and then spout some nonsense about Russia

The Trump haters don't even see how they are getting worked so hard by people like Shiff and other Deep State puppets


----------



## Art Vandaley

The memo contained literally nothing we haven't known for months, people acting like it was something interesting or backed up Trump in any way are being ridiculous.

Yes surviellance was launched partly on the basis of the Steele memo, which was done as part of opposition research set and originally funded by Republicans against Trump during the Primary and then further funded by the Hilary campaign as it had already apparently found alot, but importantly the surveillance wasn't done on that alone, not that there would have been anything wrong had it been so, but it was actually done because members of Trumps own team boasted about the collusion to foreign officials, including the Australian ambassador (who I actually used to be a big fan of back in the day funnily enough, even though he was always a rightwinger) who passed it on and the surveillance was actually done on the word of the Australian ambassador more than the memo. 

Anyway the surviellance done on the basis of the dossier and the Australian ambassador's info.

The surviellance then found things, and those things lead to the investigation. 

Yet republicans are now trying to argue that the investigation (which has already with several convictions been more successful than most similar investigations in history) shouldn't have happened because it was based on info found by surveillance and the surveillance was based only partially on initial info which was funded by people out to get Trump, ignoring the fact that no surveillance was launched on the basis of the dossier alone, surviellance only being launched after the Australian Ambassador passed on what Trumps own people had told him about their collusion. 

If that is the best Republicans can do in their fight against the investigation Trump is truly screwed.

They should have kept the memo secret, it was more damaging when we didn't know what was in it and the Republicans could pretend there was something new there.


----------



## FriedTofu

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/2/16965146/nunes-memo-dud-analysis



> Again and again, the memo makes allusions and suggestions that it does not manage to back up with facts.
> 
> It’s conspicuously vague on dates in several key places and overall tends to downplay or omit information that doesn’t fit its desired narrative (that politically motivated FBI and DOJ officials supposedly abused the FISA process in the surveillance of Carter Page).
> 
> In particular:
> 
> Nunes doesn’t explain that the government only surveilled Carter Page well after he’d left the Trump campaign.
> 
> Nunes accuses the FBI of not disclosing things he admits the bureau didn’t even know about.
> 
> Nunes criticizes one top justice official, but he doesn’t claim that official had anything to do with surveillance of Carter Page.
> 
> And Nunes buries the lede — that the Trump-Russia investigation was started for a very good reason having nothing to do with Christopher Steele’s dossier.


Basically Nunes's point is the DoJ and FBI colluded to take down Trump because they did not know what Steele was up to?


----------



## Cabanarama

I think the guy in this GIF is the perfect analogy of Nunes and the other Trump cultists pushing this memo:








You notice how the only ones in congress pushing this memo were the most hardcore Trump cultists and the Freedom Caucus sociopaths. 
It's pretty hilarious watching the Trumptards desperately reaching for anything to try to discredit/ stop the Mueller investigation before the hammer comes down.


----------



## Draykorinee

FriedTofu said:


> https://www.vox.com/2018/2/2/16965146/nunes-memo-dud-analysis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again and again, the memo makes allusions and suggestions that it does not manage to back up with facts.
> 
> It’s conspicuously vague on dates in several key places and overall tends to downplay or omit information that doesn’t fit its desired narrative (that politically motivated FBI and DOJ officials supposedly abused the FISA process in the surveillance of Carter Page).
> 
> In particular:
> 
> Nunes doesn’t explain that the government only surveilled Carter Page well after he’d left the Trump campaign.
> 
> Nunes accuses the FBI of not disclosing things he admits the bureau didn’t even know about.
> 
> Nunes criticizes one top justice official, but he doesn’t claim that official had anything to do with surveillance of Carter Page.
> 
> And Nunes buries the lede — that the Trump-Russia investigation was started for a very good reason having nothing to do with Christopher Steele’s dossier.
> 
> 
> 
> Basically Nunes's point is the DoJ and FBI colluded to take down Trump because they did not know what Steele was up to?
Click to expand...

Yeah, seems like it's a dud to me, at first I thought it was something but I've read a fair amount and it just seems to be an attempt to discredit the FBI by cherry picking the bits they like.

Embarrassing really. However clearly it's being lapped up by Trump and his supporters.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/959525809823207425
:lmao

In other news, I feel like I'm in the minority in not giving the tiniest little shit about the whole memo business. Even if it's as bad as everyone says it is, it's not like this is anything new to how things work in DC. Both halves of the duopoly are always doing shady shit like this and they always have. All the memo really amounts to is something to keep people distracted and bickering and not paying attention to all the horrible shit being done to the people of the USA by our government. The topic of the memo doesn't really have anything to do with policies that affect the common man but as long as it keeps the focus off the policies that do affect us, then it has served it's purpose as designed.


----------



## virus21

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/959525809823207425
> :lmao
> 
> In other news, I feel like I'm in the minority in not giving the tiniest little shit about the whole memo business. Even if it's as bad as everyone says it is, it's not like this is anything new to how things work in DC. Both halves of the duopoly are always doing shady shit like this and they always have. All the memo really amounts to is something to keep people distracted and bickering and not paying attention to all the horrible shit being done to the people of the USA by our government. The topic of the memo doesn't really have anything to do with policies that affect the common man but as long as it keeps the focus off the policies that do affect us, then it has served it's purpose as designed.


Yes. Same with the whole "Muh Russia" crap.


----------



## birthday_massacre

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ookbinder-eisen-fredrickson-column/303240002/

Nunes memo aims at Russia probe, backfires on Trump and GOP

The real surprise was the degree to which the document undermined the attacks that the president and his allies had been advancing to tarnish Mueller.

When the House Intelligence Committee finally did its dramatic reveal of the so-called Nunes memo, several things were immediately clear — and all were bad for committee chairman Devin Nunes and President Trump , the man his efforts were ultimately intended to benefit. 

The push by Republican leaders to unveil this document, over the strenuous objections of the FBI, the Justice Department and Democrats in Congress, fit a broader pattern of coordinated attacks on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and Trump team ties to Russia. It began as soon as Mueller was appointed with phony claims about conflicts of interest, and has continued until today. The Trump allies' MO: gin up hysteria around unsubstantiated allegations, ignore or suppress efforts to get to the truth, and move on to the next effort to tarnish. 


Most of the allegations in the Nunes memo had already been aired, and others were quickly discredited as misleading or undercut by other information that was excluded from the memo. Indeed, to the extent the document contained any surprises, it was the degree to which it actually undermined the attacks that the president and his allies had been advancing.


One such assault has claimed that the “Steele dossier,” opposition research compiled by the private firm Fusion GPS at the behest of the Clinton campaign, served as the basis for the investigation into the Trump campaign and surveillance of a former campaign aide. However, the Nunes memo says information about Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos — not the Steele dossier — “triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 . . . .” Whether that was intended or not, it undercuts the claim that the Russia investigation is based upon the dossier.

Most importantly, the Nunes memo fails utterly at Trump’s reported purpose in urging its release: to lay the groundwork for firing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees Mueller’s investigation and is key to protecting that investigation going forward.


The memo says almost nothing about Rosenstein. It notes that he was one of five Justice and FBI officials to sign applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) for warrants to wiretap former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. 

One of the others who took the same action was Dana Boente, whom Trump appointed acting attorney general after he fired Obama-administration holdover Sally Yates. Boente, incidentally, was recently chosen to become general counsel of the FBI — a decision that hardly seems consistent with a sincere belief that the Justice Department under his watch abused the surveillance process. The memo’s only other reference to Rosenstein is that a department attorney who met with Fusion GPS officials also did some work with Rosenstein — a factoid with little if any relevance. 

The timeline of Rosenstein’s appointment and likely involvement in the FISA process undermines the idea that under his watch, the FBI hoodwinked a FISA judge into approving a warrant based on information that was less reliable than it claimed. Rosenstein was confirmed on April 25, 2017, long after any (wrongly) alleged shenanigans that launched the FISA process. It appears he did not sign an application to extend the FISA warrant until July — six months after it had been reported that the dossier was produced by Fusion GPS as a work of political opposition research. The supposed hidden origins and motives of the dossier had long been in the public record by then. Rosenstein can hardly be accused of concealing them.

There are nevertheless signs that the White House may still be using the memo to lay the groundwork for Rosenstein’s removal. Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders issued a statement Friday afternoon claiming that the Nunes memo “raises serious concerns about the integrity of decisions made at the highest levels of the Department of Justice and the FBI to use the Government’s most intrusive surveillance tools against American citizens.” 


Firing Rosenstein would be definitive proof in an obstruction of justice case. There is already substantial evidence that Trump has obstructed justice in demanding former FBI Director Jim Comey's loyalty and terminating him when he did not deliver it. We now know Trump made a similar loyalty demand of Rosenstein ("are you on my team?"). If Trump actually moves to fire Rosenstein based on the empty pretext of the Nunes memo, it will represent the final nail in the legal coffin that the president's pattern of conduct indeed amounts to obstruction of justice.

In the meantime, we must not forget that the Nunes memo and the many smears that preceded it impose significant costs to our national security and the rule of law. The coordinated attack on the integrity of the federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies will no doubt reduce public faith in the strength in those institutions and may hamper their ability to obtain intelligence in the future.

Politicizing the FISA process undermines our ability to conduct surveillance on foreign powers and their agents. For that reason, the most disturbing reflection about this episode is not that Nunes chose to engage in such a pointless, partisan battle to save Trump's skin — it’s that Nunes and Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee were willing to sacrifice so much more for that selfish purpose.

Noah Bookbinder is the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, is the chairman of CREW. Caroline Fredrickson is president of the American Constitution Society. Follow them on Twitter: @NoahBookbinder, @NORMEisen, @crfredrickson


----------



## birthday_massacre

http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff...ein-rachel-brand-before-memo-released-2018-2/

Jeff Sessions praised Rod Rosenstein before the Devin Nunes memo was released

US Attorney General Jeff Sessions had glowing words for his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, hours before the Devin Nunes memo was released on Friday.
At a Justice Department event, Sessions said Rosenstein and Rosenstein's deputy, Rachel Brand, represent "the kind of quality and leadership that we want in the department."
Sessions' praise for Rosenstein and Brand caught some attention in part because the Nunes memo attempts to implicate Rosenstein, among others, in accusations of improper surveillance at the FBI and the DOJ.
The attorney general's comments gained further significance after the memo came out, when Trump said "you figure that one out" in response to questions about whether he would seek to fire Rosenstein,

Attorney General Jeff Sessions praised his second-in-command, Rod Rosenstein, hours before the disputed Devin Nunes memo came out on Friday.

Sessions was preparing to speak at a Justice Department event when he paused to applaud Rosenstein and associate attorney general Rachel Brand after she had introduced Sessions to the audience.

"Thank you, Rachel, for your kind words and, more importantly, for your strong leadership as our third in command at the department," Sessions said.

"Rod and Rachel are Harvard graduates, they are experienced lawyers. Rod's had 27 years in the department, Rachel's had a number of years in the department previously, so they both represent the kind of quality and leadership we want in the department," Sessions continued.

His remarks preceded the release of the memo alleging in part that Rosenstein improperly extended surveillance of the Trump campaign adviser Carter Page during the 2016 election.

Rosenstein is one of several law-enforcement officials who signed off on surveillance of Page as part of the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 US election. Page had been a concern for US counterintelligence officials since 2013.

Rosenstein in May 2017 appointed special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee the Russia investigation and he has since been the target of some of President Donald Trump's harshest public criticism. Those criticisms have prompted speculation that Trump was looking for reasons to fire Rosenstein.

When reporters asked Trump on Friday whether he would move to dismiss Rosenstein, Trump said "You figure that one out." A White House spokesperson told CNN on Friday night that there would be "no changes" at the Justice Department.

The memo, written by House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes and other top Republican lawmakers, accuses some officials at the FBI and the DOJ of acting on what it calls political bias against Trump.

Current and former officials at the agencies and some Democratic lawmakers have criticized the memo, calling it an attempt to discredit top law-enforcement institutions in the interest of protecting Trump.


----------



## Kabraxal

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/959525809823207425
> :lmao
> 
> In other news, I feel like I'm in the minority in not giving the tiniest little shit about the whole memo business. Even if it's as bad as everyone says it is, it's not like this is anything new to how things work in DC. Both halves of the duopoly are always doing shady shit like this and they always have. All the memo really amounts to is something to keep people distracted and bickering and not paying attention to all the horrible shit being done to the people of the USA by our government. The topic of the memo doesn't really have anything to do with policies that affect the common man but as long as it keeps the focus off the policies that do affect us, then it has served it's purpose as designed.


It certainly succeeded at trigger the typical partisan hacks to argue over wuo’s winning... I’ve seen very few discussions that aren’t “corrupt, cheating democrats” versus “stupid Trumptards!”. This country is fucked.


----------



## Stinger Fan




----------



## CamillePunk

Alan Dershowitz weighs in on the Nunes Memo:


----------



## Beatles123

So basically we're all still yelling at each other. Dems dont think the memo means anything, We do.

Same ol same ol.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> So basically we're all still yelling at each other. Dems dont think the memo means anything, We do.
> 
> Same ol same ol.


The memo does not mean anything. If you think it means something what does it mean?

its a huge nothing burger

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/2/2/16965086/nunes-memo-dud-release

The Nunes memo is a dud
Devin Nunes’s memo allegedly exposing anti-Trump bias at the FBI does nothing of the kind.

Rep. Devin Nunes’s infamous memo — the document numerous House Republicans claimed would demonstrate fundamental anti-Trump corruption at the FBI — was released early Friday afternoon. The entire thing is three and a half pages and only takes a few minutes to read closely and carefully.

After doing that, there is only one conclusion a fair reader could draw: There is absolutely nothing here.

There is no proof in the memo that the FBI is biased against Trump, no proof of abuse of surveillance powers by the FBI, and no proof that the investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia is fundamentally flawed. The memo is a piece of partisan spin, and not a particularly compelling one at that.

Republicans who claimed it was anything else have been egregiously misrepresenting what the memo actually says.

The memo does not support its core claim
The memo begins by making a grandiose claim: The FBI’s use of surveillance power under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the 2016 campaign was “a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.”

The only example the memo cites is an October 21, 2016, request by the Department of Justice and FBI for permission under FISA powers to snoop on former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page. The key word there is former: Page had left the Trump campaign at least a month before the application. That’s the first red flag that there’s nothing here, as an FBI campaign to undermine Trump’s campaign would almost certainly involve targeting someone who was actually working on it.

The Nunes memo goes on to allege that the Page FISA application, which was ultimately approved by a judge, was fundamentally flawed. The problem, it claims, is that the application depended on “the Steele dossier,” a document put together by former British spy Christopher Steele alleging deep ties between Trump and Russia (it’s the source of, among other things, the “pee tape” rumors about Trump and Moscow prostitutes).

The Steele dossier, Nunes alleges, “formed an essential part of the Carter Page application,” and he goes on to suggest that the application omitted several key facts about the dossier that undermine its credibility: most notably that the dossier was partially funded by the Democratic National Committee and that Steele himself has expressed his opposition to Donald Trump becoming president.

We can’t check whether these claims are true without seeing the actual FISA application. It could be that the Steele dossier wasn’t very important to the Page application, or that the FBI actually did disclose Steele’s political connections. (This is apparently the argument in a Democratic counter-memo, which was not published because Republicans voted to keep it secret.)

The Nunes memo, in other words, could be full of lies. We just can’t tell based on reading it.

But let’s assume that its core factual assertions — that the FBI heavily relied on the Steele dossier, and that it didn’t mention his funding sources in the FISA warrant — are true. So what?

The FBI relies on sources with axes to grind all the time. People typically don’t go to the authorities with damaging information about people they like. The key question in an application like this isn’t whether the source liked the target; it’s whether the specific claims they’re making are credible.

The memo doesn’t make that case.

“What matters is whether the Steele specific findings *actually material to the application* were unverified,” Julian Sanchez, an expert on surveillance at the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote after reading the memo. “Memo doesn’t seem to make that claim.”

The memo insinuates a lot — and proves virtually nothing
J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building
Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call
This fits with the memo’s overall method of argument, which is to imply something suspicious without outright asserting malfeasance.

For example, the memo repeatedly notes that the DOJ knew that “political actors” were involved in the financing the Steele dossier. It implies that the FBI knew they were Democrats and chose to ignore it.

But it never outright asserts that, and for good reason. The firm that employed Steele was initially contracted by a conservative publication, the Washington Free Beacon, not any Democrat or Democratic political campaign. It’s possible the FBI knew of the Free Beacon’s involvement or just generally that some political actor was involved in funding it — but didn’t know about the Clinton campaign’s involvement. The memo never clarifies which “political actors” it means.

Similarly, the memo notes that various important people, including former FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, reapproved the FISA surveillance after the initial application. The implication is that these people were either incompetent, because they failed to notice the omissions in the application, or complicit in an effort to deceive the court.

But there’s another possibility that’s left unmentioned: Perhaps the FISA surveillance on Page revealed disturbing Russian connections that warranted continued surveillance. Page had a longtime history of connections with the Russian government— so much so that in 2013, Russian agents approached him with the intent of turning him into an asset (a point the Nunes memo never notes).

This, experts say, is almost certainly what happened.

“It’s reapproved if you have new information justifying the original probable cause and the government’s need to listen,” writes Asha Rangappa, a former FBI special agent and current Yale lecturer. “Kind of the point of requiring the extension. Sounds like the gov [made] its burden not once, but THREE times.”

And ... that’s it, really.

The memo doesn’t prove its core claim, that there were real omissions in the FISA application related to the Steele dossier — it merely asserts them. Nor does it contain any evidence that these omissions, if they were made intentionally, undermine the validity of the FISA warrant. There’s just no there there.

“If this is their evidence of ‘Worse than Watergate,’ it’s thin,” Sanchez concludes. “This reads like something you’d put together to *sound* scandalous to someone who isn’t going to parse it closely.”

The memo actually exculpates the Russia investigation
Republicans have been selling this memo politically as devastating proof of anti-Trump animus at the FBI’s upper echelons and in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. House Speaker Paul Ryan said its content justified a “cleanse” of the FBI.

If the memo can’t stand up its specific allegations about the Page FISA application, it clearly can’t stand up an allegation this broad and deep. Some of the pre-release speculation about the memo’s contents, like the notion that it would have embarrassing information about Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, clearly didn’t pan out.

In fact, the memo concludes on a note that actually should vindicate the broader Russia investigation.

The last paragraph of the memo is all about the FISA application’s references to George Papadopoulos. The Trump campaign foreign policy adviser also had connections with Russia — he had been approached by a Russian-linked professor in London in the spring of 2016 who told him the Kremlin had dirt on Hillary Clinton — and was also under FBI suspicion.

The memo admits, crucially, that the Trump-Russia investigation was based in part on Papadopoulos’s misbehavior, not Page’s. “The Papadopoulos information,” the memo admits, “triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016.”

The reason this matters is because it shows that even if the Carter Page FISA application were flawed, the Trump-Russia investigation had another foundation — evidence about Papadopoulos’s Russian contacts. That means you can’t discredit the entire Russia investigation by pointing to the Page warrant.

The memo tries to insinuate that this too was biased against Trump — noting that one of the FBI agents handling the Papadopoulos situation, Peter Strzok, had sent some text messages critical of Trump to his “mistress,” FBI attorney Lisa Page.

But at this point, we know that the information on Papadopoulos was legit — because he pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and gave a ton of information to Mueller’s office. Papadopoulos admitted, among other things, that a Russian-linked professor had told him that the Russians had “thousands” of Hillary Clinton’s emails. Papadopoulos is a key witness in the Trump-Russia case, and Page hasn’t even been indicted — suggesting the case indeed rests on solid ground.

The Nunes memo, in short, is long on assertions and short on evidence — and by the end, it has fatally undermined its own reason for existing, providing political ammunition against the Russia investigation. If the president, House Republicans, or Fox News tries to use this as a justification for some kind of purge at the FBI, then you can be sure of one thing: They’re totally disconnected from the facts.


----------



## Tater

While everyone is undeservedly freaking out about the stupid fucking memo, this happened, and it is something that actually deserves some freaking out.



> *Breaking: US-Backed Free Syrian Army Group Shoots Down Russian Jet, Kills Pilot*
> Written by Daniel McAdams
> Saturday February 3, 2018
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jaysh al-Nasr rebel group in Syria, part of the US-backed Free Syrian Army, has posted footage of its fighters celebrating the shoot-down of a Russian Suhkoi-25 jet fighter in the Idlib province of Syria. It is the first time a Russian fighter has been shot down by Syrian rebels attempting to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
> 
> The plane was apparently brought down by a man-portable air defense system (ManPADS) surface-to-air missile. According to press reports, the pilot ejected from the plane safely but was killed by the Syrian rebels on the ground.
> 
> The 2017 US military spending bill provided authorization for the Department of Defense to arm the rebels with shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles or ManPADS. At the time, the Russians vigorously objected to the dramatic US move to provide sophisticated weaponry to the rebels, claiming (rightfully it turns out) that "[t]he relevant decision also poses a direct threat to aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces..."
> 
> The scenario where a US-backed, US-supplied jihadist group in Syria uses US weapons to shoot down a Russian plane and then murders the pilot on the ground should be seen as a near-nightmare escalation, drawing the US and Russia terrifyingly closer to direct conflict.
> 
> SOURCE


While dumbass libtards are running around screaming Russian puppet at everyone who doesn't agree with them and dumbass Trumptards are running around whining about how their hero is under attack from the deep state, the reality is that the deep state is about to take the cold war with Russia and turn it into a hot war. Now would be a good time to put your stupid fucking partisan bickering aside and stop being blinded by propaganda because this is a very serious threat. Regardless of what Russia-gaters would have you believe, Trump has been far more hawkish towards Russia than Obama ever was and psychos like Rachel Madcow are on TV every night screeching that any kind of sane foreign policy towards Russia somehow proves Trump is a Putin puppet. Maybe people have forgot but Russia's military budget is about 10% of the USA military budget. They can't fight us in a traditional war and everyone knows it. Where they do match up with the USA is with nuclear power. I was still young when the og cold war ended but I know my history and we were on the brink of nuclear holocaust multiple times. IIRC, there was one time a nuclear sub was mistakenly ordered to launch and the only reason any of us are even here today is because the captain defied his orders.

Stop and think about this for a minute. How do you think Russia is feeling right about now, knowing one of their planes was shot down and the pilot killed with weapons the USA provided to "rebels" who want to overthrow one of his allies? I know what I'd be feeling and it wouldn't be pleasant.

Pull your heads out of your asses, people. Liberals, Trump is not a Putin puppet. Trump supporters, he is in fact doing the bidding of the deep state. It's time to stop being distracted by stupid bullshit and start paying attention to the very serious threat of neocons running the US government.


----------



## virus21

Never been more relevant


----------



## Kabraxal

Tater said:


> While everyone is undeservedly freaking out about the stupid fucking memo, this happened, and it is something that actually deserves some freaking out.
> 
> 
> 
> While dumbass libtards are running around screaming Russian puppet at everyone who doesn't agree with them and dumbass Trumptards are running around whining about how their hero is under attack from the deep state, the reality is that the deep state is about to take the cold war with Russia and turn it into a hot war. Now would be a good time to put your stupid fucking partisan bickering aside and stop being blinded by propaganda because this is a very serious threat. Regardless of what Russia-gaters would have you believe, Trump has been far more hawkish towards Russia than Obama ever was and psychos like Rachel Madcow are on TV every night screeching that any kind of sane foreign policy towards Russia somehow proves Trump is a Putin puppet. Maybe people have forgot but Russia's military budget is about 10% of the USA military budget. They can't fight us in a traditional war and everyone knows it. Where they do match up with the USA is with nuclear power. I was still young when the og cold war ended but I know my history and we were on the brink of nuclear holocaust multiple times. IIRC, there was one time a nuclear sub was mistakenly ordered to launch and the only reason any of us are even here today is because the captain defied his orders.
> 
> Stop and think about this for a minute. How do you think Russia is feeling right about now, knowing one of their planes was shot down and the pilot killed with weapons the USA provided to "rebels" who want to overthrow one of his allies? I know what I'd be feeling and it wouldn't be pleasant.
> 
> Pull your heads out of your asses, people. Liberals, Trump is not a Putin puppet. Trump supporters, he is in fact doing the bidding of the deep state. It's time to stop being distracted by stupid bullshit and start paying attention to the very serious threat of neocons running the US government.


And with the ramp up in nuclear weapon production here, the instability of regimes with or possibly with nuclear capability, and a society worldwide that revels in death and destruction... yeah, little hope. Hopefully the inevitable WW3 kicks this race in the ass and we do tack more Star Trek.

However, it is almost certain we’ll be more like Fallout or Mad Max... if we survive. Depressing shit.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> While everyone is undeservedly freaking out about the stupid fucking memo, this happened, and it is something that actually deserves some freaking out.
> 
> 
> 
> While dumbass libtards are running around screaming Russian puppet at everyone who doesn't agree with them and dumbass Trumptards are running around whining about how their hero is under attack from the deep state, the reality is that the deep state is about to take the cold war with Russia and turn it into a hot war. Now would be a good time to put your stupid fucking partisan bickering aside and stop being blinded by propaganda because this is a very serious threat. Regardless of what Russia-gaters would have you believe, Trump has been far more hawkish towards Russia than Obama ever was and psychos like Rachel Madcow are on TV every night screeching that any kind of sane foreign policy towards Russia somehow proves Trump is a Putin puppet. Maybe people have forgot but Russia's military budget is about 10% of the USA military budget. They can't fight us in a traditional war and everyone knows it. Where they do match up with the USA is with nuclear power. I was still young when the og cold war ended but I know my history and we were on the brink of nuclear holocaust multiple times. IIRC, there was one time a nuclear sub was mistakenly ordered to launch and the only reason any of us are even here today is because the captain defied his orders.
> 
> Stop and think about this for a minute. How do you think Russia is feeling right about now, knowing one of their planes was shot down and the pilot killed with weapons the USA provided to "rebels" who want to overthrow one of his allies? I know what I'd be feeling and it wouldn't be pleasant.
> 
> Pull your heads out of your asses, people. Liberals, Trump is not a Putin puppet. Trump supporters, he is in fact doing the bidding of the deep state. It's time to stop being distracted by stupid bullshit and start paying attention to the very serious threat of neocons running the US government.


Now it will be changed from Trump is Putin's puppet to Trump is a warmonger who wants to fight Russia and those poor Russians! Maddow will be singing a new tune about how we're too tough on Russia and any escalation is bad! Yet the fucking DNC and their NeoCon buttbuddies were spouting anti-Russian xenophobic crap and wanting a war from the very beginning.

These people will not be sated until the US is at war again and which they'll turn around and say they didn't want it. :laugh:


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> Now it will be changed from Trump is Putin's puppet to Trump is a warmonger who wants to fight Russia and those poor Russians! Maddow will be singing a new tune about how we're too tough on Russia and any escalation is bad! Yet the fucking DNC and their NeoCon buttbuddies were spouting anti-Russian xenophobic crap and wanting a war from the very beginning.
> 
> These people will not be sated until the US is at war again and which they'll turn around and say they didn't want it. :laugh:


Funny thing is though, the same socialist wannabe assclowns that were supporting the DNC would likely get drafted to fight such a war.


----------



## Miss Sally

virus21 said:


> Funny thing is though, the same socialist wannabe assclowns that were supporting the DNC would likely get drafted to fight such a war.


Most would go to College or run to Canada (not mexico even though they loooooove Mexicans!) to avoid the draft, there is a reason why these types of people never want to fight an actual war but instead instigate from the shadows or protest behind the safety of Police, because they're cowards. 

College shouldn't save you from the draft, especially if you're doing something like Gender Studies or some shit, now's the time to prove your girl power or fight the evil evil Russians! But we both know they won't.


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> Most would go to College or run to Canada (not mexico even though they loooooove Mexicans!) to avoid the draft, there is a reason why these types of people never want to fight an actual war but instead instigate from the shadows or protest behind the safety of Police, because they're cowards.
> 
> College shouldn't save you from the draft, especially if you're doing something like Gender Studies or some shit, now's the time to prove your girl power or fight the evil evil Russians! But we both know they won't.


Except a war between the US and Russia wouldn't stay between those two. And they would likely be sent back down to the US if they tried.


----------



## Vic Capri

The Wall Street Journal said:


> The four page memo released Friday reports the disturbing fact about how the FBI and FISA appear to have been used to influence the 2016 election and its aftermath. The FBI failed to inform the FISA court that the Clinton campaign had funded the dossier.
> 
> The FBI became a tool of anti-Trump political actors. This is unacceptable in a democracy and ought to alarm anyone who wants the FBI to be a nonpartisan enforcer of the law. The FBI wasn’t straight with Congress, as it hid most of these facts from investigators.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-reckoning-for-the-fbi-1517617641

- Vic


----------



## Tater

> This is unacceptable in a democracy


:LOL @ anyone retarded enough to believe we live in a democracy.

Also, this pearl clutching about the FBI is pretty fucking funny too. Study up on the history of the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover. That dude would scoff at how weak they have become. He would have never been fired like Comey was. Presidents were terrified of Hoover. FBI directors now are weak little bitches by comparison.


----------



## virus21

Tater said:


> :LOL @ anyone retarded enough to believe we live in a democracy.
> 
> Also, this pearl clutching about the FBI is pretty fucking funny too. Study up on the history of the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover. That dude would scoff at how weak they have become. He would have never been fired like Comey was. Presidents were terrified of Hoover. FBI directors now are weak little bitches by comparison.


Everyone was afraid of Hoover. The man had enough to take down half the governments of the world.


----------



## Pratchett

Tater said:


> :LOL @ anyone retarded enough to believe we live in a democracy.


"... but ... but ... but ...

... we have the power and ability as citizens of a free country to vote for the candidates of our choice!"

- says the average (and ignorant) American who still hasn't realized that the candidate that they "chose" to vote for was actually the one that was "chosen" for them to have the privilege of voting for by the Party (or Parties) that has control of political power and wants to hold on to it on their own terms, not on behalf of the voters they want so desperately to keep control over.
















































:mj


----------



## Draykorinee

Shamocracy. Not that it's much better in the UK mind. Here my vote is wasted every time because of first past the post system we have. Sure, we don't have the ridiculous amount of money thrown at candidates and the whole voting season frenzy that the US does, plus there's usually a good chance voting for a smaller party works. But if you live in a certain parties stronghold you might as well not bother voting.


----------



## Reaper

That's why some of us are enlightened enough to advocate for complete and utter abolishment of all government power and control.

You guys need to get up to our level already.


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-reckoning-for-the-fbi-1517617641
> 
> - Vic


Yet it was the greatest thing when the FBI was after Hillary. My god Trump supporters are such hypocrites.:booklel


----------



## Stinger Fan

He actually compared ISIS terrorists to European Immigrants . Fuck this guy


----------



## Draykorinee

Trudeau is such a genius WUM.


----------



## Reaper

Reap said:


> He has the right idea, but again tax cuts need to happen alongside shrunken government spending - which is not happening. In fact, the Federal government is spending more than it was before the Tax Cuts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the expectation is that everyone has money, it leads to an increase in demand and slow rise in inflation. *People are already starting to borrow more on the expectation of bigger paychecks this year and many people are not saving at all. This will lead to inflation and rising interest rates.
> *
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/federal-reserve-fomc-statement-interest-rate-decision-january-2018-1
> 
> At the same time, I'm already noticing the impact of inflation on our monthly spending so we've decided to spend less while it seems like everyone is spending more. I feel like this is the right time to save rather than spend but I'm generally always more cautious than most fiscal conservatives.


Pretty much RIGHT on cue as I predicted just last week: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/960626320664350720
http://www.mynews13.com/content/new...icles/ap/2018/02/05/dow_drops_500_erasin.html


> Dow drops more than 1,100, erasing last month’s gain
> NEW YORK (AP) --
> The Dow Jones industrial average plunged 1,175 points, or 4.6 percent, erasing its gains for the year.
> 
> The Dow’s drop Monday was its biggest in terms of points, but it had a larger percentage drop as recently in 2011.
> 
> The Dow is down 8.5 percent from the record high it hit in late January.
> 
> *The slump began Friday as investors worried that higher inflation and interest rates could derail the long-running rally.
> *
> At one point the Dow was down as much as 1,600 points.
> 
> The Dow ended at 24,345.
> 
> The Standard & Poor’s 500, the benchmark for many index funds, fell 113 points, or 4.1 percent, to 2,648. The Nasdaq fell 273, or 3.8 percent, to 6,967.
> 
> Bond prices rose. The yield on the 10-year Treasury fell to 2.73 percent.


Y'all should listen to me when I hand out free financial advice on these forums.  

Stay away from the stock market. Do not TOUCH cryptos because they're definitely going to have a terrible 2018. 

Get real estate if you can and get fixed low interest rate mortgages over the next 7-8 years instead of spending. Save what you can. 

The market will continue to correct itself throughout 2018. The "extra" tax money everyone's going to be getting in 2019 will be "erased" in advance due to rising inflation, borrowing and credit interest rates. On the ground, I'm hearing from just about everyone I know that those on January/Feb leases have had their rents raised and this will continue to happen throughout 2018. 

If you have extra money right now, get rid of those outstanding credit card amounts because the interest payments will sneak up on you without you even realizing it. If you have savings, get a house. Even though it's a seller's market, if you don't lock down a fixed mortgage now, property values will continue to rise. 

401k gains will also correct themselves in the next few months (most likely go lower than they are right now). 

The key to a successful 2019 for the average american is to actively save money wherever possible instead of indulging in 2018. Future expected revenue for Americans has ALWAYS meant more credit purchases, but the average American does not account for rising inflation and interest rates which basically means higher and higher card payments which have a sneaky way of ballooning out of control. A lot of people are thinking that they will be able to pay off stuff with their tax refunds, but that's really not how it's supposed to work unless you do actually pay shit off... Which most people don't do. 

Even though consumer confidence is supposed to be high, it doesn't mean you have to follow suit. The "extra" tax money will basically - in _real _dollar value (because of future devaluation of money) - most likely be the same as the 2018 tax return.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Tater said:


> :LOL @ anyone retarded enough to believe we live in a democracy.
> 
> Also, this pearl clutching about the FBI is pretty fucking funny too. Study up on the history of the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover. That dude would scoff at how weak they have become. He would have never been fired like Comey was. Presidents were terrified of Hoover. FBI directors now are weak little bitches by comparison.


Oh trust me, we definitely live in a deomcracy. That much is a given.

It's just a very, very constrained and in some ways morally fucked up version that doesn't exist in any other country. 








































...huh. I guess we don't.



Reap said:


> Pretty much RIGHT on cue as I predicted just last week:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/960626320664350720


That's a massive drop. Wasn't expecting it to happen this early on.


----------



## Reaper

Actually, I think the correction came later than expected.


----------



## Art Vandaley

If Trump pulls the US out of NAFTA inflation will get much worse.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> If Trump pulls the US out of NAFTA *inflation will get much worse.*


How?


----------



## Art Vandaley

Reap said:


> How?


Tarriffs will make goods cost more.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Tarriffs will make goods cost more.


Fair. But not all inflation is bad. Inflation up to a point is good for the economy. It's only once it crosses the 5-10% mark that it starts getting really bad. Up to 1-3% is generally good because consumers can handle it and they can keep buying which leads to more production and growth. 

You want some tarrifs too btw because it allows local producers an opportunity to enter into markets and then there's substitution. 

However, we'll see what happens with the washer market as that seems like a litmus test. So far, the prices are holding and they will hold for a year or so at least because companies stockpile goods at old costs in order to beat the tarrifs. In fact depending on how much LG and Samsung stockpile we could even see the opposite effect of too much supply and therefore a decrease in price.


----------



## DesolationRow

Tater said:


> @Makise Kurisu @DesolationRow @BruiserKC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is _Reagan's_ budget director who is saying all the same things I've been saying about bubbles and the upcoming crash. Cavuto is a fucking moron but Stockman is a smart guy. I don't agree with his solutions but his analysis of what the Trump administration is doing is spot on.


Have wanted to address this for several days now but have not found the time. Do not truly have the time now but will squeeze a few minutes in to attempt to address it at least somewhat capably. 

While Donald Trump delivered a generally solid speech last week, his tendency to boast and take credit for the stock market was a predictable mistake. Or, at the very least, to not provide layers of nuance to his boasting. 

After all, it was candidate Trump in the spring of 2016 who rightly noted that "we are in a bubble," as per at least one big interview in early April of that year. It was a mantra (and a correct one) that he repeated several times on the campaign trail after becoming the nominee and resurrected the statement during at least one or two of the debates with Hillary Clinton. 

At the same time, while Bitcoin collapse--which my last post in this thread discussed--and the stock market shorting this month were highly predictable, I think it's also fair to say that not everything about the current trends are negative, necessarily. In the terrible long run, sure, there will be a dramatic fall, but even with the numerous instances of the Federal Reserve rather irresponsibly ensuring that the boom cycle would become ever-increasingly untenable, the massive shorting we saw over the last day is probably not indicative of a complete stock market crash as of now.

A year into his presidency, it's fair to now contend that policies Trump has put in place, whether they be good or ill, are now having some determinant steering in the economic realm. The best news to glean from the past week or two is that wages have, even for lower-class people, risen more dramatically over the course of this winter thus far than they had altogether for years. That is a mighty positive and has doubtless had a powerful effect on the stock market. 

Traders rightly find themselves concerned over the prospect of wages rising too fast and too greatly, for should they do so the Federal Reserve wil almost have to hike interest rates to tame inflation. With inflation kept in check for years the market considered the Fed's declaration that interest rate increases would be coming dubious but after the dramatic increase in wages that hollow talk may have some substance to it after all. As employers have to raise wages to maintain pace with the cost of labor the Federal Reserve will likely actuate its declared policy and interest rate hikes are probably in the near future. 

Another part of this stock market tumble has to do with the increased performance of shorting volatility, which has become one of the more crowded and profitable plays among traders, a practice which was, for all of the fortunes it helped engender, destined to serve as a ticking time bomb for many traders. It was the classic short squeeze and honestly it is surprising that it took this long to happen. 

Now, of course, what stock traders generally do not want to be reminded of us the unavoidable reality in which stock prices have been artificially propped up for a lengthy period of time now by almost absurdly low interest rates around the world. With the stock market kept humming through increased liquidity and easy credit, most investors have found it difficult to score much through safer, more conservative investments like once profoundly attractive assets such as American and European government bonds. The whole arrangement has created a series of almost drug junkie-like bad habits, not the least of which is that a greater number of investors than ever before have piled money into some of the riskiest, most unstable bets around such as the sovereign debt from developing countries and stocks.

The stock market instability was greatly exacerbated by risk parity funds which mechanistically re-balanced while volatility moves. The process ineluctably drives stocks lower, moving volatility higher in a labyrinthine feedback loop.

With funds being terminated the final termination values are roughly what one would expect to be utilized for valuing the options at hand. OCC possesses the authority to close all of the options at cash value if no more shares are trading. 

All of which necessitated the shorting we saw and the spike of XIV. 

If Trump wants to take some credit for the largely improved economic conditions since winter set in, fine, but he needs to at least occasionally reinforce the point that he made that the economy is in a gigantic bubble of sorts as he described, and at present there is no even remotely easy way out of said bubble. It is understandable to a large extent that Trump wants to fulfill his role as president the way he sees the institution, as, if nothing else, primary "cheerleader" for the nation, but he may quite well do great damage to his own presidency if he successfully tethers his standing with the public to the machinations and schemes of stock traders and investors and the Federal Reserve.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Haters*: President Trump doesn't get any credit for stock market gains!

Guess what? That makes the crash Obama's fault then. : )

- Vic


----------



## AlternateDemise

Vic Capri said:


> *Haters*: President Trump doesn't get any credit for stock market gains!
> 
> Guess what? That makes the crash Obama's fault then. : )
> 
> - Vic


...what? :mj4


----------



## Smarky Mark

The political cheer-leading from both sides is ridiculous. I am a Trump supporter but if you are going to attribute the success of the stock market to Trump then you must also be willing to attribute blame when it doesn't go as well.

Same goes for those who refused to give Trump credit but are now arguing that this is all his fault.


----------



## Vic Capri

Bingo.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> *Haters*: President Trump doesn't get any credit for stock market gains!
> 
> Guess what? That makes the crash Obama's fault then. : )
> 
> - Vic


Everyone gave credit to Trump for the stock market. What they didn't give him credit for was the economy in his first year since it was still under Obama's plans.

But once we got into 2018 now its all on Trump since Trump put all of his plans into place during his first term.


----------



## virus21




----------



## El Grappleador

Ladies and Gentleman: Brenda Fitzgerald, secretary antitobacco has quit. She was promoting anti-smoking and at the same time made business with Japan Tobacco.


----------



## Beatles123

The market isn't going to go up forever, people. My god. :lol

Edit: Nor will it stay down.


----------



## Reaper

Jesus. I got very lucky with my landlord basically evicting us through raising our rent. It allowed us to move out before house prices really started rising. The same houses that were valuing around 130-150k in my area are now back on the market several thousands higher.

Though, I tend to agree with this article a lot: 

http://fortune.com/2018/02/06/stock-market-fall-another-metric/



> Yes, the Stock Market Just Went Into Free Fall—It’s Not the Metric You Should Worry About.
> 
> Yesterday’s historic stock sell-off had many people wondering if the great bull market had at long last sputtered to an end. Over the past (nearly) nine years, the S&P 500 stock index rose some 325% from its bottom (March 9, 2009) to its top (January 26, 2018)—before beginning its recent heart-pounding swoon.
> 
> Then came the free fall—a collapse that sucked out 8.6% of the broad market’s value in a 10-day gasp (as of the writing of this note). I have yet to find a really good stock index for the pubic companies leading the digital health revolution, but for comparison’s sake, my ever-resourceful colleague Scott DeCarlo alit upon the S&P 1500 Supercomposite Health Care Technology Index—which includes an assortment of medtech companies valued between $400 million and $21 billion—and which dropped 8.5% over the same period. That suggests the carnage hit healthcare just as it did most everything else.
> 
> So is this the end? Well, from a technical standpoint, we still have a ways to go before this bear turn qualifies as a “correction.” But the broader question in my mind is, Are we measuring the right bull to begin with?
> 
> I would argue that the horned creature that matters most is the investment bull—no, not the public’s piling money (often without much thought) into corporate stocks, but rather the companies themselves investing in their own growth: generating new businesses, doubling down on R&D, fostering their home-grown talent, and making smart, strategic investments in technology.
> 
> And here, I’m still pretty optimistic. This fall PwC released a report showing that, in the past year, the top 1,000 R&D spenders worldwide spent more than $700 billion on their in-house research efforts for the first time, a total figure that was up 3% from the 2016 level. (The No. 1 spender? Amazon, not surprisingly.) At Fortune, a few months back, we highlighted 50 companies (including Amazon) that have that same driving spirit to invest in the future. We call the list our “Future 50,” fittingly. And I hope you’ll check it out here.
> 
> That tells me that, despite the recent downturn in stocks, the market for innovation is still running strong. Hopefully, corporate leaders won’t let the wrong market metrics shift their focus from what really matters.


BTW, based on what I'm reading from most articles, we're not in a bubble yet. Some people are not even willing to call this a correction yet. I believe that it's profit-taking and most of that money will find its way back into the economy. We're nowhere close to hard times yet. The tax cuts will add at least a good 2-3 years to the current phase of economic expansion (which is already one of the longest sustained expansions in American history). 

And if you look closely at the Fortune top 25 (especially their newcomers lists), you'll see that they're largely filled with internet companies - and those companies are still in their own growth phases and continuing to grow. 

With no regulatory environment looming over the internet for the foreseeable future, it will continue to drive the economy in an overall net positive.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/aalsin...-reshaping-the-american-economy/#6331c043a3c6



> 2018 Investor Outlook: How Technological Disruption Is Reshaping The American Economy
> 
> Dear Reader:
> 
> Happy (belated) New Year.
> 
> Over the past year, you have likely noticed how certain technological changes have affected your daily routine. For instance, there's a good chance you have started shopping more online —and less in department stores. You have likely started watching more TV through the Internet — and less through traditional cable networks. And I’m guessing you have, at one point or another in 2017, pumped dirty gas into your car and thought, “Would I be better off with an electric car?”
> 
> These changes may seem mundane to you now. But I assure you they are not. In fact, these changes represent some of the most radical technological disruptions we’ve ever witnessed in the American economy. At Worm Capital, we continue to view disruption as the key to opportunity. This is where we have found the greatest potential for asset mispricing, outsized winners and losers, and opportunities both long and short.
> 
> 
> Looking forward to the rest of 2018, we see a moment in time that is both exciting, intoxicating — and potentially terrifying — for investors. Trillions of dollars of wealth hang in the balance. Often, but not always, we are seeing industries adopt a winner-take-all scenario. Who will be tomorrow’s titan? And who will be edged out of existence altogether?
> 
> We do not take a traditional approaching to “canvassing” the market for stocks to invest in. Rather, we start with an empty sheet of paper and ask: What business models will succeed tomorrow? Before deploying any capital, we typically spend months, if not years, monitoring and researching a given industry to gain an expertise. We seek a thorough understanding of the past, current, and potential future landscape to identify attractive opportunities — or challenges — we believe may exist.
> 
> Currently, we focus on five verticals: Retail, cloud, television, energy and transportation. This Investment Outlook serves as a broad guide for how we view the modern economy shifting not just in 2018 — but in the years to come.
> 
> To download a PDF of this document, as well as Worm Capital's performance fact sheet, click here.
> 
> Retail Overview:
> 
> E-commerce continues its meteoric rise while brick-and-mortar struggles and dies out.
> 
> There are few changes in the American economy as dramatic, frightening and exciting than the rise of e-commerce and the decline of brick and mortar retail. In 2017 alone, there were at least 300 retail bankruptcies tracked by BankruptcyData.com. This includes RadioShack, Payless ShoeSource, and many other familiar names. The number of store closures this year were even more daunting. Since the start of 2017, retailers have either closed or announced closures at more than 6,700 stores across the United States, according to Fung Global Retail & Technology, a retail think tank. Credit Suisse has an even more dire prediction: According to an April research report, by the end of 2017, the bank estimates some 8,600 brick-and- mortar stores will close.
> 
> *Massive growth to online shopping
> *
> The reason for this shift is obvious, in our view: Consumer behaviors are migrating online, driven by the selection, trust, price transparency, and the ultimate ease of e-commerce — especially as more platforms begin to offer free shipping. We expect this trend to continue (and accelerate) in 2018. Right now, government data shows that e-commerce represents about 9% of all retail. However, we expect this percentage to increase substantially over the next five years, creating an exciting and positive dynamic for online retailers who are not encumbered by expensive brick-and-mortar retail environments.
> 
> We also have been monitoring the growth of e-commerce abroad, which represents a significant opportunity. Forrester predicts that China alone will reach $1 trillion in total online retail spending by 2019.
> 
> While Amazon is the clear dominant force on the long side of online retail, we continue find opportunities on the short side, as well. For instance, we see particular long-term inefficiencies in auto parts retailers, which are encumbered by several factors that heighten their exposure—including indefensibly high margins and a product set that’s being disrupted by the shift to electric, self-driving transportation.
> 
> *Energy Overview:
> *
> The global shift to renewables is accelerating at a pace faster than previously anticipated.
> 
> Disruption within global energy markets is roiling through dozens of industries and upending centuries- old ways of doing business. We are at the inflection point. From here, there is no turning back.
> 
> Over the last several years, we have seen how the energy mix has shifted, largely driven by technological improvements and environmental concerns.
> 
> There have been a number of exciting developments over the past year:
> 
> Ten percent of all of the electricity generated in the U.S. in March came from wind and solar power, marking the first such milestone in U.S. history, according to a U.S. Energy Information Administration report.
> By 2018, Tesla’s Gigafactory will "reach full capacity and produce more lithium ion batteries annually than were produced worldwide in 2013," the company says.
> In October 2017, wind power sources from 28 countries in the European Union set a new record: they provided 24.6% of total electricity — enough to power 197 million European households.
> In Europe, some estimates predict wind capacity will exceed coal capacity in 2018 .
> As long-term investors, we’re not interested in the short-term concerns of oil prices and inventories. The future we see is driven by complete sustainability—wind and solar farms, as well as Gigafactories producing lithium-ion batteries for the mass market. This is just getting started too, with trillions of dollars at stake in numerous energy-centric verticals.
> 
> Of course, it’s embarrassing to be virtually the only nation on earth against the Paris Climate Agreement. But we expect the reaction (and the push to renewables) to be strong beginning in the 2018 elections. By 2020, we expect politicians to be completely behind renewables. The following years we expect to see the beginning of a massive transformation.
> 
> 
> RENO, NEV - MARCH 25: Construction on the Tesla Motors Gigafactory east of Reno, Nev., March 25, 2015. (Photo by David Calvert/For The Washington Post via Getty Images)
> 
> Renewable and clean forms of energy—be it wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal power—have the power to dramatically eliminate pollution, slow global warming, and transition the globe toward a cleaner, healthier environment. Having a healthier population isn’t just a humanitarian effort, either. It’s an economic one. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the aggregate national economic impact associated with health impacts of fossil fuels is between $361.7 and $886.5 billion, or between 2.5% and 6% of gross domestic product.
> 
> From an investment perspective, the move to renewables represents an extraordinary business transition—an uprooting and replacement of decades- old dirty energy production. This transition could yield hundreds of thousands of jobs, and will be a major benefit to the the economy. As an investor, you need to see changes in advance and get in position.
> 
> Cloud Overview:
> 
> The mainframe is dead. Long-live cloud computing.
> 
> Back in 2012, Worm Capital made a prediction: That the rise of cloud computing would ultimately lead to the death of the mainframe. This would not be a sudden death, but the move from on-premise to centralized (cloud) is happening as anticipated. Our investment thesis remains intact: Most of the computing functions remaining today as we know it will migrate to the cloud over the next 10 to 15 years.
> 
> There is still enormous opportunity for investors.
> 
> In the not-too-distant future, we believe most business managers will realize that on-premise computing makes very little economic sense. First, typical data center usage rates are only about 15%. Second, traditional mainframe computing is bad for the environment. The potential death knell for on-premise computing is that it’s multiples “dirtier” than operating the cloud. As a contrast, Amazon’s AWS claims that by 2020, it will run on 100% renewables.
> 
> Mainframes require an enormous amount of power to run. The reality is that even the most energy-efficient data center can have a significant carbon footprint because they are typically getting 70 percent of their electricity from greenhouse-gas-emitting fossil fuels, like coal, according to Forrester Research. On the other hand, cloud lends itself to more environmentally friendly because large masses of data centers can be hooked into dedicated wind or solar production centers.
> 
> It is hard to exaggerate just how significant this disruption truly is. Gartner, the global research firm, has predicted that by 2020 the "Cloud Shift" will result in more than $1 trillion in IT spending. “This will make cloud computing one of the most disruptive forces of IT spending since the early days of the digital age,” they note.
> 
> For long-term investors, the appeal is obvious: Traditional technology incumbents (including Cisco, IBM, and others) are stuck with legacy business models, selling switches and mainframes. Meanwhile, upstart innovators are forging ahead, creating massive wealth for owners and shareholders.


Cliffnotes:

1. American (global) economies are being re-shaped by continued growth, innovation and development in online businesses - This is good news coupled with the fact that at least in America there is still little to no proposed regulatory frame-work that would disrupt this continued growth and development. 

2. There's an over-estimation of how much growth can actually happen in the renewable energy sector. I believe that it is over-estimated and it simply isn't innovative enough to beat out current forms of energy. It's just not cheap enough and unless new tech makes people's lives cheaper, there's no adoption. Those cities that are forcibly going "clean and green" are already facing both cost and supply issues. 

Overall, if the internet is continued to grow and develop in its current form without and interruption and since America is the global leader in Online businesses, I believe that our future is very secure.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> The market isn't going to go up forever, people. My god. :lol
> 
> Edit: Nor will it stay down.


The market going down 1000 points in one day isn't just going down.


----------



## virus21




----------



## birthday_massacre

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecu...-penetrated-voter-rolls-in-some-states-report

DHS cyber chief: Russia 'successfully penetrated' some state voter rolls


Russia successfully penetrated voter rolls in some states: report

Autoplay: On | Off
A U.S. cybersecurity official said Wednesday that Russia "successfully penetrated" the voter rolls in a small number of states in 2016.

Jeanette Manfra, the head of cybersecurity at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), told NBC News that Russia targeted 21 states and “an exceptionally small number of them were actually successfully penetrated.”

DHS previously notified the 21 states that Russia had attempted to hack their elections systems before the 2016 election.

It was Manfra who first revealed to the Senate Intelligence Committee last June that the states had their systems targeted by Russian hackers ahead of the election.

It was previously known that voter registration databases in Arizona and Illinois were breached by hackers. Alabama, California, Colorado, Wisconsin and Florida are among the other states that have confirmed they were targeted.

Officials told NBC there is no evidence any of the voter rolls were altered in any way. 

Homeland Security formally notified election officials in the states that were targeted. Officials said then that most of the targeting amounted to mere preparations for hacking, such as probing for vulnerabilities.

The targeting was part of a broader effort by Moscow to meddle in the presidential election, according to the U.S. intelligence community. The systems targeted were not involved in vote tallying.

The revelations have sparked widespread fears that Russia or another foreign actor could seek to interfere in future elections using cyberattacks and other tactics.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned Tuesday that Russia is already attempting to meddle in the U.S. midterm elections this year.

But Manfra told The Hill in a recent interview that, while she is unaware of any credible targeting efforts related to the 2018 midterm elections, she remains worried about the threat.

“I will always be worried about it and it is always something that entities are going to look to influence our democratic processes,” she said. “As a country, we should be in a position to counter that.”

The department is providing vulnerability tests and other services to states looking to shore up the cybersecurity of their election systems ahead of future votes, as part of its new designation of voting systems as critical infrastructure.

Homeland Security is also working with state election officials to share information on cyber threats.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Vic Capri

Bush Jr. is continuing his virtue signal tour to deflect people from the fact there's more evidence that he stole a Presidential election. 

- Vic


----------



## 2 Ton 21

http://kfoxtv.com/news/local/fbi-says-there-is-no-evidence-of-attack-in-death-of-border-patrol-agent-rogelio-martinez



> *FBI: No evidence of attack in death of Border Patrol agent Rogelio Martinez*
> 
> EL PASO, Texas (KFOX) - A day after the autopsy of Border Patrol Agent Rogelio Martinez was released, FBI officials say there are still no leads in the case.
> 
> In a statement Wednesday, FBI special agent Emmerson Buie said the two persons of interest named in a federal search warrant in December are no longer suspects in the case.
> 
> Buie also said that to date there is no evidence that would support the existence of a "scuffle, altercation or attack. "
> 
> In December, investigators looked at two brothers as possible suspects after reports that they may have been involved in the agent's assault during a smuggling attempt.
> 
> Arrests were made in Portales, New Mexico, for alien smuggling but none are suspects in the investigation, Buie said.
> 
> Martinez died on Nov. 19, 2017, after he and his partner Stephen Garland, were found in a culvert area near Interstate 10, about 12 miles east of Van Horn, according to Buie.
> 
> Both agents were found with head and other physical injuries. They were hospitalized in El Paso, where Martinez died. Garland was released from the hospital a few days later. A U.S. official with knowledge of the investigation said he doesn’t remember what happened.
> 
> Buie said evidence showed that a Border Patrol dispatcher spoke with Garland the day of the incident. Garland was disoriented and unsure of his and Martinez’s location but said something to the effect of “we ran into a culvert,” "I ran into a culvert,” or “I think I ran into a culvert.” The dispatcher wrote Garland’s statement down and told him to go to his Border Patrol vehicle and turn on his emergency lights so first responders could locate him.
> 
> The autopsy report for Martinez revealed he died of blunt injuries to the head. Martinez suffered blunt injuries to his eyes, lacerations on his scalp, and fractures to his shoulder, ribs and clavicle, according to the autopsy report. How he sustained those injuries is still unknown.
> 
> The manner of his death is listed as “undetermined.”
> 
> Chris Cabrera, spokesman for the Border Patrol Union, issued a statement Wednesday, following the finding by the FBI. In it, he said the union's view hasn't changed.
> 
> "Our view is he was attacked," Cabrera said. After reading the autopsy report, Cabrera said he does not believe the agents were hit by a vehicle or fell in a culvert.
> 
> In the statement, FBI authorities said investigators conducted more than 650 interviews and involved 37 field offices, but have not found evidence of an attack.
> 
> “I know the danger out there. I have faith in the FBI. I know they will get to the bottom of this, " Cabrera said.
> 
> The FBI said they are continuing to investigate the incident and is asking anyone with information to contact the agency at 915-832-5000.
> 
> A reward of up to $70,000 by the FBI and state is being offered for tips leading to an arrest.
> 
> Speculation has run rampant with several politicians calling it an attack. President Donald Trump used the incident to renew his call for a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico.


----------



## virus21

> An FBI informant connected to the Uranium One controversy told three congressional committees in written testimony that Moscow routed millions of dollars to America with the expectation it would be used to benefit Bill Clinton's charitable efforts while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quarterbacked a “reset” in US-Russian relations.
> The informant, Douglas Campbell, said in the testimony obtained by The Hill that he was told by Russian nuclear executives that Moscow had hired the American lobbying firm APCO Worldwide specifically because it was in position to influence the Obama administration, and more specifically Hillary Clinton.
> Democrats have cast doubt on Campbell’s credibility, setting the stage for a battle with Republicans over his testimony.
> Campbell said Russian nuclear officials “told me at various times that they expected APCO to apply a portion of the $3 million annual lobbying fee it was receiving from the Russians to provide in-kind support for the Clinton’s Global Initiative,” he added in the testimony.
> “The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over twelve months. APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the U.S.-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement. “
> APCO officials told The Hill that its support for CGI and its work with Russia were not connected in any way, and in fact involved different divisions of the firm. They added their lobbying for Russia did not involve Uranium One but rather focused on regulatory issues aimed at helping Russia better compete for nuclear fuel contracts inside the United States.
> “APCO Worldwide’s activities involving client work on behalf of Tenex and The Clinton Global Initiative were totally separate and unconnected in any way,” APCO told The Hill in a statement. “All actions on these two unconnected activities were appropriate, publicly documented from the outset and consistent with regulations and the law. Any assertion otherwise is false and unfounded.”
> Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, said Campbell’s testimony is simply being used to distract from the investigations into President Trump and Russia.
> “Just yesterday the committee made clear that this secret informant charade was just that, a charade. Along with the widely debunked text-message-gate and Nunes' embarrassing memo episode, we have a trifecta of GOP-manufactured scandals designed to distract from their own President's problems and the threat to democracy he poses,” Merrill said.
> In addition to his written testimony, Campbell on Wednesday was interviewed for several hours behind closed doors by staff from both parties on the Senate Judiciary, House Intelligence and House Oversight and Government Reform committees.
> Democrats have asked that a transcript of the testimony be released to the public, though it’s unclear whether Republicans will take that step.
> Republicans are seeking to use Campbell’s account to expand their investigations beyond the 2016 election and Trump to possible questions about Russian graft during the Obama administration.
> They note that the FBI found Campbell’s undercover work valuable enough to reward him with a $50,000 check in 2016.
> Democrats, in turn, have accused Republicans of making “wild claims” about Campbell and Uranium One.
> In a letter sent this week, Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, asserted that Justice Department officials told both parties during a briefing in December that they ultimately found they “could not trust” Campbell when he was working as an FBI informant.
> Justice officials also said that Campbell had at no point made “any allegations of corruption, illegality, or impropriety on Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, President Clinton, the Uranium One deal, or CFIUS,” according to the Democrats.
> “They also confirmed that there were “no allegations of impropriety or illegality” regarding Secretary Clinton in any of the documents they reviewed,” the Democrats said.
> Campbell painted a different picture in his written testimony.
> He accused Obama administration officials of making decisions that ended up benefitting the Russian nuclear industry, which he said was seeking to build a monopoly in the global uranium market to help President Vladimir Putin seek a geopolitical advantage over the United States.
> The United States already imports more than 90 percent of the uranium it uses in nuclear reactors, according to U.S. government figures from 2016.
> Campbell wrote that Russian nuclear executives “boasted” during vodka-fueled meetings monitored by the FBI about “how weak the U.S. government was in giving away uranium business and were confident that Russia would secure the strategic advantage it was seeking in the U.S. uranium market.”
> He also said he asked his FBI handlers why the U.S. was not more aggressive.
> “I expressed these concerns repeatedly to my FBI handlers. The response I got was that politics was somehow involved,” he testified.
> Much of the GOP’s interest in Campbell’s testimony centers on the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One deal. That deal at the time gave the Russian mining giant Rosatom control of roughly 20 percent of America’s capacity to mine uranium.
> The deal was approved unanimously in 2010 by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a multi-agency board that includes the State Department, the Defense Department and the Justice Department, among other agencies. The board has the power to block deals that threaten national security.
> Campbell, whose work as an informant was first disclosed in a series of stories published last fall by The Hill, helped the FBI gathered evidence as early as 2009 that the Russian nuclear industry was engaged in a kickback, bribery and racketeering scheme on U.S. soil. The criminal scheme, among other things, compromised the U.S. trucking firm that had the sensitive job of transporting uranium around America, Campbell testified.
> Campbell says he provided the FBI the evidence of wrongdoing months before the Obama administration approved a series of favorable decisions that enriched Rosatom, including the CFIUS decision.
> The Hill’s stories last fall prompted the Justice Department to take the rare step of freeing Campbell from his nondisclosure agreement as an intelligence asset so he could testify to Congress about what he witnessed inside Russia’s nuclear industry.
> Campbell gave the congressional committees documents he said he provided to his FBI handlers in 2010 showing that the Russian and American executives implicated in the Tenex bribery scheme specifically asked him to try to help get the Uranium One deal approved by the Obama administration.
> “In 2010, officials inside Tenex became interested in helping another Rosatom subsidiary, ARMZ, win Obama administration approval to purchase Uranium One, a Canadian company with massive Kazakh and large U.S. uranium assets,” Campbell testified. “Although Tenex and ARMZ are separate subsidiaries, Tenex had its own interest in Uranium One. Tenex would become responsible for finding commercial markets and revenue for those uranium assets once they were mined.
> “The emails and documents I intercepted during 2010 made clear that Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One – for both its Kazakh and American assets – was part of Russia’s geopolitical strategy to gain leverage in global energy markets,” he testified. “I obtained documentary proof that Tenex was helping Rosatom win CFIUS approval, including an October 6, 2010 email … asking me specifically to help overcome opposition to the Uranium One deal.”
> Campbell told lawmakers the purchase of the Uranium One assets and the securing of billions of new uranium sales contracts inside the United States during the Obama years were part of the “Russian uranium dominance strategy.”
> “The importance of the Uranium One decision to Tenex was made clear by the fact that the Russian government directed Mikerin to open a new U.S. office for Tenex and to create a new American entity called Tenam in early October 2010, just weeks before Rosatom and ARMZ won the Obama administration approval to buy Uranium One,” he said.
> “Rosatom/Tenex threw a party to celebrate, which was widely attended by American nuclear industry officials. At the request of the FBI, I attended and recorded video footage of Tenam’s new offices,” he added.
> Campbell’s written testimony covered a wide array of activities he conducted under the FBI’s direction, ranging from a failed sting effort to lure Putin to the United States to gathering evidence that Russia was “helping Iran build its nuclear capability.”
> Campbell provided Congress an April 16, 2010, memo he said he wrote and gave to the FBI that spelled out in detail the Russian efforts to aid Iran.
> “Tenex continues to supply Iran fuel through their Russian company,” Campbell wrote in that 2010 document obtained by The Hill, naming the specific company that was being used to help. “They continue to assist with construction consult [sic] and fabricated assemblies to supply the reactor. Fabricated assemblies require sophisticated engineering and are arranged inside the reactor with the help and consult” of Russians.
> “The final fabricators to Iran are being flown by Russian air transport due to the sensitive nature of the equipment,” his 2010 memo to the FBI added.
> Campbell told lawmakers he also gave the FBI “documentary proof that officials in Moscow were obtaining restricted copies of IAEA compliance reports on Iranian nuclear inspections, a discovery that appeared to deeply concern my handlers.”
> While most of his testimony involved intelligence matters, Campbell also briefly described the toll years of undercover work took on him personally. He continued informing through a bout with brain cancer, a case of leukemia and battles with excessive drinking, he told lawmakers.
> He also was never reimbursed for the hundreds of thousands of dollars he used of his own money to make bribe payments under the FBI’s direction to the Russians to facilitate his cover.
> But Campbell testified he was gratified when the FBI in 2016 gave him a $50,000 reward check celebrating his undercover work, directly answering Democrats criticisms that federal prosecutors didn’t trust him as a witness.
> “My FBI handlers praised my work. They told me on various occasions that details from the undercover probe had been briefed directly to FBI top officials. On two occasions my handlers were particularly excited, claiming that my undercover work had been briefed to President Obama as part of his daily presidential briefing,” he testified
> In the end, though, he told lawmakers he remains disturbed that the Obama administration made so many favorable decisions benefitting the Russian nuclear industry when the evidence of wrongdoing and ill intent was so extensive.
> “I was frustrated watching the U.S. government make numerous decisions benefiting Rosatom and Tenex while those entities were engaged in serious criminal conduct on U.S. soil,” he testified. “Tenex and Rosatom were raking in billions of U.S. dollars by signing contracts with American nuclear utility clients at the same time they were indulging in extortion by using threats to get bribes and kickbacks, with a portion going to Russia for high ranking officials.”
> He said he never got a satisfactory answer from the FBI.
> “I remember one response I got from an agent when I asked how it was possible CFIUS would approve the Uranium One sale when the FBI could prove Rosatom was engaged in criminal conduct. His answer: ‘Ask your politics,’ ” Campbell said.


http://archive.is/quCF5#selection-3151.0-3555.237


----------



## virus21




----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-democrats/trump-blocks-release-of-democratic-memo-on-russia-probe-idUSKBN1FT2NP



> *Trump blocks release of Russia memo drafted by Democrats*
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Friday blocked the release of a classified memo written by congressional Democrats to rebut a Republican document that he allowed to be made public last week that claimed FBI and Justice Department bias against him in the federal probe of Russia and the 2016 U.S. election.
> 
> The Republican president’s decision -- the latest controversy relating to an investigation that has hung over his year in office -- infuriated Democrats. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said, “Millions of Americans are asking one simple question: what is he hiding?”
> 
> White House Counsel Don McGahn said the Justice Department had identified portions of the 10-page memo written by Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee that “would create especially significant concerns for the national security and law enforcement interests” of the country.
> 
> The White House also released a letter from the FBI director and the department’s No. 2 official voicing concern about its release in relation to protecting U.S. intelligence sources and methods.
> 
> A week earlier, Trump had overruled similar objections from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Justice Department about releasing the memo written by the same committee’s Republican members that took aim at senior law enforcement officials.
> 
> ”The president’s double standard when it comes to transparency is appalling, Schumer said.
> 
> Trump on Feb. 2 allowed the release of the memo written by the committee’s Republicans with no redactions. Democrats said the Republican memo mischaracterized highly sensitive classified information and was intended to discredit Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of potential collusion between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia.
> 
> Mueller is also investigating whether Trump has committed obstruction of justice in trying to impede the Russia probe.
> 
> McGahn said the president would be willing to reconsider the release of the memo if the committee decides to revise it “to mitigate the risks” identified by the Justice Department.
> *
> FBI SURVEILLANCE*
> 
> The committee’s top Democrat, Adam Schiff, said the memo Trump blocked puts forth facts that the public needs to know, including that the FBI acted properly in seeking permission from a special court for surveillance of Carter Page, a Trump campaign adviser with ties to Russia.
> 
> Schiff said the committee’s Democrats “take seriously” the Justice Department and FBI concerns and will review their recommended redactions. He said he hopes the matter can be resolved quickly so the committee can return to the Russia investigation.
> 
> The Intelligence Committee voted unanimously on Monday to release the document drafted by the panel’s Democrats, contingent on the Republican president agreeing to reclassify it.
> 
> “Although the President is inclined to declassify the Feb. 5 Memorandum, because the memorandum contains numerous properly classified and especially sensitive passages, he is unable to do so at this time,” McGahn said in a letter to Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House panel.
> 
> The White House also released a letter sent to McGahn by FBI Director Christopher Wray and to Rod Rosenstein, the No. 2 Justice Department official, expressing concerns about the memo’s release “in light of longstanding principles regarding the protection of intelligence sources and methods, ongoing investigations, and other similar sensitive information.”
> 
> Democratic Representative Ted Lieu wrote on Twitter that Trump’s action was outrageous, adding that he read the memo and is convinced that Trump “is now intentionally hiding relevant information from the American people in order to mislead the public. An innocent person would not block the memo.”
> 
> The Republican memo portrayed the Russia investigation as a product of political bias at the FBI and Justice Department against Trump. The president said the document “totally vindicates” him in the Russia investigation, a claim disputed by Democrats and some Republicans.
> 
> Democrats last week warned Trump against using the Republican memo as a pretext to fire Rosenstein, who hired Mueller and oversees the investigation, or to remove Mueller himself. The Republican memo singled out Rosenstein and several other officials by name, including former FBI Director James Comey, who Trump fired in May 2017, as the agency investigated the Russia matter.
> 
> Mueller took over the investigation from the FBI.
> 
> U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign using hacking and propaganda, an effort that eventually included attempting to tilt the race in Trump’s favor. Russia denies interfering in the election. Trump denies collusion with Moscow.
> 
> The Republican document asserted that a dossier of alleged Trump-Russia contacts compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, and funded in part by U.S. Democrats, formed an “essential part” of requests to a special court to be allowed to conduct electronic surveillance on Page, an oil industry consultant with numerous contacts in Russia, that began in October 2016.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/961949897300865024
Jackass. fpalm


----------



## CamillePunk

the only thing I care less about than the Olympics is who the Vice President is or what he does on a given day 

Trump blocking the Dem memo though. :banderas A+ entertainment for those of us in the fun movie.


----------



## Vic Capri

People defending North Korea on social media again. :lol

- Vic


----------



## virus21

You don't say


----------



## DesolationRow

:lol

Good video, @virus21. (Just happened to see it elsewhere.) Took note of that little detail that was slipping through the proverbial cracks as well. :lol


----------



## Tater

virus21 said:


> You don't say





DesolationRow said:


> :lol
> 
> Good video, @virus21. (Just happened to see it elsewhere.) Took note of that little detail that was slipping through the proverbial cracks as well. :lol




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/962209165371432962


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> the only thing I care less about than the Olympics is who the Vice President is or what he does on a given day
> 
> Trump blocking the Dem memo though. :banderas A+ entertainment for those of us in the fun movie.


Just more proof how guilty Trump is and he is blocking everything he can that proves it


----------



## Arkham258

Trump isn't blocking anything

The Dems put classified info in it to FORCE Trump to block its release in order to make him look bad. It's another in a long line of sleazy tactics by this corrupt, shit hole party. And anyone with half a brain can see that

I don't care though, the Dems are gonna go down HARD before the year is over with all of the corruption within that party that will be soon exposed. Those of us who have our eyes open and aren't being worked can clearly see that


----------



## Art Vandaley

Arkham258 said:


> Trump isn't blocking anything
> 
> The Dems put classified info in it to FORCE Trump to block its release in order to make him look bad. It's another in a long line of sleazy tactics by this corrupt, shit hole party. And anyone with half a brain can see that
> 
> I don't care though, the Dems are gonna go down HARD before the year is over with all of the corruption within that party that will be soon exposed. Those of us who have our eyes open and aren't being worked can clearly see that


Bullshit, the memo was voted to be released by a majority Republican congressional committee.

It was released by the Republicans not the Democrats.

Agree that Trump blocking it's release is hilarious though.


----------



## Draykorinee

Arkham258 said:


> Trump isn't blocking anything
> 
> The Dems put classified info in it to FORCE Trump to block its release in order to make him look bad. It's another in a long line of sleazy tactics by this corrupt, shit hole party. And anyone with half a brain can see that
> 
> I don't care though, the Dems are gonna go down HARD before the year is over with all of the corruption within that party that will be soon exposed. Those of us who have our eyes open and aren't being worked can clearly see that


Eyes open but didn't see that the repubs voted to release it so blames the democrats. :serious:


----------



## Kabraxal

O look... mre partisan bickering. How fun.


----------



## Draykorinee

Kabraxal said:


> O look... mre partisan bickering. How fun.


It'll never end the way American politics is set up. It's just going to get worse.


----------



## virus21

> The Democratic National Committee entered the midterm elections year "dead broke," with a paltry $400,000 in party coffers, according to federal records.
> The committee finished 2017 with roughly $6.5 million in available cash and about $6.1 million in debt, according to recently released Federal Election Commission filings. That leaves a balance of just $422,582 to start a year that will culminate in midterm elections, in which Democrats are hoping to recapture a majority in the House.
> The DNC’s fundraising challenges have been well known since shortly after the 2016 elections, when President Trump defeated front-running Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. The committee has been rocked by turmoil, including the resignation of chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz amid leaked emails some say showed DNC brass "rigged" the primaries so Clinton would defeat Sen. Bernie Sanders.
> In addition, the selection in February 2017 of former Obama administration official Tom Perez to replace Wasserman Schultz, over Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, sparked discord about the party continuing to hew to its establishment power base. More recently, the DNC has emerged as a key figure in the Russia collusion investigation, amid revelations it helped fund the so-called “anti-Trump” dossier that apparently led, at least in part, to the start of the probe.
> Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez speaks at Ralph Northam's election night rally on the campus of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, November 7, 2017. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein - HP1EDB80BPO1W
> Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez speaks at Ralph Northam's election night rally on the campus of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, November 7, 2017. (REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein)
> Party officials say the funding figures are not as dire as they may appear, as donors are more likely to give to individual candidates than to monolithic groups like the DNC or its counterpart, the Republican National Committee.
> GOP LAWMAKER BLASTS DOSSIER WHICH MEMO SAYS LED TO TRUMP SPYING OPERATION
> “Democratic candidates across the country are out-hustling and out-organizing Republican incumbents, many of whom have not faced a competitive challenge in a very long time and are struggling to find those old campaign muscles,” the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said Friday, pointing to Republican incumbents trailing their Democratic challengers in fundraising in dozens of House races.
> Still, the DNC’s money woes come at critical time, as it tries to retake the House and mount a longshot bid to retake the Senate.
> RNC on track for record year in fundraising as DNC hits historic low in November; reaction on 'Outnumbered.' Video
> Marie Harf: DNC has to rebuild its image before 2020
> The RNC raised $132 million through last year, double the DNC’s $66 million, which along with group’s minimal cash led The Intercept reporter Ryan Grim, among the first to report the story, to tweet that the DNC is “dead broke.
> Democratic Party aides said in response to the new numbers that the DNC's 2017 haul was more than what the party raised in previous off-election years, including the year ahead of the 2006 midterms, when Democrats regained control of Congress and years when former President Barack Obama helped raise money.
> The Associated Press contributed to this story.


http://archive.is/h9pN0


----------



## TripleG

How the hell does a national political party go broke? 

I don't mean that in an "I need an Econ lesson" way, but in a "How fucking stupid do the people running the DNC have to be to let something like that happen?" kind of way.


----------



## TheConnor

Arkham258 said:


> Trump isn't blocking anything
> 
> The Dems put classified info in it to FORCE Trump to block its release in order to make him look bad. It's another in a long line of sleazy tactics by this corrupt, shit hole party. And anyone with half a brain can see that
> 
> I don't care though, the Dems are gonna go down HARD before the year is over with all of the corruption within that party that will be soon exposed. Those of us who have our eyes open and aren't being worked can clearly see that


exactly they are obsessed with getting rid of Trump and putting some whackjob dictator in office, I do not understand how even sheep liberals dont see this,


----------



## Arkham258

TheConnor said:


> exactly they are obsessed with getting rid of Trump and putting some whackjob dictator in office, I do not understand how even sheep liberals dont see this,


That's pretty much what Hilary would have been. Our country would have gone to hell in a hand basket if she had become president. 

Lucky for us we're on the GOOD timeline LOL


----------



## Draykorinee

Arkham258 said:


> TheConnor said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly they are obsessed with getting rid of Trump and putting some whackjob dictator in office, I do not understand how even sheep liberals dont see this,
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty much what Hilary would have been. Our country would have gone to hell in a hand basket if she had become president.
> 
> Lucky for us we're on the GOOD timeline LOL
Click to expand...

Do you only reply when someone agrees with you and not when you're put in your place about your factually inaccurate posts?


----------



## Pratchett

TripleG said:


> How the hell does a national political party go broke?
> 
> I don't mean that in an "I need an Econ lesson" way, but in a "How fucking stupid do the people running the DNC have to be to let something like that happen?" kind of way.


I am sure you are aware that the DNC "bet the farm" on Hillary winning the Presidential election.

I wonder who currently holds the deed to said "farm"? 8*D


----------



## Stephen90

Arkham258 said:


> That's pretty much what Hilary would have been. Our country would have gone to hell in a hand basket if she had become president.
> 
> Lucky for us we're on the GOOD timeline LOL


Our country already is getting laughed at because of Trump. Too bad you don't see that.


----------



## Tater

TripleG said:


> How the hell does a national political party go broke?
> 
> I don't mean that in an "I need an Econ lesson" way, but in a "How fucking stupid do the people running the DNC have to be to let something like that happen?" kind of way.





Pratchett said:


> I am sure you are aware that the DNC "bet the farm" on Hillary winning the Presidential election.
> 
> I wonder who currently holds the deed to said "farm"? 8*D


*How the hell does a national political party go broke?* 

It was intentional and it backfired. During the Obama years, they intentionally gave away all their money to high priced consultants to set it up as a party so broke that Hillary could then come in and buy the party, therefore buying the nomination. Then they used their MSM propaganda arm to prop up Trump because they were fully aware of how much Hillary disgusted most of the voting public. The powers that be knew full well that someone as putrid as Hillary would never become president without rigging the primaries to get the nomination and having someone even more disgusting than her to run against in the general. They went all in on this strategy and when Hillary lost and all of this was exposed, they were left with a party that's broke and wiped out nationally and a majority of their base disgusted with them.

As catastrophic as the current administration is, we'd be far more fucked in the long run had Hillary successfully bought the WH.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> *How the hell does a national political party go broke?*
> 
> It was intentional and it backfired. During the Obama years, they intentionally gave away all their money to high priced consultants to set it up as a party so broke that Hillary could then come in and buy the party, therefore buying the nomination. Then they used their MSM propaganda arm to prop up Trump because they were fully aware of how much Hillary disgusted most of the voting public. The powers that be knew full well that someone as putrid as Hillary would never become president without rigging the primaries to get the nomination and having someone even more disgusting than her to run against in the general. They went all in on this strategy and when Hillary lost and all of this was exposed, they were left with a party that's broke and wiped out nationally and a majority of their base disgusted with them.
> 
> As catastrophic as the current administration is, we'd be far more fucked in the long run had Hillary successfully bought the WH.


Not everyone has abandoned them! The people that want "Free" stuff will vote, the non-whites who still think the Democrats have their best interests at heart despite the myriad of evidence will vote and their most loyal, the lilly white voters who live in their own little world filled with political jingoism will always vote!

They're the "good guys" after all, why they'll rub butter on your burns to help you and protect people from Syrian gas attacks!:grin2:


----------



## FriedTofu

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesal...-to-decide-what-food-snap-recipients-will-get



> The Trump administration is proposing a major shake-up in one of the country's most important "safety net" programs, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps. Under the proposal, most SNAP recipients would lose much of their ability to choose the food they buy with their SNAP benefits.
> 
> The proposal is included in the Trump administration budget request for fiscal year 2019. It would require approval from Congress.
> 
> Under the proposal, which was announced Monday, low-income Americans who receive at least $90 a month — just over 80 percent of all SNAP recipients — would get about half of their benefits in the form of a "USDA Foods package." The package was described in the budget as consisting of "shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit and vegetables." The boxes would not include fresh fruits or vegetables.
> 
> Currently, SNAP beneficiaries get money loaded onto an EBT card they can use to buy what they want as long as it falls under the guidelines. The administration says the move is a "cost-effective approach" with "no loss in food benefits to participants."
> 
> The USDA believes that state governments will be able to deliver this food at much less cost than SNAP recipients currently pay for food at retail stores — thus reducing the overall cost of the SNAP program by $129 billion over the next 10 years.
> 
> This and other changes in the SNAP program, according to the Trump administration, will reduce the SNAP budget by $213 billion over those years — cutting the program by almost 30 percent.
> 
> Joel Berg, CEO of Hunger Free America, a hunger advocacy group that also helps clients access food-assistance services, said the administration's plan left him baffled. "They have managed to propose nearly the impossible, taking over $200 billion worth of food from low-income Americans while increasing bureaucracy and reducing choices," Berg says.
> 
> He says SNAP is efficient because it is a "free market model" that lets recipients shop at stores for their benefits. The Trump administration's proposal, he said, "is a far more intrusive, Big Government answer. They think a bureaucrat in D.C. is better at picking out what your family needs than you are?"
> 
> Douglas Greenaway, president of the National WIC Association, echoed that sentiment. "Removing choice from SNAP flies in the face of encouraging personal responsibility," he said. He says "the budget seems to assume that participating in SNAP is a character flaw."
> 
> It isn't clear how billions of dollars' worth of food each year would be distributed to millions of SNAP recipients who live all over the country, including dense urban areas and sparsely populated rural regions. The budget says states will have "substantial flexibility in designing the food box delivery system through existing infrastructure, partnerships or commercial/retail delivery services."
> 
> Critics of the proposal said distributing that much food presents a logistical nightmare. "Among the problems, it's going to be costly and take money out of the [SNAP] program from the administrative side. It's going to stigmatize people when they have to go to certain places to pick up benefits," says Jim Weill, president of the nonprofit Food Research and Action Center.
> 
> Stacy Dean, vice president for food assistance policy at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, called the proposal "radical and risky." The idea that the government could save money by distributing food itself, she said, is "ill-informed at best."
> 
> It isn't clear whether the boxes will come with directions on how to cook the foods inside. "It could be something that [SNAP recipients] don't even know how to make," notes Miguelina Diaz, whose team at Hunger Free America works directly with families to help them access food aid. "We deal with different people of different backgrounds. Limiting them by providing them a staple box would limit the choices of food they can prepare for their families."
> 
> According to Dean, from CBPP, the Trump administration wants to trim an additional $80 billion from the SNAP program by cutting off about 4 million people who currently receive food assistance. Most of them live in states that have decided to loosen the program's eligibility requirements slightly. Under the administration's proposal, states would no longer be able to do so.
> 
> Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said in early December that he wanted states to have more flexibility in doling out SNAP, announcing the agency wanted to hear about programs from states that don't increase the cost of the program and will combat what he said is fraud and waste. At the National Grocers Association conference over the weekend, Perdue said the budget has "common-sense reforms that call for greater consistency across nutritional programs."
> 
> Nutrition programs, including SNAP, made up about 80 percent of the USDA's budget in the most recent farm bill, making it the largest portion of agency spending. About 44 million people participated in SNAP each month in 2016, at an annual cost of $70.9 billion. Nearly two-thirds were under 18, over 60 or disabled, according to the USDA.
> 
> Congress largely ignored Trump's proposed budget for SNAP last year, when he wanted to cut the funding by a quarter. This time, it's a farm bill year, meaning many budgetary decisions will be made among the House and Senate agriculture committees.
> 
> Several critics we spoke with expressed skepticism that the proposed SNAP changes would pass in Congress. Even so, Weill says, "Whenever you see proposals like this that attack [SNAP] ... it harms the program even if it doesn't pass, in the long term reducing support for the program and stigmatizing people who use it."


This has got to be a joke. I doubt delivering parcels of food is cheaper than just sending credit via mail or electronic means. Unless they think there is massive fraud in the current system, this idea makes almost zero sense in achieving its stated goal. Perhaps they think this will reduce the trading of current food stamps for cash to buy drugs and booze? Even so, seems to me fraud in the system will just shift from 'enterprising' addicts with local stores and giant retailers to giant agriculture corporations with 'enterprising' government procurement departments. :shrug


----------



## Tater

FriedTofu said:


> Congress largely ignored Trump's proposed budget for SNAP last year


This proposal sounds like a monumental clusterfuck. Instead of people going to the grocery store and buying the food themselves, there would be a Big Government program handing out boxes of cheap crap? No wonder Congress largely ignored it last year. This doesn't even sound like a real cost cutting measure. It sounds like more of an outright fuck you to poor people. What would be saved in proving cheap food would be offset by the costs of running the program. You also have to consider that a majority of SNAP recipients are in Republican districts. That could also factor into the decision making of Republicans in Congress. They know how many of their constituents rely on this program. Of course, considering how many other ways they brazenly fuck over their base, doing this to them is not out of the realm of possibility. Because, you know, poor people are not really people and don't deserve people food. 

This one might be a step too far. Considering how badly Americans have been fucked over by their government without revolting, that's saying a lot.


----------



## FriedTofu

Tater said:


> This proposal sounds like a monumental clusterfuck. Instead of people going to the grocery store and buying the food themselves, there would be a Big Government program handing out boxes of cheap crap? No wonder Congress largely ignored it last year. This doesn't even sound like a real cost cutting measure. It sounds like more of an outright fuck you to poor people. What would be saved in proving cheap food would be offset by the costs of running the program. You also have to consider that a majority of SNAP recipients are in Republican districts. That could also factor into the decision making of Republicans in Congress. They know how many of their constituents rely on this program. Of course, considering how many other ways they brazenly fuck over their base, doing this to them is not out of the realm of possibility. Because, you know, poor people are not really people and don't deserve people food.
> 
> This one might be a step too far. Considering how badly Americans have been fucked over by their government without revolting, that's saying a lot.


The funny thing is the basis of the idea is that the government has better bargaining power to drive down cost of buying food for the system. Yet government can't do that to help reduce costs for healthcare because reasons.


----------



## BruiserKC

FriedTofu said:


> The funny thing is the basis of the idea is that the government has better bargaining power to drive down cost of buying food for the system. Yet government can't do that to help reduce costs for healthcare because reasons.


And the food they are buying ends up being crap. We see this in the form of school lunches that kids aren't eating because of their lack of quality. I also find interesting for all of the concerns of health issues for those hovering around the poverty line and now you take away healthy food options for those that are receiving food stamp/SNAP benefits? 

Or maybe this is the illusion of the revenue-neutral idea of cutting spending elsewhere in order to pave the way for Trump's trillion-dollar infrastructure program. Not to mention the US Chamber of Commerce (might as well have had Low Energy Jeb as POTUS if we were going to have the CoC running things) is pushing the idea of a 25-cent increase in the gas tax to help things along as well. 

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/pain-pump-gop-considers-gas-tax-increase/

Rand Paul was right...the GOP is only about the deficit and national debt when the Dems are in power. Now Trump is going to make the same mistake that Dubya did. Bush got the tax cuts but they failed to cut spending and eventually the bottom dropped out. There is no fiscal sanity anymore in Washington, if there ever really was to start with.


----------



## FriedTofu

BruiserKC said:


> And the food they are buying ends up being crap. We see this in the form of school lunches that kids aren't eating because of their lack of quality. I also find interesting for all of the concerns of health issues for those hovering around the poverty line and now you take away healthy food options for those that are receiving food stamp/SNAP benefits?
> 
> Or maybe this is the illusion of the revenue-neutral idea of cutting spending elsewhere in order to pave the way for Trump's trillion-dollar infrastructure program. Not to mention the US Chamber of Commerce (might as well have had Low Energy Jeb as POTUS if we were going to have the CoC running things) is pushing the idea of a 25-cent increase in the gas tax to help things along as well.
> 
> https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/pain-pump-gop-considers-gas-tax-increase/
> 
> Rand Paul was right...the GOP is only about the deficit and national debt when the Dems are in power. Now Trump is going to make the same mistake that Dubya did. Bush got the tax cuts but they failed to cut spending and eventually the bottom dropped out. There is no fiscal sanity anymore in Washington, if there ever really was to start with.


To be fair, it isn't like many people are not spending the food stamps money on unhealthy food(because they usually cost cheaper and/or are more convenient). I think many kids aren't eating those food because they are usually less flavourful or are just plain vegetables. Also can't be helped if the cooks at schools don't give a damn in preparations. :lol

Rand Paul is a blowhard. He talks a good game when he knows there is zero chance of what he is talking about becomes policy. When there is a chance of it happening, he reins it back and let others take the spotlight from austerity measures being implemented so he can avoid most of the backlash.


----------



## Draykorinee

That SNAP change is laughable.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

BruiserKC said:


> And the food they are buying ends up being crap. We see this in the form of school lunches that kids aren't eating because of their lack of quality. I also find interesting for all of the concerns of health issues for those hovering around the poverty line and now you take away healthy food options for those that are receiving food stamp/SNAP benefits?
> 
> Or maybe this is the illusion of the revenue-neutral idea of cutting spending elsewhere in order to pave the way for Trump's trillion-dollar infrastructure program. Not to mention the US Chamber of Commerce (might as well have had Low Energy Jeb as POTUS if we were going to have the CoC running things) is pushing the idea of a 25-cent increase in the gas tax to help things along as well.
> 
> https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/pain-pump-gop-considers-gas-tax-increase/
> 
> Rand Paul was right...the GOP is only about the deficit and national debt when the Dems are in power. Now Trump is going to make the same mistake that Dubya did. Bush got the tax cuts but they failed to cut spending and eventually the bottom dropped out. There is no fiscal sanity anymore in Washington, if there ever really was to start with.


One of the reason's poor people buy crap often times is just cause it's cheaper and can be stored longer which if your poor it means you can't just go on a run to a Farmers Market mile's away from home every other day.Also people aren't educated enough in school or elsewhere about proper nutrition. You would be surprised how many adults think things like Bran Muffins and V8 are just as good as eating a salad.


----------



## GothicBohemian

I've gained over 20 pounds - from 112 to 135 - in six months in part because of the poor quality of food available when trying to shop below the poverty line. I'm creative enough to buy fresh veggies from the discount bins, peel off the rotten bits, and cook up something tasty from them but I have to make high calorie but cheap potatoes, pastas and day old baked goods my staples. I can't imagine trying to feed myself, let alone a family, on garbage like peanut butter and canned peas. 

It's outrageous of your government to even suggest such a plan and not only because it sounds like an expensive, wasteful change to an already costly program. What kind of people propose taking what little nutritious, or at least enjoyable (I'm not so naive as to think these kids are fed quality meals in many cases even now), food they get away from kids who've done nothing but be born into families with little money? The US is not impoverished, shit like this shouldn't be an option.

This thread always pisses me off and I knew better than to open it. It needs to stay like the horrid PC one - on my personal blacklist.


----------



## Reaper

I'm not putting anyone down but my wife and I spend 300 bucks on groceries for 2 adults, a cat and 5 sugar gliders a month. We were spending 500 bucks a month before I broke it down to a science and got it under control. I actually made it a goal to do this and everyone told me that it couldn't be done ... But I did it. Our entertainment budget is 100 bucks a month and I stick to that without ever feeling like we're starving for food or entertainment.

Pakistani food is healthy, full of taste and cheap to make. So are traditional Irish dishes. Lots of rice dishes with sauces that don't have cream or yogurt keeps the weight within tolerance levels. Sometimes I'll mix things up with spinach and cauliflower dishes cooked with meat to have with naan. 

A pot roast is a staple, as is some sort of chicken breast meal and that's 10 bucks each for a full week of dinners (the variety comes with whether we have it by itself, with naan, or rice). I'm spending 3 bucks a meal / person or less for a full month - and it's all home-cooked meals. Sometimes we'll have a cheat day with Pizza, or steak or go out .. We'll get a combo platter from a local mexican restaurant or something like that and that comes from my entertainment budget. We'll get a bunch of brats, sandwich/deli meat for lunches, cereal or egg/quiche for breakfast (you'd be surprised how long quiche can last and how many breakfasts you can have with 5 eggs, a handful of spinach, sausage meat and bacon). 

I also cook 2 dishes every weekend and cook 2-3 meals a week. It can be done despite the fact that we've both now got busier schedules than before (I'm working on getting a real estate license and returning to full time work). 

We've both maintained our weight for over 2 years with this cheap ass diet and we're both very healthy as well. Now I'm buying a deep freezer in our new home which means that I'll be stockpiling meat when it comes on sale for months in advance. I keep picture reminders of flyers and cheap meat that I've bought so I know how much each cut actually costs and so I will avoid buying certain meats during times when it's higher priced than other times. Like Chicken breasts averages between 1.49 a pound to 4.99 a pound ... My ballpark figure is to purchase it around the 1.99 mark so during months when I can't find it for that price, I'll simply skip breasts and switch over to boneless thighs instead for that month/week. Buying pork shoulder, or butt and trimming all the fat before cooking is a lot of hard and messy work, but it's well worth it in the end. Things like that keep our costs low and food healthy. 

BTW, my food costs won't go that much higher if I had kids because again - Pakistani food, crock pot meals etc are cooked in such a way that it's all specifically "poverty" food (but not unhealthy or deprivation) as it's mostly salan, shorba and a handful of meat and sometimes veggies. Salan is quite literally just water/broth and spices. But salan also allows you to eat several rice meals - which are both filling and healthy. Food process veggies like carrots, greens and cauliflower and cook with the rice, then have it with whatever meat was cooked in the crock pot. 

House/food management is a proper science. I can now appreciate why at one time "home economics" was actually an integral part of our education.


----------



## Tater

Keeping a well stocked kitchen can be done at reasonable costs if you know how to actually cook and you shop smart. I have two main locations I do for my grocery shopping; Safeway and Sam's Club. I can get all kinds of great deals on smaller items at the Safeway. They have reduced items areas and those are always the first place I check when I go shopping. They also have a club card that gives you discounts on items you buy regularly. And for everything I can get in bulk, which is always cheaper, there's Sam's Club.

A big mistake many people make when grocery shopping is buying what they want at the time instead of buying what's on sale at the moment. If you can get a good deal on something and it's something that can be stored, buy extra and save it for later. That thing you were wanting this week might be on sale next week.



BruiserKC said:


> Or maybe this is the illusion of the revenue-neutral idea of cutting spending elsewhere in order to pave the way for Trump's trillion-dollar infrastructure program.


Do you know how this particular scam works? Because it's not what most people think of when they hear infrastructure spending. If everyone were fully aware of what was being planned here, it'd have much less support. Eisenhower is rolling over in his grave.


----------



## virus21

> Cody Shearer reportedly spent at least six months in Eastern Europe attempting to purchase compromising information from a Russian on President Donald Trump.
> He is a political operative and author of a second Trump-Russia dossier.
> The development comes amid news that American spies also attempted to cut a deal with a shadowy Russian that involved dirt on Trump.
> 
> 
> An American political operative with ties to the Democratic Party has been meandering around Eastern Europe for months in search of compromising information on President Donald Trump, The New York Times reported on Friday.
> The operative, Cody Shearer, is the author of a second Trump-related dossier the FBI is currently examining. The document is believed to independently lay out similar allegations of collusion between Trump and Russia as those contained in the infamous Steele dossier, written by the former British spy Christopher Steele.
> Though Shearer's background is in politics and journalism, not espionage, the FBI appears to have taken at least some aspects of it seriously enough to investigate, The Guardian reported.
> Shearer has spent at least six months in Eastern Europe attempting to secure damaging material about Trump from an unidentified Russian, sources familiar with his efforts told The Times.
> Shearer would say only that his work was "a big deal," when asked by newspaper about it last year.
> "You know what it is, and you shouldn't be asking about it," he said before hanging up.
> The news comes amid bombshell reports from The Times and The Intercept that American spies had paid $100,000 to a shadowy Russian who had promised to sell them cyberweapons stolen from the National Security Agency.
> Instead of the promised hacking tools, the Russian attempted to push compromising information on Trump, and the Americans cut the deal short and told him to go back to Russia and never return.


http://archive.is/uO9LK#selection-885.0-963.194



> To be honest, it’s been tough to believe that Republicans can pull off a miracle in the midterms this year to hold onto the House. Yes, the polls show a GOP rebound in the generic ballot, and yes, Nancy Pelosi seems intent on making snobbery the central Democratic Party theme for the election. Donald Trump’s approval rating has even begun climbing again.
> See Also: Grayson wants a return to Congress — from somewhere
> I want to believe, I really do. But it wasn’t until this morning’s Washington Post report that I really began to see a permanent Republican majority, or something:
> TRENDING:
> Hmmm: Susan Rice sent an email to herself on Inauguration Day memorializing a chat between Obama and Comey on Russiagate
> 
> 
> In the first electoral season since the stunning loss that extinguished her years-long drive for the presidency, [Hillary] Clinton, 70, has begun a discreet and low-profile reentry into the political fray.
> Her emerging 2018 strategy, according to more than a dozen friends and advisers familiar with her plans, is to leverage the star power she retains in some Democratic circles on behalf of select candidates while remaining sufficiently below the radar to avoid becoming a useful target for Republicans seeking to rile up their base.
> Most likely, they said, Clinton will attempt to help Democratic candidates who have a history of supporting her and her family, and expending her political capital in a number of the 23 congressional districts she won in 2016 but are now held by a Republican. Lending a hand to Democrats organizing at a grass-roots level is a priority, they added.
> 
> What could go wrong — for Republicans? Nothing, really. Democrats have insisted that they want to make the 2018 midterms a referendum on Trump. What better way to do that than to highlight the woman who not only managed to lose an election to him but for months afterward was even less well liked that he was? Hillary managed to insult half the country with her “deplorables” remark, a revealing look at her snobbery that voters will not soon forget — certainly not in just two years.
> Furthermore, asking Hillary to boost “organizing at grass-roots level” is somewhat akin to making Sid Blumenthal the Minister of Transparency. Don’t Democrats remember her performance in grassroots organizing in places like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania? They might get a rude reminder if they rely on Hillary for their election fortunes again.
> In fact, she got beaten in both of her presidential runs for that specific failure. Barack Obama out-organized her in the 2008 primaries, and she never bothered to put the resources into that fight eight years later in the general election. Hillary was too busy talking with deep-pockets donors and assuming that people would just show up for her against Trump. That also appears to be the broader Democratic strategy in 2018 too, which means they still have that much in common.
> Besides, what will Clinton’s message be? She’s been stuck for more than a year on November 8, 2016, talking about herself and the injustice done to her. Even her allies have gotten tired of this schtick. Boston television critic Joanna Weiss wrote yesterday in Politico that it’s like living through a nightmarish version of Groundhog Day, and that Hillary needs to, ahem, “move on”:
> 
> It’s tough to lose an election for student council, let alone for president. So it made sense that, after November 2016, Hillary Clinton would have spent some time wallowing in the past, howling at the universe with a side of Chardonnay. That’s the frame of mind she described in What Happened, her post-campaign memoir that came out in September, which was more of an angry play-by-play of how she was wronged than a clear-headed self-assessment of the race. Now, five months after the book came out, 15 months after the election, Clinton’s been spotted promoting family friend Lanny Davis’ new book, The Unmaking of the President 2016: How FBI Director James Comey Cost Hillary Clinton the Presidency.
> We just passed Groundhog Day on the calendar, but it feels like we’re still living it; we can’t break free from the gnashing and rehashing of the 2016 election. …
> The point is to drop any public grumbling about the past, or calling out of Trump in outraged tweets, or stirring up partisan fury by mocking Trump in public. (Though at least her cameo at the Grammys, reading a passage from “Fire and Fury,” redeemed itself with a self-deprecating joke: “The Grammy’s in the bag?”) There are plenty of people willing and able to analyze the 2016 race and point out the absurdities of Trump. Clinton doesn’t need to be a voice in that mix. She has the chance to go down in history as much more than the almost-first-woman-president. It starts with changing the subject.
> 
> It’s not just Hillary that needs to move on. Democrats need to move on from their obsession with the Clintons, and for that matter their obsession with the Kennedys, too. Voters made it excruciatingly clear that they don’t want dynasties in politics for their own sake, and especially not for the sake of the dynasts themselves. When Democrats care more about working-class voters outside the urban bubbles than they do about the Clintons, they’ll win more elections. Until then, Republicans will be delighted to help them make Hillary’s resentment over being denied access to power the main theme of the Democratic Party.


http://archive.is/ZT696#selection-609.0-887.113


----------



## Vic Capri

> *How the hell does a national political party go broke? *


Losing donors including special interest groups.

- Vic


----------



## Tater

virus21 said:


> What could go wrong — for Republicans? Nothing, really.


Hillary Clinton is trying to single-handedly destroy the country that rejected her. This is taking vindictive bitch to a whole new level.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

For people that don't want infrastructure spending are you excited/hopeful for the end of the great American highway system and upgrading to the Mexican/Kansas model of dilapidated public roads and incessant stops at toll booths!. I look at the current situation and see we have 2 options(eat shit aka take on a ton of debt and update roads not far off from crumbling and fixing infrastructure) or ignore it to be fiscally prudent and eat shit in 10-20 years and also take on a ton of debt because we have Flint 2.0 ,3.0,4.0,5.0. etc Basic public utility maintenence is costly but necessary like taking your car to a tune every year or 2 or going for a dental checkup once or twice a year.


----------



## Arkham258

Stephen90 said:


> Our country already is getting laughed at because of Trump. Too bad you don't see that.


Is that what the bought and paid for shills at CNN and MSNBC are telling you? No one was laughing at him at Davos. North Korea isn't laughing at Trump. Everywhere Trump goes he is respected and feared these days. And my boss certainly isn't laughing at Trump as we discussed the extra money we both got in our paychecks due to the tax cuts. 

You are going to learn so much about Hilary this year, much of which is already out there due to the memos and people like Hannity on Fox news exposing her, Obama and the DNC, you'll fucking thank god every day that she didn't become president. Bookmark this page and remember this post, because many of you are going to be eating your words and humbled in the months to come as your asses get red pilled.


----------



## Tater

Arkham258 said:


> Everywhere Trump goes he is respected


:ha


----------



## Stephen90

Arkham258 said:


> Is that what the bought and paid for shills at CNN and MSNBC are telling you? No one was laughing at him at Davos. North Korea isn't laughing at Trump. Everywhere Trump goes he is respected and feared these days. And my boss certainly isn't laughing at Trump as we discussed the extra money we both got in our paychecks due to the tax cuts.
> 
> You are going to learn so much about Hilary this year, much of which is already out there due to the memos and people like Hannity on Fox news exposing her, Obama and the DNC, you'll fucking thank god every day that she didn't become president. Bookmark this page and remember this post, because many of you are going to be eating your words and humbled in the months to come as your asses get red pilled.


I guess you don't use social media these days nobody respects or fears Trump. Everyone from other countries just laughs at him and his man child behaviour.


----------



## FriedTofu

Stephen90 said:


> I guess you don't use social media these days nobody respects or fears Trump.


That's wrong. People respect the position of the president of the United States and fear Trump's recklessness and idiocy.


----------



## Kabraxal

Stephen90 said:


> I guess you don't use social media these days nobody respects or fears Trump. Everyone from other countries just laughs at him and his man child behaviour.


Why are you using that fetid swamp of human ignorance to gauge anything... social media is a joke.


----------



## Stephen90

Kabraxal said:


> Why are you using that fetid swamp of human ignorance to gauge anything... social media is a joke.


So is fox news but people use that is a credible source. Just like @Arkham258


----------



## Vic Capri

Antonio Sabato Jr. bitch slaps The View

Burn, baby! BURN!

- Vic


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> Antonio Sabato Jr. bitch slaps The View
> 
> Burn, baby! BURN!
> 
> - Vic


Why are men like yourself watching a show geared towards stay at home wife's?


----------



## Kabraxal

Stephen90 said:


> So is fox news but people use that is a credible source. Just like @Arkham258


The media is part of that swamp. There isn’t one trustworthy source.


----------



## Stephen90

Kabraxal said:


> The media is part of that swamp. There isn’t one trustworthy source.


Fair enough. Just pointing the Fox News sheep like @Vic Capri and @Arkham258


----------



## Beatles123

Stephen90 said:


> I guess you don't use social media these days nobody respects or fears Trump. Everyone from other countries just laughs at him and his man child behaviour.


I see your point, I do. However, "Social Media" should never be given credence for anything. It's a cesspool that can be spun for any argument. Further, "nobody" is a bit of a sweeping statement. You could use the "Nobody that's smart" narrative, but then who's being divisive? Rather, why not "Some respect Trump, but not I or those with my personal view"...see how much easier that is?

@Tater Just a little something to help those like you and I cut through the partisan nature of the thread:


----------



## Pratchett

virus21 said:


> http://archive.is/uO9LK#selection-885.0-963.194
> 
> 
> http://archive.is/ZT696#selection-609.0-887.113


Dear gods in the heavens it is almost too much too hope that the Dem's strategy for 2018 Midterms involves using Hillary Clinton to "help" them "win". :banderas


----------



## Tater

Out of the thousands of hours of YT shit I've consumed over the years, this is right up there with the best of the best. I listened to this at work tonight and enjoyed the hell out of it. Jimmy Dore and Joe Rogan just shooting the shit for 3 hours was fucking brilliant. A fair amount of politics were talked about but they covered a wide range of cultural topics as well and the shared experiences of both being stand-up comedians was some good stuff. I highly recommend this video to all here.


----------



## Reaper

Infrastructure spending is just another excuse to legitimize the existence of a government and funnel funds from local and private enterprise to government to spend inefficiently. 

There was no such thing as a public railroad (in fact, there still isn't and they're still running great) or a public road during the industrial revolution that actually spurred Western Industrial growth and got us all the way to the middle of the 20th century.

The Public Works even during the 30's only obtained work through finding local / state sponsors from private enterprise to fund the projects. 

But now we're all gonna die because we can't collect enough taxes for public roads. Find private enterprise. A lot of local communities still do. And that's perfectly fine.


----------



## virus21

Pratchett said:


> Dear gods in the heavens it is almost too much too hope that the Dem's strategy for 2018 Midterms involves using Hillary Clinton to "help" them "win". :banderas


I would say no one is that stupid, but the DNC leadership have proven that unlike money, they have stupidity to spare.


----------



## Tater

virus21 said:


> I would say no one is that stupid, but the DNC leadership have proven that unlike money, they have stupidity to spare.


It's not stupidity. It's by design. When you rig a boxing match, you pay the opposition to take a dive. That's what the DNC is. Paid losers.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Arkham258 said:


> Everywhere Trump goes he is respected and feared these days.












Please no..... I can't take it. You just actually wrote that.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/963839110891831301

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/963846045737345026
:lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

Sounds awesome. :mark:


----------



## RavishingRickRules

FriedTofu said:


> That's wrong. People respect the position of the president of the United States and fear Trump's recklessness and idiocy.


Not in the UK they don't. He gets mocked relentlessly here, nobody fears him in the slightest they just take the piss out of him and protest him coming on an official state visit. I've not been to Germany for a few months but people in Paris were much the same when I was there a couple weeks ago. It's at the stage now where they ape him in adverts on TV. There's no respect OR fear for him that I can see. :lol


----------



## Ben Lister

RavishingRickRules said:


> Not in the UK they don't. He gets mocked relentlessly here, nobody fears him in the slightest they just take the piss out of him and protest him coming on an official state visit. I've not been to Germany for a few months but people in Paris were much the same when I was there a couple weeks ago. It's at the stage now where they ape him in adverts on TV. There's no respect OR fear for him that I can see. :lol


I love the sly digs that wanker gets by people over here on tv, and your right that nobody over here respects him. Can't think of one person I know that has ever had anything nice to say about him.


----------



## Draykorinee

Arkham258 said:


> Stephen90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our country already is getting laughed at because of Trump. Too bad you don't see that.
> 
> 
> 
> Everywhere Trump goes he is respected and feared these days.
Click to expand...

:franklol

From the UK pov Trump is a laughing stock, Bush was easily mocked but Trump takes it to a whole new level. 

Respected and feared.


----------



## Draykorinee

Ben Lister said:


> RavishingRickRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the UK they don't. He gets mocked relentlessly here, nobody fears him in the slightest they just take the piss out of him and protest him coming on an official state visit. I've not been to Germany for a few months but people in Paris were much the same when I was there a couple weeks ago. It's at the stage now where they ape him in adverts on TV. There's no respect OR fear for him that I can see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love the sly digs that wanker gets by people over here on tv, and your right that nobody over here respects him. Can't think of one person I know that has ever had anything nice to say about him.
Click to expand...

Trump is the greatest meme generator in history. There, something nice...


----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> :frank lol
> 
> From the UK pov Trump is a laughing stock, Bush was easily mocked but Trump takes it to a whole new level.
> 
> Respected and feared.
> 
> :franklol


The craziest thing is how many people are now saying "Bush seems alright really in comparison." After all the years of impressionists and comedians slating Bush and slamming him relentlessly it's hilarious how he's seen as "not bad" in comparison :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

RavishingRickRules said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> From the UK pov Trump is a laughing stock, Bush was easily mocked but Trump takes it to a whole new level.
> 
> Respected and feared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The craziest thing is how many people are now saying "Bush seems alright really in comparison." After all the years of impressionists and comedians slating Bush and slamming him relentlessly it's hilarious how he's seen as "not bad" in comparison
Click to expand...

Yeah, if we had proper memes on those days it would have been great.

'Putting food on my family'

'They misunderesterated me'

The dude made sid vicious look articulate in front of a mic.


----------



## Ben Lister

draykorinee said:


> Trump is the greatest meme generator in history. There, something nice...


I actually kind of want him to come to the UK just to see his face when he realises to the true extent of how much people despise him over here and how little the people of the UK think of that tosser.


----------



## Miss Sally

Personally I'd love if the Government ran every part of my life, from spending to what I can do or say. I'd feel more safe with CC TV everywhere and lots more monitoring!


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> Personally I'd love if the Government ran every part of my life, from spending to what I can do or say. I'd feel more safe with CC TV everywhere and lots more monitoring!


There's just a smidging of sarcasm in that.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Personally I'd love it if the government and their cronies had carte blanche to shoot me or give me an injection to put me to sleep if I committed a crime. Nothing says "I have faith in my excellent government" than giving them total powers over life and death. I may have to move to America. :cena


----------



## Reaper

Isn't the country that sends little old ladies to jail for not paying the BBC? That covered up grooming rape gangs for years? That has little to no money to fight "terrorism", but more than enough money to send people who say mean things on the internet to jail?

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Or something like that. 

All countries have their problems. To pretend that one country is better than another in the climate we live in is a fruitless and pointless activity that only shows that even the most anti-nationalist person who hates the far right is actually very nationalistic but isn't even self-aware of their nationalism. 

We're all nationalists if we have pride in what our countries have achieved (or have perceived to have achieved). It's really based on what we think is an achievement and what isn't.


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> The craziest thing is how many people are now saying "Bush seems alright really in comparison." After all the years of impressionists and comedians slating Bush and slamming him relentlessly it's hilarious how he's seen as "not bad" in comparison :lol


Trump Derangement Syndrome has had many somewhat amusing effects. The rehabilitation of Dubya's image is one of them.


----------



## Reaper

No. It's just an old Democrat tactic to brand anyone that oppose them as Hitler. They do it to all Republicans and everyone world over just buys it hook, line and sinker.


----------



## Draykorinee

Is the literally Hitler thing going to come up every 5 pages?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> No. It's just an old Democrat tactic to brand anyone that oppose them as Hitler. They do it to all Republicans and everyone world over just buys it hook, line and sinker.


Nobody here thinks he's Hitler, Charlie Chaplin maybe, did you get confused?


----------



## TheConnor

Hitler: Gassed Six Million Jews

Trump: Recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, Daughter married into Judaism


doesnt sound like Hitler to me.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Nobody here thinks he's Hitler, Charlie Chaplin maybe, did you get confused?


Read posts before commenting. I was talking about how Bush was labeled Hitler by the left when he was elected in 2000.


----------



## virus21

TheConnor said:


> Hitler: Gassed Six Million Jews
> 
> Trump: Recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, Daughter married into Judaism
> 
> 
> doesnt sound like Hitler to me.


You're talking about people who label *non-whites* as white supremacist just because they disagree with them. Logical doesn't exist in their world


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Hitler:Killed Six Million Jews and many more Millions of Allied soldiers died

George Bush: Responsible for a lot more then six million innocent civilian deaths,but at least he wasn't racist or antisemitic

Not much of a fan of Trump but so far he is nowhere near close to awful as Bush Jr or Bill Clinton


----------



## virus21

> BuzzFeed is suing the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to get the committee to turn over information related to the so-called Steele dossier in an effort to bolster its defense in a lawsuit related to the dossier.
> The news outlet is facing a lawsuit from Aleksej Gubarev, a Russian businessman who claims he was libeled when the news outlet published the dossier last year.
> The document, funded partly by the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, contains explosive and in some cases unverified allegations about President Trump’s ties to Russia.
> ADVERTISEMENT
> BuzzFeed is arguing that the DNC has information that could link Gubarev to the 2016 Russian hack into the committee's servers, which would undermine his libel complaint.
> “As part of the discovery process, BuzzFeed is attempting to verify claims in the dossier that relate to the hacking of the DNC — which, the dossier alleges, was done with the support of Aleksej Gubarev, a Russian businessman," BuzzFeed News spokesman Matt Mittenthal told The Hill in a statement.
> "We’re asking a federal court to force the DNC to follow the law and allow BuzzFeed to fully defend its First Amendment rights.”
> According to Vanity Fair, which was the first news outlet to report on the lawsuit, the DNC is arguing that providing such information could make it vulnerable to another cyberattack.
> BuzzFeed was the first outlet to publish the dossier a year ago.
> News of BuzzFeed’s legal complaint comes a day after Foreign Policy reported that the news outlet has hired a former FBI and cybersecurity official to verify allegations contained in the Steele dossier.
> The document has been a source of controversy, and recently re-entered the spotlight as part of a Republican-crafted memo alleging bias within the Justice Department.
> The document accuses senior Justice Department officials of improperly using information from the dossier to obtain surveillance warrants on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
> Last month, Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, sued BuzzFeed News for defamation over the publication of the dossier. BuzzFeed has stood by its decision, arguing the dossier was of significant public interest.


http://archive.is/ZX27N#selection-1723.0-1881.70


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/963839110891831301
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/963846045737345026
> :lmao


It's weird he spends so much time needling at her,he should be crossing his fingers and hoping Democrats are dumb enough to pick her in 2020. Him worried about her is silly as Dem operatives were about Little Marco and Jeb


----------



## Arya Dark

*It's funny how a lot of the left hooked their entire goddamn wagon to the Trump/Russia horse and thought it would actually get them somewhere. I knew that dog wouldn't hunt from day one. How can people who claim to be way smarter than I am ever not see that? *


----------



## Miss Sally

Mercy said:


> *It's funny how a lot of the left hooked their entire goddamn wagon to the Trump/Russia horse and thought it would actually get them somewhere. I knew that dog wouldn't hunt from day one. How can people who claim to be way smarter than I am ever not see that? *


Thing is they don't even have the excuse of "Well my side didn't say nothing otherwise so I thought it was accurate!" (Tho this is also scary because one shouldn't take one Political side as gospel!) because people from every Political standing said the whole thing was silly from the get go.


----------



## Tater

Mercy said:


> *It's funny how a lot of the left hooked their entire goddamn wagon to the Trump/Russia horse and thought it would actually get them somewhere. I knew that dog wouldn't hunt from day one. How can people who claim to be way smarter than I am ever not see that? *


I would argue that it's not the left that's doing this. It's the neoliberal establishment and their dumbass liberal sheep followers who have been perpetrating this Russiagate nonsense. The left, or at least the outlets that I listen to (Jimmy Dore, Caitlin Johnstone, Kyle - Secular Talk, Aaron Mate - Real News), have never bought into the bullshit.

Other than that, your point is not wrong. Russiagate has always been an increasingly dangerous way to distract from how badly the government has been fucking over it's citizens. They'd rather start a new Cold War than have people examine the system that led us to this point.


----------



## Reaper

It doesn't matter what the "moderate" "real" leftists want or think anymore. 

The Democrats are all in with the SJW's and radical left. It no longer represents "moderates" or "reasonable left". 

You guys have no party. You might as well sit the next few decades out ... The ONLY way you can reign in the extreme far left politics of the democrats is to try to get the libertarian party to be less cuckish and grow some balls. But that's unlikely to happen. When the Green Part woman can fall in line with the establishment democrats, and Libertarian Party of America (the Gary Johnson "libertarians") whose policies are actually very much pro-regulation, then the "left" has little to no representation left. You can try to claim "leftism" has having nuance as much as you want, but the Democrat "left" is the HARD SJW left now. And that isn't changing any time soon.

----


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/964661735427776513
:lmao


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> I would argue that it's not the left that's doing this. It's the neoliberal establishment and their dumbass liberal sheep followers who have been perpetrating this Russiagate nonsense. The left, or at least the outlets that I listen to (Jimmy Dore, Caitlin Johnstone, Kyle - Secular Talk, Aaron Mate - Real News), have never bought into the bullshit.
> 
> Other than that, your point is not wrong. Russiagate has always been an increasingly dangerous way to distract from how badly the government has been fucking over it's citizens. They'd rather start a new Cold War than have people examine the system that led us to this point.


Look at when Trump said Obama spied on him, everyone of them laughed, turns out he kinda was and on a lot of people and then Trump approves more stuff that will let the Government spy even more! 

It's like what the Obama Admin did wasn't technically legal but now it kinda is because of all this.. That's scary because it pretty much sets up ways for the Government to legalize any act it does.


----------



## FriedTofu

RavishingRickRules said:


> Not in the UK they don't. He gets mocked relentlessly here, nobody fears him in the slightest they just take the piss out of him and protest him coming on an official state visit. I've not been to Germany for a few months but people in Paris were much the same when I was there a couple weeks ago. It's at the stage now where they ape him in adverts on TV. There's no respect OR fear for him that I can see. :lol


Brah, everyone take the piss out of him. Doesn't mean they don't fear he will do something stupid to mess things up. It's like a baby with a gun. Do you really fear the baby? Or do you fear he will do something stupid with it?


----------



## FriedTofu

Mercy said:


> *It's funny how a lot of the left hooked their entire goddamn wagon to the Trump/Russia horse and thought it would actually get them somewhere. I knew that dog wouldn't hunt from day one. How can people who claim to be way smarter than I am ever not see that? *


Those that bought into impeachment from the investigations were delusional. And I'm saying it as one of the earliest proponent of linking Russia with Trump around here way back in 2016. Democrats saw an opening to saddle Trump with an investigation that dragged on for years like GOP with Hilary with Benghazi and took it, consequences be damned.

The messaging shouldn't have been Putin was pro Trump. Putin was anti-establishment or more specially, anti-Hilary in the last elections who would carry on Obama's Russian policies. The Russian bots stumped for demagogues from both side of the political spectrum in Trump and Sanders against all establishment nominees. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

Troll Farm :mj4 

Troll Farm :mj4 

They really, really, really can't be serious about this shit show sham of an "investigation" :lmao



BoFreakinDallas said:


> It's weird he spends so much time needling at her,he should be crossing his fingers and hoping Democrats are dumb enough to pick her in 2020. Him worried about her is silly as Dem operatives were about Little Marco and Jeb


In case you don't keep up with the news (most can't but I do it on everyone's behalf), Warren gate-crashed a cultural Native American event that she wasn't invited to and went on this stupid tirade. No one "needled her". Also, your priorities are mixed up. You're more worried someone "needling" a fake con-artist, than the con-artist culturally appropriating an ethnic minority for personal profit - DESPITE the fact that the ethnic minority has disavowed her themselves dozens of times already.


----------



## Tater

Reap said:


> Troll Farm :mj4
> 
> Troll Farm :mj4
> 
> They really, really, really can't be serious about this shit show sham of an "investigation" :lmao


I ignore you because of the monumentally stupid shit you say most of the time but you're not wrong about this. (Y)


----------



## Reaper

Well, if you have to point out that you "ignore" me, then you're not ignoring me. A lot of people pretend that they ignore me, despite there always being clues that they're not.


----------



## Tater

Reap said:


> Well, if you have to point out that you "ignore" me, then you're not ignoring me. A lot of people pretend that they ignore me, despite there always being clues that they're not.


*Most of the time.


----------



## Vic Capri

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/358025-thousands-attended-protest-organized-by-russians-on-facebook

Mueller's indictment just confirmed what was reported a few months ago. RIP Russian Conspiracy (2016 - 2018)

- Vic


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Vic Capri said:


> http://thehill.com/policy/technology/358025-thousands-attended-protest-organized-by-russians-on-facebook
> 
> Mueller's indictment just confirmed what was reported a few months ago. RIP Russian Conspiracy (2016 - 2018)
> 
> - Vic


This whole thing runs deeper then just that. There is a very real chance Trump and will go down on obstruction of justice chargers. Then again you never believed any part of this to begin with. 

If Trump goes down you will pretty much want the next person who runs after him to stand up their and say because Trump went down we have to launch war on pretty much everything that brought him down.


----------



## Kabraxal

The Hardcore Show said:


> This whole thing runs deeper then just that. There is a very real chance Trump and will go down on obstruction of justice chargers. Then again you never believed any part of this to begin with.
> 
> If Trump goes down you will pretty much want the next person who runs after him to stand up their and say because Trump went down we have to launch war on pretty much everything that brought him down.


You keep saying that, but no proof has yet to cone out. What happens if he leaves office with no indictments or impeachment? Has anyone pushing your narratice even thought of that?


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Kabraxal said:


> You keep saying that, but no proof has yet to cone out. What happens if he leaves office with no indictments or impeachment? Has anyone pushing your narratice even thought of that?


You say that after three people from his campaign have plaid guilty and are working with Muller telling him everything they know. 

Now if the GOP keep their majorities in the House and Senate this fall I don't think not only will Trump never see impeachment but I doubt the contents of this investigation ever see the light of day unless like you said Trump is cleared of everything not just to Russia spreading propaganda in the 2016 election but also money laundering and obstruction of justice.


----------



## virus21




----------



## CM Buck

Looks like Vince isn't the only one that has strange feelings for his daughter 

(Not sure on the validity of the source but it is to funny not to post)

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ls-trump-said-i-reminded-him-of-daughter.html


----------



## RavishingRickRules

TommyWCECM said:


> Looks like Vince isn't the only one that has strange feelings for his daughter
> 
> (Not sure on the validity of the source but it is to funny not to post)
> 
> https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ls-trump-said-i-reminded-him-of-daughter.html


Isn't that old news? It's been fairly established by now his views on his daughter are...weird. There's video in this article too before anybody tries to claim he didn't say some of the weird shit. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...t-unsettling-comments-a-roundup-a7353876.html


----------



## CM Buck

RavishingRickRules said:


> Isn't that old news? It's been fairly established by now his views on his daughter are...weird. There's video in this article too before anybody tries to claim he didn't say some of the weird shit.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...t-unsettling-comments-a-roundup-a7353876.html


Was news to me. I read it on cracked and it seems like she (the porn star) broke a confidential agreement. Like I said I don't know her stories validity I just thought it was a light hearted story compared to the amount of shit he produces when he speaks.

And considering it concerns his wife it would be interesting if this story gained traction. Though I see mrs pornstar copping a lot of flak.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

TommyWCECM said:


> Was news to me. I read it on cracked and it seems like she (the porn star) broke a confidential agreement. Like I said I don't know her stories validity I just thought it was a light hearted story compared to the amount of shit he produces when he speaks.
> 
> And considering it concerns his wife it would be interesting if this story gained traction. Though I see mrs pornstar copping a lot of flak.


I was referring more to the fact he's on record talking about her body, and said that if she wasn't his Daughter he'd likely be dating her. The porn star stuff is a few weeks old at least, but it's one of number of incredibly weird things he's said about his daughter :lol


----------



## CM Buck

RavishingRickRules said:


> I was referring more to the fact he's on record talking about her body, and said that if she wasn't his Daughter he'd likely be dating her. The porn star stuff is a few weeks old at least, but it's one of number of incredibly weird things he's said about his daughter :lol


You really have to commend the guy. He gives inbreeders hope that they too can be a success.

#incespration


----------



## RavishingRickRules

TommyWCECM said:


> You really have to commend the guy. He gives inbreeders hope that they too can be a success.
> 
> #incespration


Are you aware of the Royal Family in the UK? Inbreeders have been a success since long before America ever existed. (The Queen is descended from William the Conqueror who soundly defeated the Anglo Saxons in 1066  )


----------



## CM Buck

RavishingRickRules said:


> Are you aware of the Royal Family in the UK? Inbreeders have been a success since long before America ever existed. (The Queen is descended from William the Conqueror who soundly defeated the Anglo Saxons in 1066  )


Of course. Where do you think the book of British smiles come from? It wasn't just a Simpsons gag to get Ralph to brush 

Speaking of Britain, did you check out the season premier of last week tonight? Worth a good look for an insight into what trumps presidency is doing to the countrys global appeal


----------



## RavishingRickRules

TommyWCECM said:


> Of course. Where do you think the book of British smiles come from? It wasn't just a Simpsons gag to get Ralph to brush
> 
> Speaking of Britain, did you check out the season premier of last week tonight? Worth a good look for an insight into what trumps presidency is doing to the countrys global appeal


Never heard of it tbh. I don't watch an awful lot of television, I'm more of a box-set kinda guy if I'm on the idiot-box. I travel a lot with work so it's hard to follow weekly shows and I spend a lot more of my free time gaming than anything else. I know what Trump's doing to the country's global appeal though, I live and work throughout Europe, I see how much he's destroying the image of the USA for most of everybody else. It's like bizarro land coming on this forum sometimes because almost everybody I know thinks Obama's an awesome guy and loathes Trump, including the Conservatives (most of whom share many of his political stances, the Democrats would be a right-wing party in Europe tbh.)


----------



## CM Buck

RavishingRickRules said:


> Never heard of it tbh. I don't watch an awful lot of television, I'm more of a box-set kinda guy if I'm on the idiot-box. I travel a lot with work so it's hard to follow weekly shows and I spend a lot more of my free time gaming than anything else. I know what Trump's doing to the country's global appeal though, I live and work throughout Europe, I see how much he's destroying the image of the USA for most of everybody else. It's like bizarro land coming on this forum sometimes because almost everybody I know thinks Obama's an awesome guy and loathes Trump, including the Conservatives (most of whom share many of his political stances, the Democrats would be a right-wing party in Europe tbh.)


Greatest irony is we have our prime minister taking the piss out of him when the liberal party is going through a scandal of its own. I'm very anti politics but I have to say western world politics is a comedy of errors at the moment. Granted I've not heard anything from Canada and may seems to have gone quiet at least in regards to global news. But given America has gone from a 48 percent global approval rating to 30 percent it's looking more and more likely that China might take Americas position as a super power country. That's basically paraphrasing what Jon Oliver said.

Glad to hear someone shares my political views (as small as mine are haha)


----------



## Reaper

I'd rather have a president who has weird views about his daughter than this ... Tbh


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/965606409235828736
This new found "appreciation" for ultra-orthodox Islam is far more dangerous than people realize.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reap said:


> I'd rather have a president who has weird views about his daughter than this ... Tbh
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/965606409235828736
> This new found "appreciation" for ultra-orthodox Islam is far more dangerous than people realize.


But the Qur'an says there is no compulsion in Islam!

It's not a symbol of oppression, it's a symbol of freedom!


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> But the Qur'an says there is no compulsion in Islam!
> 
> It's not a symbol of oppression, it's a symbol of freedom!


It's also a massive blindspot in Europe and Canada. 

The amount of "honor abuse" has been rising fairly regularly in the west - meanwhile the media and now politicians continue to celebrate and normalize ultra-orthodox Islam's modesty culture.

It's fine when people criticize Trump. I agree with a lot of criticism, but then the same people turn around and pretend that they live in utopias and edens.


----------



## Reaper

Ok ...


----------



## CamillePunk

http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/02/21/news-reported-facts/

Great article by Scott Adams about how the media engages in mind-reading punditry to color the public's perception of the things Trump does and says. Some of the examples of "mind reading" takes in the article sound very familiar. :lol


----------



## Pratchett

The Hardcore Show said:


> You say that after three people from his campaign have plaid guilty and are working with Muller telling him everything they know.
> 
> Now if the GOP keep their majorities in the House and Senate this fall I don't think not only will Trump never see impeachment but I doubt the contents of this investigation ever see the light of day unless like you said Trump is cleared of everything not just to Russia spreading propaganda in the 2016 election but also money laundering and obstruction of justice.


Impeachment was never the goal. Trump is not going to be removed from office in any way before 2020 and they all know it. What they have been doing, and what they are going to continue to do over the next couple of years, is play the long game.

All we have heard is negative this, negative that. And we are going to continue to be hit over the head with nothing but negative news and propaganda until the 2020 elections are over. The establishment politicians, along with the mainstream media that is firmly aligned with them, are trying to wear everyone down so that we all get tired of the constant anxiety and horribleness that we are confronted with daily (because of them).

What is the end goal? That Americans get so fed up with it that they desperately vote for the boring and safe candidate who is going to unify this divided country once again. That is how they intend to take down Trump.


----------



## Reaper

That's how Obama won.

When Bush won against Gore, anyone that wasn't sucking their thumbs remembers that he "stole the election illegally" (Florida scandal) as well and so were the Hitler claims and then blaming him for the housing crisis when in fact it was Clinton's policies

https://www.investors.com/politics/...ill-not-tax-cuts-caused-the-financial-crisis/

that resulted in the housing crash. Apparently he was also a war mongerer despite the fact that his successor engaged in twice as many wars as he did. 

This has been Democrats playbook for 3 terms of Republican presidents. Probably longer if I go further back. 

They brainwash the so called centrists who eventually have a huge hand in electing Democrats after every 8 years.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reap said:


> That's how Obama won.
> 
> When Bush won against Gore, anyone that wasn't sucking their thumbs remembers that he "stole the election illegally" (Florida scandal) as well and so were the Hitler claims and then blaming him for the housing crisis when in fact it was Clinton's policies
> 
> https://www.investors.com/politics/...ill-not-tax-cuts-caused-the-financial-crisis/
> 
> that resulted in the housing crash. Apparently he was also a war mongerer despite the fact that his successor engaged in twice as many wars as he did.
> 
> This has been Democrats playbook for 3 terms of Republican presidents. Probably longer if I go further back.
> 
> They brainwash the so called centrists who eventually have a huge hand in electing Democrats after every 8 years.


I don't think the number of wars you're 'involved' in makes you a warmongerer but the reasons for the wars.

Also, how you are involved, Bush went smashing and bashing through Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama sent in small elite troops and air strikes.

I'm not absolving Obama of his record but I don't think he ever went looking for wars. The Arab uprising gave him situations where he had/should have gone to war.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> I don't think the number of wars you're 'involved' in makes you a warmongerer but the reasons for the wars.
> 
> Also, how you are involved, Bush went smashing and bashing through Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama sent in small elite troops and air strikes.
> 
> I'm not absolving Obama of his record but I don't think he ever went looking for wars. The Arab uprising gave him situations where he had/should have gone to war.


You're the perfect example of the person I was talking about in my above post  

Obama led the wars in Libya, Syria, Yemen and Uganda (two of those wars aren't even talked about). There was absolutely no valid reason for America to enter any of those conflicts. The rest of the world didn't and even NATO did not follow. 

And no, it wasn't just airstrikes and elite troops. It was propaganda, arming, funding and creation of "favored" rebel groups (which has been a favorite democrat/republican but mostly democrat) pastime since Operation Cyclone which created Al Qaeda, mujahideen and Taliban - who are closely linked to ISIS) which obviously turned and also joined the ISIS making it stronger. He decimated Libya turning it into the new frontier for African Slavery ... Bush was an idiot for his war in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Obama has his own war record that is _independent _of Bush's war record. 

You're just spouting the same lenient POV that liberal newspapers have awarded democrat presidents through time immemorial.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reap said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the number of wars you're 'involved' in makes you a warmongerer but the reasons for the wars.
> 
> Also, how you are involved, Bush went smashing and bashing through Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama sent in small elite troops and air strikes.
> 
> I'm not absolving Obama of his record but I don't think he ever went looking for wars. The Arab uprising gave him situations where he had/should have gone to war.
> 
> 
> 
> You're the perfect example of the person I was talking about in my above post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama led the wars in Libya, Syria, Yemen and Uganda (two of those wars aren't even talked about). There was absolutely no valid reason for America to enter any of those conflicts. The rest of the world didn't and even NATO did not follow.
> 
> And no, it wasn't just airstrikes and elite troops. It was propaganda, arming, funding and creation of "favored" rebel groups (which has been a favorite democrat/republican but mostly democrat) pastime since Operation Cyclone which created Al Qaeda, mujahideen and Taliban - who are closely linked to ISIS) which obviously turned and also joined the ISIS making it stronger. He decimated Libya turning it into the new frontier for African Slavery ... Bush was an idiot for his war in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Obama has his own war record that is _independent _of Bush's war record.
> 
> You're just spouting the same lenient POV that liberal newspapers have awarded democrat presidents through time immemorial.
Click to expand...

Plenty of reasons to get involved.

Either way, Bush is a warmongerer no matter what Obama did. I don't care of Obama is one, all presidents in history love a bit war don't they?


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Plenty of reasons to get involved.


:lol

Not at all. 

Selectively getting involved in specifically chosen conflicts simply because the Democrats can do it and have the power to fuck with everyone else. Sorry. No buys.


----------



## Miss Sally

draykorinee said:


> Plenty of reasons to get involved.


Zero reason for the Libya debacle, no reason to fuck with Syria, no reason to arm and train more terrorists. The Obama Admin had no qualms about War or shady dealings inside or outside of the US. The scandals and the warmongering is completely ignored.


----------



## Draykorinee

Hey, even bush had reasons...


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> all presidents in history love a bit war don't they?


Weird justification. I don't care if you don't care if Bush was warmongerer or not. The fact that he gets labled one and is blamed for everything that's wrong with the world even though Obama stretched all of Bush's wars another 8 years makes him the longest serving president with America at War than other presidents. 

It's tough to break away from the group isn't it? Are you ok with calling Obama a Neocon?


----------



## Draykorinee

Reap said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> all presidents in history love a bit war don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> Weird justification. I don't care if you don't care if Bush was warmongerer or not. The fact that he gets labled one and is blamed for everything that's wrong with the world even though Obama stretched all of Bush's wars another 8 years makes him the longest serving president with America at War than other presidents.
> 
> It's tough to break away from the group isn't it? Are you ok with calling Obama a Neocon?
Click to expand...

I'm fine with anyone being called a warmonger, if the mud sticks and all that. I guess Obama does get a free ride compared to bush, can you supply links to evidence from a non biased source? I just googled it and I don't get a lot of hits.

Clearly he shares neocon views with his history of interventionism, his lack of interest in UN back up shows it's a neocon not than liberal interventionism.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> I'm fine with anyone being called a warmonger, if the mud sticks and all that. I guess Obama does get a free ride compared to bush, *can you supply links to evidence from a non biased source?* I just googled it and I don't get a lot of hits.


What evidence are you looking for? 



> Clearly he shares neocon views with his history of interventionism.


I'm actually willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt that deep down he's a non-interventionalist and that his promise of ending wars was honest when he made it, just like Trump's was. 

But he gave Hillary, and other establishment democrats too much power. I feel like the DNC was fractured into pro-Hillary (neocons) and pro-social welfare statists (obama's group) and they continued to make deals within the party to get all their shit done. 

I doubt that Obama himself was actually a Neo-Con, but he did become a War Lord as he signed off on all of the DNC necon's activities. And now Trump too is caught in the same fly trap. 

The American bureaucracy is made up of something like 2.1 million. The "deep state" (not the deep state that conspiracy theorists talk about), is at least 16-20k strong including aides, advisors, lobbyists, think tanks and intelligence agents (not just FBI and CIA). 

These are *unelected officials* that are hired by those in power and then form the "ears" and "eyes" of the politicians who are actually too busy getting photographed to actually think about and implement policy. 

This is why you'll constantly see "hypocrisy" in government and no real coherent policy. Before the idea of the Deep State was the idea of Oligarchy and I believe that there is some truth to both suggestions. Trump placed himself as the first "outsider" who was going to take down this establishment, but so far there is absolutely no reason to believe that he's succeeding.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/02/21/news-reported-facts/
> 
> Great article by Scott Adams about how the media engages in mind-reading punditry to color the public's perception of the things Trump does and says. Some of the examples of "mind reading" takes in the article sound very familiar. :lol





> The truth is that we are terrible at knowing what others are thinking. We just think we are good at it. No one is good at it. No one.


No one is good at mind-reading except Scott Adams, who can read the minds of news editors and can firmly say their intentions are focused on making Trump a monster when reporting on his bumbling circus act.

Funny he neglected to mention the likes of Fox News, the largest most popular cable network, who clearly do nothing of the sort as they fall over themselves to make excuses for Trump, incident after incident.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Miss Sally

Reap said:


> What evidence are you looking for?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm actually willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt that deep down he's a non-interventionalist and that his promise of ending wars was honest when he made it, just like Trump's was.
> 
> But he gave Hillary, and other establishment democrats too much power. I feel like the DNC was fractured into pro-Hillary (neocons) and pro-social welfare statists (obama's group) and they continued to make deals within the party to get all their shit done.
> 
> I doubt that Obama himself was actually a Neo-Con, but he did become a War Lord as he signed off on all of the DNC necon's activities. And now Trump too is caught in the same fly trap.
> 
> The American bureaucracy is made up of something like 2.1 million. The "deep state" (not the deep state that conspiracy theorists talk about), is at least 16-20k strong including aides, advisors, lobbyists, think tanks and intelligence agents (not just FBI and CIA).
> 
> These are *unelected officials* that are hired by those in power and then form the "ears" and "eyes" of the politicians who are actually too busy getting photographed to actually think about and implement policy.
> 
> This is why you'll constantly see "hypocrisy" in government and no real coherent policy. Before the idea of the Deep State was the idea of Oligarchy and I believe that there is some truth to both suggestions. Trump placed himself as the first "outsider" who was going to take down this establishment, but so far there is absolutely no reason to believe that he's succeeding.


I give Obama a lot of shit like I do Bush but I'll say Obama was in a pretty bad position, he may as well be a Russian Soldier in WWII, guns to the front, guns to the back and no matter what he did he was going to be blasted by someone.

The Democrats have no issues with turning on their own just like Republicans, The Democrats wanted Hillary over Obama so any fuckups Obama did would just give the establishment Dems their ammo.

The thing I hate is when Dems try to play off Obama as the best thing ever while hindering him at every turn on stuff they didn't like or if he didn't march to their beat. There is also the people that ignore the scandals and shit that happened under his Admin that people either dismiss or deny but then chase their tails on anything Trump related.

I'd just like to see Presidents judged based on what actually went down instead of trying to pass out sainthood. Guys like Reagan, Obama, Clinton etc all were celebrated and all of them fucked up in some way or had a scandal, it's just how it is. Shit happens, just got to realize it!


----------



## yeahbaby!

Miss Sally said:


> Guys like *Reagan*, Obama, Clinton etc all were celebrated and all of them fucked up in some way or had a scandal, it's just how it is. Shit happens, just got to realize it!







Reagan forever immortalised by Homer.


----------



## virus21

yeahbaby! said:


> Reagan forever immortalised by Homer.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Well shit. Donald Trump decided to host a live listening session with the survivors from past school shootings and people affected by youth shootings. 

I'm...impressed. I mean shit, that's something I never imagined ANY politician doing, Republican or Democrat. Trump literally sat there and let people rant on how they felt about the current situation regarding the countries safety.

I've considered Trump a terrible President so far. But this? This is a brilliant move on Trump's part. This is the kind of stuff that politicians need to do. I applaud Trump for this move. I hope something extremely positive can be made from this. But if it isn't, we know Trump is listening. We know he is asking for recommendations.

This is exactly what a President needs to do. 

Trump, this is a good start. Keep it up.


----------



## Draykorinee

BlueSanta said:


> Well shit. Donald Trump decided to host a live listening session with the survivors from past school shootings and people affected by youth shootings.
> 
> I'm...impressed. I mean shit, that's something I never imagined ANY politician doing, Republican or Democrat. Trump literally sat there and let people rant on how they felt about the current situation regarding the countries safety.
> 
> I've considered Trump a terrible President so far. But this? This is a brilliant move on Trump's part. This is the kind of stuff that politicians need to do. I applaud Trump for this move. I hope something extremely positive can be made from this. But if it isn't, we know Trump is listening. We know he is asking for recommendations.
> 
> This is exactly what a President needs to do.
> 
> Trump, this is a good start. Keep it up.


Yup, this is why kids getting involved is a great way to get the discussion started. They've done more in the last few days than most have in the last decade.


----------



## Reaper

This is why I support a single party monarchical system.

What Trump's doing is something we grew up hearing about Mughal monarchs holding public courts hearing the grievances of the people. 

Interesting move.


----------



## DOPA

@Mercy; @Pratchett @Tater @Miss Sally @virus21 






Nailed it.


----------



## Sensei Utero

My thoughts on Trump are probably obvious, as well as his reign, but I actually applaud him for that listening session. That was impressive, even if it showed that kids and young adults could probably do a better job at the moment in terms of gun control in America.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Makise Kurisu said:


> @Mercy; @Pratchett @Tater @Miss Sally @virus21
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nailed it.


Yeah, no shit people are sick of it. I'm sick of hearing about it. I don't care anymore what Trump did in regards to Russia. It's all irrelevant because in the end, we know he's not getting impeached over this so it's pointless to keep discussing it. 

Not to mention we are close to election mid terms where the Democrats will most likely take control of the seats anyways, completely fucking Trump over entirely and preventing him from being able to make the moves he wants to make, so what's the point? Why try to make changes to a Presidential position that doesn't need to be changed? What are we accomplishing here? 

This recent sit down segment Trump did already proved me wrong on one of my major points about Trump. It showed me that he's at least willing to show that he's hearing what people have to say. Some could argue that it's a publicity stunt but the thing about that is that if he just ignores all the claims then we have direct evidence that he is literally ignoring the pleas of others. I'm sure even he isn't that stupid. It was a gutsy move and the first legitimately great thing he's done as President. Lets see how he handles this current gun issue head on. If he can at least make one major change that the country desperately needs, then we can at least give him that.


----------



## Vic Capri

President Trump could ban guns tomorrow and the haters would still complain about it.

- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

Vic Capri said:


> President Trump could ban guns tomorrow and the haters would still complain about it.
> 
> - Vic


You just had to come in and ruin everything didn't you.


----------



## Reaper

Gun ban isn't happening. 

I think it's far more likely that there will be some sort of compromise on bump stocks (which I personally don't care about).


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump won't put his name to anything with the words ban and guns in the same legislation.

We'll settle for tighter checks.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Trump won't put his name to anything with the words ban and guns in the same legislation.
> 
> We'll settle for tighter checks.


Checks are tight. There are a few areas that need tweaking, but the federal government cannot do that because america is not a totalitarian democracy - it's a republic with state rights. You think that the mess California and New York have created with harboring illegals and even illegal criminals isn't going to be replicated by states that are ideologically opposed to any form of gun legislation? It's a matter of ideology. Just as libs think that "human bans and regulation of illegals" is a terrible idea, 2nd amendment proponents think the same. 

Lastly, people who do the checks, input things in databases are incompetent and that's never going to change because that's where individual and human error comes into play.


----------



## MrMister

Reap said:


> Gun ban isn't happening.
> 
> I think it's far more likely that there will be some sort of compromise on bump stocks (which I personally don't care about).


Assault style weapons have been banned in the past. They could be banned in the future.

But yeah lol a widespread all guns are now illegal is not only not happening, it'd be the dumbest thing Congress has ever done. We made alcohol illegal once and that was an absolute disaster. Guns might be worse.


----------



## Reaper

MrMister said:


> Assault style weapons have been banned in the past. They could be banned in the future.
> 
> But yeah lol a widespread all guns are now illegal is not only not happening, it'd be the dumbest thing Congress has ever done. We made alcohol illegal once and that was an absolute disaster. Guns might be worse.


Unfortunately we're entering into a stage of nickel and diming and that in a country like America empowers criminals more. 

All the gun bans, checks and regulations and that have happened haven't put a dent in gun crime. 

But oh well.... People rarely see the obvious anymore.


----------



## Miss Sally

Makise Kurisu said:


> @Mercy; @Pratchett @Tater @Miss Sally @virus21
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nailed it.


Pretty much, those same people actually ignore the contents of the DNC emails and pretend like this information is somehow false. There is no end game, they don't care about how people from their own side did the same exact crap, it's just hilarious.


----------



## virus21

Makise Kurisu said:


> @Mercy; @Pratchett @Tater @Miss Sally @virus21
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nailed it.


People sick of bullshit propaganda? The hell you say.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Vic Capri said:


> President Trump could ban guns tomorrow and the haters would still complain about it.
> 
> - Vic


Of course people are going to complain. There's always going to be complaints no matter what decision a person makes. Even the New Deal had its critics. Hell, right now we're seeing people protest against the idea of banning guns. 

However, at the very least, this will be a case of Trump actually DOING something. This will be Trump making a legitimate attempt to combat a legitimate problem the country is facing. And lets say he does do that. Lets say he enforces some kind of significant gun ban. Even if it doesn't necessarily provide the results we want (maybe it will, maybe it won't and it'll be a complete disaster, who knows), at the very least, we can at least say that Trump had the balls to try to make a huge move to tackle the issue at hand which is school shootings, which has become a huge problem with the country.

And yeah, I'm aware the "18 school shootings this year" number is skewed. I'm aware that actually isn't really the case. However, the fact of the matter is, it's something that has happened this year, and last year, and the year before that, and doing nothing about it has solved nothing. We have to do something. And if taking away people's guns is what we have to do, then so be it. At least we can say we fucking did something.


----------



## Reaper

Not because Trump is supporting it, but I don't think it's completely unreasonable to raise the gun-buying age. 

I don't fully support it, but I don't care enough to be against it. Considering that our younger people were just eating dishwasher soap a few weeks ago, I'm sure they can wait a couple more years to get their first gun.


----------



## FriedTofu

BlueSanta said:


> Of course people are going to complain. There's always going to be complaints no matter what decision a person makes. Even the New Deal had its critics. Hell, right now we're seeing people protest against the idea of banning guns.
> 
> However, at the very least, this will be a case of Trump actually DOING something. This will be Trump making a legitimate attempt to combat a legitimate problem the country is facing. And lets say he does do that. Lets say he enforces some kind of significant gun ban. Even if it doesn't necessarily provide the results we want (maybe it will, maybe it won't and it'll be a complete disaster, who knows), at the very least, we can at least say that Trump had the balls to try to make a huge move to tackle the issue at hand which is school shootings, which has become a huge problem with the country.
> 
> And yeah, I'm aware the "18 school shootings this year" number is skewed. I'm aware that actually isn't really the case. However, the fact of the matter is, it's something that has happened this year, and last year, and the year before that, and doing nothing about it has solved nothing. We have to do something. And if taking away people's guns is what we have to do, then so be it. At least we can say we fucking did something.


The only way anything gets done is Trump DIGAF about his party's traditional position on such issues and advocate for stricter gun regulations. He managed to turn the GOP traditional position on Russia and free trade by sheer force of his personality. Maybe gun rights will be similar.


----------



## El Grappleador

Recently I knew about he's gonna give license to got teachers in arms. Well, before I start to explode in fury, I study a little bit about USA and fireguns use: I've red about countries with the same politic, but on these countries there are not scandalous as USA. Weapons are not the problem, problem is how have Americans been influenced about use of fireguns. In other words, American People had been educated throught a *Culture of Fear*, And if American People kept ignoring its feeling and culture of fear through a lead rain, there will be an unfixable social damage on American Society.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

Reap said:


> Not because Trump is supporting it, but I don't think it's completely unreasonable to raise the gun-buying age.
> 
> I don't fully support it, but I don't care enough to be against it. Considering that our younger people were just eating dishwasher soap a few weeks ago, I'm sure they can wait a couple more years to get their first gun.


Murderers don't have a specific age. Most of these people weren't just randomly angry, they had mental issues. Normal people don't go out to kill anyone, the only 'exception' (using this just to describe the reason behind non-mental people killing) is someone who has possession of a gun, lets their emotions get to them (in an argument, for example), shoots someone, then regains their compassion and realizes they did something wrong in the heat of the moment, like when people say hateful shit in an argument and feel bad later. Raising the age will still produce fuckbags. This latest dildo was 19 (if I remember correctly), a 19 year old knows better (unless mentally unfit, of course), it's not like they just burst out of their mom's vagina and didn't know shooting at kids in a school with an AR 15 would result in death. He had mental issues. Long time mental issues. When people took the right steps to try to get this kid help/report him for his behaviour, blind eyes were turned. Now, 17 people are dead because of it.

The Vegas shooter was an old fucking fart.

The Bath school shooter was 55.

The Virginia Tech shooter was 23.

Adamn Lanza was 20.

Charles Ahitman was 25.

Columbine twats were 17 and 18.

The Oikos shooter was 43.

Stockton killer was 26.

Santa Monica shooter was 23.


etc. etc. etc.

Mentally ill people are of all ages. People who snap one day are of all ages.

Throwing an age on alcohol doesn't stop anyone under 21 from drinking, throwing age on guns wont stop fucked up assholes from being fucked up assholes.

Go ask Australia the last time they had a mass shooting and what they did about it. If you are a 21 year old who lives in Australia, there has never been a mass shooting in your lifetime. Just imagine that. 

Americans need to stop with the mindset that we can't live life unless we have a gun. 'I need one to defend myself and my family'....the amount of times I hear this shit makes me laugh, how the fuck do some of you think people in other countries, where guns are illegal/stricter gun laws, live? Another argument I keep seeing is that the US has more people than Canada, that's why there are more shootings. Um, no, that person is a fucking empty headed buffoon, it's because gun laws are not shit like in the US.

People will ALWAYS find a way to get guns, it's not like we don't have shootings here, however, it isn't a normal, everyday thing to wake up and read that a school or a workplace or a church or a concert has been bloodied up by a shooter. 

January 29th, 2017 was the last time we had a mass shooting here when a guy walked in to a mosque in Quebec and shot 6 people to death, 19 injured, because he didn't like Muslims.

Since 1689, there have been 38 'massacres' in Canada. Fucking *38*. Many of these 'massacres' involved a single digit death toll. Last school shooting was 2016, two teachers were killed (death toll was 4 as the shooter had previously killed his two cousins before going to the school). Other methods of killing in these incidents involved arson and a crossbow. Some of the earlier massacres were due to wars. 

People can live without having to own a gun. People who don't live in America do it daily.


Just a side note, I swear like a sailor, it's not out of anger towards people personally, I just enjoy the F word on many levels.


----------



## BruiserKC

Catalanotto said:


> Murderers don't have a specific age. Most of these people weren't just randomly angry, they had mental issues. Normal people don't go out to kill anyone, the only 'exception' (using this just to describe the reason behind non-mental people killing) is someone who has possession of a gun, lets their emotions get to them (in an argument, for example), shoots someone, then regains their compassion and realizes they did something wrong in the heat of the moment, like when people say hateful shit in an argument and feel bad later. Raising the age will still produce fuckbags. This latest dildo was 19 (if I remember correctly), a 19 year old knows better (unless mentally unfit, of course), it's not like they just burst out of their mom's vagina and didn't know shooting at kids in a school with an AR 15 would result in death. He had mental issues. Long time mental issues. When people took the right steps to try to get this kid help/report him for his behaviour, blind eyes were turned. Now, 17 people are dead because of it.
> 
> The Vegas shooter was an old fucking fart.
> 
> The Bath school shooter was 55.
> 
> The Virginia Tech shooter was 23.
> 
> Adamn Lanza was 20.
> 
> Charles Ahitman was 25.
> 
> Columbine twats were 17 and 18.
> 
> The Oikos shooter was 43.
> 
> Stockton killer was 26.
> 
> Santa Monica shooter was 23.
> 
> 
> etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Mentally ill people are of all ages. People who snap one day are of all ages.
> 
> Throwing an age on alcohol doesn't stop anyone under 21 from drinking, throwing age on guns wont stop fucked up assholes from being fucked up assholes.
> 
> Go ask Australia the last time they had a mass shooting and what they did about it. If you are a 21 year old who lives in Australia, there has never been a mass shooting in your lifetime. Just imagine that.
> 
> Americans need to stop with the mindset that we can't live life unless we have a gun. 'I need one to defend myself and my family'....the amount of times I hear this shit makes me laugh, how the fuck do some of you think people in other countries, where guns are illegal/stricter gun laws, live? Another argument I keep seeing is that the US has more people than Canada, that's why there are more shootings. Um, no, that person is a fucking empty headed buffoon, it's because gun laws are not shit like in the US.
> 
> People will ALWAYS find a way to get guns, it's not like we don't have shootings here, however, it isn't a normal, everyday thing to wake up and read that a school or a workplace or a church or a concert has been bloodied up by a shooter.
> 
> January 29th, 2017 was the last time we had a mass shooting here when a guy walked in to a mosque in Quebec and shot 6 people to death, 19 injured, because he didn't like Muslims.
> 
> Since 1689, there have been 38 'massacres' in Canada. Fucking *38*. Many of these 'massacres' involved a single digit death toll. Last school shooting was 2016, two teachers were killed (death toll was 4 as the shooter had previously killed his two cousins before going to the school). Other methods of killing in these incidents involved arson and a crossbow. Some of the earlier massacres were due to wars.
> 
> People can live without having to own a gun. People who don't live in America do it daily.
> 
> 
> Just a side note, I swear like a sailor, it's not out of anger towards people personally, I just enjoy the F word on many levels.


The problem is that these nut jobs are not the norm as far as gun owners. I have lived in homes with guns my whole life and I don’t obsess about them. My kids know they are there and consider our gun safe just another piece of furniture. My son has learned the same lessons of gun ownership my dad and uncle taught me. That is the problem when we give these murderers the spotlight and encourage more. 

Not to mention the police in Florida did nothing while this bastard slaughtered people. Those sworn to protect and serve failed in this case. 

I have only once pointed a gun at another human being and that was in Kosovo knowing that I would shoot if I had to. If it comes down to it, I will defend my family with no apologies.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Welp, so much for that Republican memo that was supposed to destroy the Democrats. From all of the stuff I've just read the Dems responded and completely destroyed any credibility the Nunes Memo had. Really starting to question the credibility of all of the people who keep asserting that the Democrats are dead in the water and full of lies when it's the POTUS and the Republicans who continually get showed up at every exchange... :cena


----------



## Tater

BruiserKC said:


> The problem is that these nut jobs are not the norm as far as gun owners. I have lived in homes with guns my whole life and I don’t obsess about them. My kids know they are there and consider our gun safe just another piece of furniture. My son has learned the same lessons of gun ownership my dad and uncle taught me. That is the problem when we give these murderers the spotlight and encourage more.
> 
> Not to mention the police in Florida did nothing while this bastard slaughtered people. Those sworn to protect and serve failed in this case.
> 
> I have only once pointed a gun at another human being and that was in Kosovo knowing that I would shoot if I had to. If it comes down to it, I will defend my family with no apologies.


Most people in the USA are incapable of having a rational conversation about gun laws. Every time a mass shooting happens, it's basically a copy and paste representation of the last one. 

And nothing ever really changes.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> Most people in the USA are incapable of having a rational conversation about gun laws. Every time a mass shooting happens, it's basically a copy and paste representation of the last one.
> 
> And nothing ever really changes.


It's probably fairly hard to get a rational discussion when the populace at large has been brainwashed into thinking that the government will come get them if they give up their guns tbh. (Little secret: they won't, and the majority of western countries with a lot of gun control don't display anywhere near the same level of paranoia/fear as the USA does either.)


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> It's probably fairly hard to get a rational discussion when *the populace at large has been brainwashed into thinking that the government will come get them if they give up their guns *tbh.


You know what's so utterly fucking hilarious about this? It's _already happened_ and the sheep don't even fucking know it. :lmao


----------



## FriedTofu

RavishingRickRules said:


> It's probably fairly hard to get a rational discussion when the populace at large has been brainwashed into thinking that the government will come get them if they give up their guns tbh. (Little secret: they won't, and the majority of western countries with a lot of gun control don't display anywhere near the same level of paranoia/fear as the USA does either.)


Just compare Switzerland and America to see how guns can be kept and still be relatively safe. 

The problem is the pro gun side says Switzerland proves guns aren't the issue and stops there. The anti-gun side says this prove that more oversight is better and used that to push for gun laws that are even stricter than those.

Both positions are easily debunked and go nowhere.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> You know what's so utterly fucking hilarious about this? It's _already happened_ and the sheep don't even fucking know it. :lmao


What I find even more hilarious is the notion that a bunch of people with handguns and hunting rifles would have a hope in hell of taking up arms against the world's most well equipped military machine. Even the highly controversial AR-15 with a bump stock isn't doing shit to drones, cruise missiles, actual machine guns, RPG's, stealth aircraft etc etc etc. It's the most idiotic idea I've seen in my life tbh. At the end of the day, people who believe that the government are going to start massacring them because they don't have guns are irrational, or simply so inward facing they haven't seen the entire rest of the western developed world. Either way those people are idiots and need to realise that their paranoia/irrational fear is a huge contributor to the thousands of gun-related deaths every year in the USA.


----------



## BruiserKC

Tater said:


> Most people in the USA are incapable of having a rational conversation about gun laws. Every time a mass shooting happens, it's basically a copy and paste representation of the last one.
> 
> And nothing ever really changes.





RavishingRickRules said:


> It's probably fairly hard to get a rational discussion when the populace at large has been brainwashed into thinking that the government will come get them if they give up their guns tbh. (Little secret: they won't, and the majority of western countries with a lot of gun control don't display anywhere near the same level of paranoia/fear as the USA does either.)


I have no objection with having an honest discussion about guns and their use, and I don’t have a problem with some proposals like mandatory classes, etc. In fact, after the Vegas shooting BM put out a list of 5 things he would want, I agreed with 4 of them IIRC. 

Problem is there is a small but loud minority that will accept nothing less then a gun free society where only law enforcement and the military are the only ones armed. We also don’t need more regulations when a lot of the ones already on the books aren’t being enforced. Of course, buttfucks who think the students are part of a casting call from the Sandy Hook Acting Academy don’t help matters either.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

BruiserKC said:


> I have no objection with having an honest discussion about guns and their use, and I don’t have a problem with some proposals like mandatory classes, etc. In fact, after the Vegas shooting BM put out a list of 5 things he would want, I agreed with 4 of them IIRC.
> 
> Problem is there is a small but loud minority that will accept nothing less then a gun free society where only law enforcement and the military are the only ones armed. We also don’t need more regulations when a lot of the ones already on the books aren’t being enforced. Of course, buttfucks who think the students are part of a casting call from the Sandy Hook Acting Academy don’t help matters either.


Even the UK doesn't have a gun free society. Farmers have them, people who shoot recreationally have them, hunters have them (hell, my Father has them._ And I disagree entirely on you all not needing more regulations, you do. The statistics don't lie, in pretty much every other similar western society the homicide rates are noticeably lower and the gun related deaths (includes accidents etc) are MASSIVELY lower. People say it's a people problem, not a gun problem? I'm cool with that, you just also need to realise that your people are NOT responsible with guns. If that's the case, stop letting everybody buy them. The people are the problem, so stop giving them the opportunity to create this much death maybe? This notion that "we need them for protection" is nonsense too. Criminals here have guns, the vast majority of police don't even carry them - according to the "protection" narrative we should have a significantly more deadly society, or at least a lot of blatant gun related crimes as our citizens and police aren't armed, no? Our statistics are almost paradise compared to the USA. So what's different? Are the British people just better, less aggressive people than the USA? (unlikely, you should see some of these troglodytes) Or could it possibly be that having restrictions on who can or can't have a gun might actually improve conditions and reduce deaths in modern western 1st world societies?


----------



## BruiserKC

RavishingRickRules said:


> Even the UK doesn't have a gun free society. Farmers have them, people who shoot recreationally have them, hunters have them (hell, my Father has them._ And I disagree entirely on you all not needing more regulations, you do. The statistics don't lie, in pretty much every other similar western society the homicide rates are noticeably lower and the gun related deaths (includes accidents etc) are MASSIVELY lower. People say it's a people problem, not a gun problem? I'm cool with that, you just also need to realise that your people are NOT responsible with guns. If that's the case, stop letting everybody buy them. The people are the problem, so stop giving them the opportunity to create this much death maybe? This notion that "we need them for protection" is nonsense too. Criminals here have guns, the vast majority of police don't even carry them - according to the "protection" narrative we should have a significantly more deadly society, or at least a lot of blatant gun related crimes as our citizens and police aren't armed, no? Our statistics are almost paradise compared to the USA. So what's different? Are the British people just better, less aggressive people than the USA? (unlikely, you should see some of these troglodytes) Or could it possibly be that having restrictions on who can or can't have a gun might actually improve conditions and reduce deaths in modern western 1st world societies?


Yes, there are idiots who do not need to own guns. But how to address it without taking away someone’s rights or due process is key IMO. And we don’t need more regulations when the ones that are on the books aren’t being fully enforced. When we are doing that and if these problems are still happening then can we have the discussion on more regulations. 

I get angry because I get lumped in with the irresponsible whack jobs that have guns. A good number of people I know I refuse to hunt with because they are irresponsible with their toys. Yet I am the bad guy even though most people know me as the most responsible when it comes to firearms. Trump’s children hunt, but does the POTUS himself truly have a grasp on the gun culture? Something tells me the closest he comes to that is his armed bodyguards. So I don’t think he has clue one on this matter either.


----------



## yeahbaby!

BruiserKC said:


> Yes, there are idiots who do not need to own guns. But how to address it without taking away someone’s rights or due process is key IMO. And we don’t need more regulations when the ones that are on the books aren’t being fully enforced. When we are doing that and if these problems are still happening then can we have the discussion on more regulations.
> 
> I get angry because I get lumped in with the irresponsible whack jobs that have guns. A good number of people I know I refuse to hunt with because they are irresponsible with their toys. Yet I am the bad guy even though most people know me as the most responsible when it comes to firearms. Trump’s children hunt, but does the POTUS himself truly have a grasp on the gun culture? Something tells me the closest he comes to that is his armed bodyguards. So I don’t think he has clue one on this matter either.


I'm for gun control and I personally don't lump in responsible people like you with the whackjob idiots you hear about who leave their guns out and about and contribute to stupid accidents and incidents, especially involving children.

Unfortunately you live in a society that appears to be gun crazy in some areas - this madness greatly contributes to these incidents which as you know and some of them could be avoided by a shift in culture which may see you lose some of your rights.

I would say to you I'm sorry - but the prospect of stopping these things and saving future innocent people's - especially children's lives - is just more important than your personal rights, it just is. Kids also have a right to go to school without fear, without getting blown away by some psycho.


----------



## virus21

> SAN DIEGO — In a sharp rebuke of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democratic Party has declined to endorse the state’s own senior senator in her bid for reelection.
> Riven by conflict between progressive and more moderate forces at the state party’s annual convention here, delegates favored Feinstein’s progressive rival, state Senate leader Kevin de León, over Feinstein by a 54 percent to 37 percent margin, according to results announced Sunday.
> Neither candidate reached the 60 percent threshold required to receive the party endorsement for 2018. But the snubbing of Feinstein led de León to claim a victory for his struggling campaign.
> “The outcome of today’s endorsement vote is an astounding rejection of politics as usual, and it boosts our campaign’s momentum as we all stand shoulder-to-shoulder against a complacent status quo,” de León said in a prepared statement. “California Democrats are hungry for new leadership that will fight for California values from the front lines, not equivocate on the sidelines.”
> A centrist Democrat, Feinstein has long maintained an uneasy relationship with activists who dominate state party conventions, and the vote this weekend — while embarrassing — was not unexpected. The result followed two days of lobbying by the candidates in convention speeches and throughout the convention halls.
> California Playbook newsletter
> Our must-read briefing on politics and government in the Golden State.
>  Email
> By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
> In an appeal to thousands of delegates Saturday, de León portrayed himself as an agent of change. He cast Feinstein, without mentioning her name, as a Washington power broker out of touch with progressive activists at home.
> “I’m running for the U.S. Senate because the days of Democrats biding our time, biting our tongue, and trying to let it work the margins are over," he said to cheers. “I’m running because California’s greatness comes from paths of human audacity, not congressional seniority.”
> The non-endorsement appears unlikely to immediately alter the trajectory of a contest Feinstein is leading by a wide margin.
> First elected in a 1992 special Senate election, Feinstein is out-polling de León 46 percent to 17 percent among likely California voters, according to the most recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California. Her financial advantage is even more overwhelming: Feinstein held close to $10 million in cash on hand at the end of last year, while de León reported raising just $500,000.
> Addressing the convention Saturday, Feinstein reminded delegates of her experience and what she portrayed as a lifetime of service in the cause of Democratic values. She focused heavily on her advocacy of gun control measures, and she urged Democrats to resist splintering in the face of a Republican-controlled Washington.
> Sen. Dianne Feinstein is pictured. | Getty Images
> California
> Democrats fear California crack-up
> By DAVID SIDERS and CARLA MARINUCCI
> California Democrats, she said, have “the largest delegation in the House. You’ve got Kamala Harris and me in the Senate.” She said Democrats can more effectively advance their principles “if we have unified support.”
> Feinstein lost the state party endorsement to a rival Democrat, John Van de Kamp, when she ran for California governor in 1990. And though supporters this year waved signs and stopped Feinstein to pose for photographs, she at times appeared out of step working the convention halls.
> Interrupted in her convention speech Saturday by music signaling her time to speak had run out, Feinstein said, “I guess my time is up.”
> As she left the stage, de León supporters in the crowd yelled back at the 84-year-old, “Time’s up! Time’s up!”
> The state party returned a non-endorsement in California’s other major statewide contest, as well.
> In the race for governor, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom led all candidates with 39 percent support, followed by state Treasurer John Chiang and former state schools chief Delaine Eastin with 30 percent and 20 percent, respectively. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who has drawn close to Newsom at the top of statewide public opinion polls, finished a distant fourth, at 9 percent.


http://archive.is/kfI42#selection-2529.0-2658.6


----------



## DesolationRow

Dianne Feinstein has always been an interesting person and politician, and if you happen to live anywhere near California, you would know that an internal uprising like this against her was inevitable given how she is constantly assuming the role of cagey, centrist Democrat. (My dad had largely good things to say about San Francisco Mayor Feinstein as well.) Demographically she is California's past as it goes into WARP SPEED to fulfill its continuing mission, to explore strange new budget items. To seek out new immigrants, without concern for their legal status, to explore strange new social causes. To seek out new social engineering programs and new avenues of taxation. To boldly go where no state has gone before. 

Seriously, though, Feinstein's challenge is largely due to her age. In a way as someone who has met the U.S. Senator on more than one occasion it is sad to see. Moreover, it must be said, however ugly it is, that Kevin de León is something of a brutish figure in California politics. Tony Mendoza had to resign facing expulsion but de León was Mendoza's "roommate" for that entire stretch of time while, as Senate President, he prodigiously blocked Melissa Melendez's senate staffers whistle blower protection bill. It is a scandal waiting to erupt like Old Faithful and to some extent it already has. 

Feinstein will win easily, though, so as those above article point out, this is not going to be coming to any great fruition.


----------



## FriedTofu

The draft dodger said he would have run in to save the kids even without a gun. :ha


----------



## yeahbaby!

FriedTofu said:


> The draft dodger said he would have run in to save the kids even without a gun. :ha


Just unbelievable - the gall of the man.


----------



## Pratchett

RavishingRickRules said:


> What I find even more hilarious is the notion that a bunch of people with handguns and hunting rifles would have a hope in hell of taking up arms against the world's most well equipped military machine. Even the highly controversial AR-15 with a bump stock isn't doing shit to drones, cruise missiles, actual machine guns, RPG's, stealth aircraft etc etc etc.


I'm not a big fan of this "argument"

If in this country we go so far past the point of Martial Law that the President is ordering drone and missile strikes on the civilian population that elected him, I cannot conceive of a better reason in favor of regular citizens being able to arm themselves with whatever kind of weapons they can get their hands on.

:draper2


----------



## Mister Abigail

CHOOTER?! ME RUN IN!


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> What I find even more hilarious is the notion that a bunch of people with handguns and hunting rifles would have a hope in hell of taking up arms against the world's most well equipped military machine. Even the highly controversial AR-15 with a bump stock isn't doing shit to drones, cruise missiles, actual machine guns, RPG's, stealth aircraft etc etc etc. It's the most idiotic idea I've seen in my life tbh. At the end of the day, people who believe that the government are going to start massacring them because they don't have guns are irrational, or simply so inward facing they haven't seen the entire rest of the western developed world. Either way those people are idiots and need to realise that their paranoia/irrational fear is a huge contributor to the thousands of gun-related deaths every year in the USA.





Pratchett said:


> I'm not a big fan of this "argument"
> 
> If in this country we go so far past the point of Martial Law that the President is ordering drone and missile strikes on the civilian population that elected him, I cannot conceive of a better reason in favor of regular citizens being able to arm themselves with whatever kind of weapons they can get their hands on.
> 
> :draper2


He's not wrong though. If we ever reach that point, arming up with "whatever kind of weapons they can get their hands on" isn't going to make a difference. We'll all still be just as dead and control of the government will still remain in the hands of the powers that be. If control of our government cannot be taken from their hands through peaceful means, then it cannot be taken from them at all, because as soon as arms are taken up against them, it'll be over before the first shot is fired and we'll all be worse off after the fact.


----------



## BruiserKC

yeahbaby! said:


> I'm for gun control and I personally don't lump in responsible people like you with the whackjob idiots you hear about who leave their guns out and about and contribute to stupid accidents and incidents, especially involving children.
> 
> Unfortunately you live in a society that appears to be gun crazy in some areas - this madness greatly contributes to these incidents which as you know and some of them could be avoided by a shift in culture which may see you lose some of your rights.
> 
> I would say to you I'm sorry - but the prospect of stopping these things and saving future innocent people's - especially children's lives - is just more important than your personal rights, it just is. Kids also have a right to go to school without fear, without getting blown away by some psycho.


And it might have been done had the current laws on the books were thoroughly enforced. Nikolas Cruz had a long history of mental health issues and behavior problems, with the school district as well as at home. The FBI had been made aware of the threats Cruz was making to the school, yet no one bothered to turn that information over to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (which BTW is MANDATORY per Florida law). If someone had done that, the background check would have denied him the chance to purchase a weapon. 

I go back to Devin Kelley's shooting up the church in Texas. He had been court-martialed and dishonorably discharged from the Air Force for assaulting his wife and child. The Air Force was REQUIRED to report this. If done and Kelley had attempted to purchase a firearm, it would have shown up and he would have been denied. 

My heart goes to the children that lost their lives, their families, and their fellow students that are trying to put together the pieces and are exercising their rights to discuss the issue. I'm not one of those who is going to condemn them like some on my side are. I pray to God that I NEVER have to deal with the sadness of having to bury one of my children before my time comes. At the same time, the case of Cruz and Kelley both show that the gun laws we already have in this country are not being fully enforced. If they were, there's a good chance both of these tragedies could have been avoided. 

Until the laws in this country are actually fully enforced and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is used in the way it was meant to, as far as I'm concerned discussion of adding any future laws to the books is not an option and one I won't even address. To create more laws that will also potentially be ignored is a futile gesture.


----------



## Reaper

> Demographically she is California's past as it goes into WARP SPEED to fulfill its continuing mission, to explore strange new budget items. To seek out new immigrants, without concern for their legal status, to explore strange new social causes. To seek out new social engineering programs and new avenues of taxation. To boldly go where no state has gone before.













__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/968359182482145281
Men who are heroes can never be understood by men who are not. I'm myself a survivor of several muggings, including one where I put myself between a mugger with a gun and my ex-wife when he reached out to grab her arm. My father had a similar experience as well. Maybe it's passed on through genes :Shrug 

When you have the masculine protective instinct, it takes over when you see someone else in danger. You can't help yourself because at that point nothing else matters than the safety of those under your charge. It's tunnel vision. It's irrational. It's deeply emotional and very healthy male behavior. 

Most of us have it, the ones who don't cower in bushes. So yeah. I take Trump on his word given he has actually been in an incident where he took on a mugger personally.


----------



## Draykorinee

A guy with a bat is exactly the same as a guy with an AR-15.

I'd intervene in the first, not the latter.

Because I'm not suicidal.

Unless my own kids were involved of course.



> Meanwhile, Georgia Republicans are threatening Delta Air Lines after it joined a host of companies that have ended discounts for National Rifle Association (NRA) members in the wake of the Florida school shooting.


Wow, how repugnant. Using your political power to force private companies to pander to your needs.


----------



## Reaper

Conjecture based on personal projection. Thing is, you and I both don't know exactly how he'd react, but given his past, I'd say he's more likely to intervene. It's instinct. 



draykorinee said:


> Wow, how repugnant. Using your political power to force private companies to pander to your needs.


Democrats also do it all the time. In fact, they actually pass political policies that significantly favor supposed "green" companies over others. So ... 










:Shrug


----------



## Draykorinee

Reap said:


> Conjecture based on personal projection. Thing is, you and I both don't know exactly how he'd react, but given his past, I'd say he's more likely to intervene. It's instinct.
> 
> 
> 
> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, how repugnant. Using your political power to force private companies to pander to your needs.
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats also do it all the time. In fact, they actually pass political policies that significantly favor supposed "green" companies over others. So ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/aheOR5m.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Shrug" class="inlineimg" />
Click to expand...

Yeah, but behind the scenes damnit! Don't go blathering all over Twitter and showing yourself to be an extortionatist!

I'm not fussed if the dems do it too, I'm not a Dem fan either.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Yeah, but behind the scenes damnit! Don't go blathering all over Twitter and showing yourself to be an extortionatist!


This is not very behind the scenes, is it?


----------



## samizayn

The Democrats certainly aren't the ones to laud the glories of an unchecked free market. 



Pratchett said:


> I'm not a big fan of this "argument"
> 
> If in this country we go so far past the point of Martial Law that the President is ordering drone and missile strikes on the civilian population that elected him, I cannot conceive of a better reason in favor of regular citizens being able to arm themselves with whatever kind of weapons they can get their hands on.
> 
> :draper2


That's the point, if you really do get that far your arms are going to be little consolation prizes regardless. 2A is irrelevant when it's your rifles vs government tanks.


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> The Democrats certainly aren't the ones to laud the glories of an unchecked free market.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point, if you really do get that far your arms are going to be little consolation prizes regardless. 2A is irrelevant when it's your rifles vs government tanks.


Capitalism in its freeist form has created the Scandinavian nations everyone salivates about. So socialists who think that it's "social welfare" that has done this are completely and utterly wrong. They have no clue what it is they're even holding up as an example of social welfare statism. 

Also, this is a fallacious idea that individuals are nothing against the might of the military. Afghanis have held out for over 16 years against the so-called military might of the US and its allied forces with home-made guns, bombs, grenades and captured artillery. 

As someone who has lived through how IMPOSSIBLE it is to eradicate guerrilla fighters who are fighting for someone against the military might of one of the strongest militaries in the world, the underestimation of the power of a well armed local militia is to everyone's detriment. This is happening in Pakistan. 

It also means that the civilians can hold out for longer till international support can arrive. This happened in Bangladesh. 

In a country like America, it also acts as a powerful deterrent as it should. 

In any case, the same people who are demanding that Americans go completely unarmed are the same people who are claiming that Trump is Hitler and worse than South American warlords. That he's racist, and that white people hold all the power in the world where they create institutions full of racism and there are racists in the cabinets ... 

It makes no sense to claim on the one hand that everyone who's non-white faces white privilege and is always under the threat of being attacked by a racist and then deprive minorities of their fighting chance against oppressive governments, institutions, racist organizations and white supremacists ... I mean, if I believe people who claim that America is under a racist regime that wants to deport me just because I'm brown, I would like to go down fighting and would like to be able to have weapons at my disposal to give myself a fighting chance. So basically, I'm up against all these odds and I'm supposed to rely on the benevolence of others? Or you just mean that I as a minority should rely on the benevolence of those whites who are liberal enough to tolerate and accept me and give me protection from other whites? That kinda sounds weirdly racist in its own way. 

I'd rather protect myself and my family to the best of my ability. Thank you very much.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reap said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but behind the scenes damnit! Don't go blathering all over Twitter and showing yourself to be an extortionatist!
> 
> 
> 
> This is not very behind the scenes, is it?
Click to expand...

I don't see the problem. Bots shouldn't be influencing social media users.


----------



## El Grappleador

I got encountered feelings about get in arms or not.

If it is true that motor coordination is important to manage a weapon, it's needing an emotional y mental coordination too. I can't shoot anything in a dumbass way, or They say in my country, "tirar a lo pendejo." Have you remember that The Simpsons's Episode where Homer gets a gun and Bart and Milhouse play with it and Marge discovers the weapon and leaves Homer alone? And later Homer uses his weapon to open a beer and turning on TV? It was funny, but at the same time we make us think about irresponsible use of fire gun.

Now, I don't have any problem that a person got the right to defense. In fact, there are another ways to defending with fireguns no needed: marcial arts, mind games, body language. Problem with fireguns is not firegun self, it's the moment on how does holder react about a extremely desperate situation. It is not easy when you have to survive against shootings, killings, assaults, thefts, regardless if you live it or not, and when it watches on News . -regardless it be Fox News, CNN, RT, France 24, Al-Jazeera, El País, Televisa, etc. - is worse, because news hosts lacks sense of empathy, and apathic persons are great masses manipulators... And there it goes that I was talking about: corrupted ideologies, its reactions, its synthoms, psychology equivalencys, how does influented battle to reasoning, cognitive distortions according Ellis. And as Trump said, we need to check mental health and first time ever I agree. It's not weapon, it's the hand who manage it... or i should tell "it's the mind who manage it"?  .

Resumming: weapons yes, but as a last resource and under a mentally health state, not under an edgy reasoning.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> I don't see the problem. Bots shouldn't be influencing social media users.


Now you're just trolling me breh lol.


----------



## Tater

> *Breaking: Congressional Progressive Caucus, Liberty Caucus to Meet on War Authorization*
> Written by Daniel McAdams
> Tuesday February 27, 2018
> 
> In a very encouraging sign, the US House Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus will hold a joint meeting today (Feb. 27th) at 2:30 Eastern time to discuss strategies to repeal the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Force (AUMF) against forces that attacked the US on Sept. 11, 2001.
> 
> According to an email sent out by the office of US Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), the "overly broad and outdated AUMF represents a critical deterioration of congressional oversight of military operations."
> 
> Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) of the House Liberty Caucus will be among the Members from both Congressional Caucus groups joining Rep. Lee at the event.
> 
> Attendees will hear expert testimony from Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, Ret., Senior Fellow & Military Expert at Defense Priorities, Rita Siemion, International Legal Counsel for Human Rights First, and Michael McPhearson, Executive Director of Veterans For Peace.
> 
> The original AUMF has been stretched beyond recognition, from beginning as a justified retaliation for an attack on US soil to justification for never-ending wars in the Middle East and beyond. The Trump Administration has recently suggested that the 2001 AUMF is all the authorization needed for the US military to remain in Syria indefinitely, even after ISIS is completely defeated.
> 
> The efforts of Reps. Lee and Amash are to be applauded. The Ron Paul Institute strongly holds the view that a broad, beyond Left/Right coalition is the best way to bring about a more peaceful, pro-American foreign policy.
> 
> For those in the Capitol Hill area, the meeting can be attended at 2358-C Rayburn House Office Building. The press conference will also be livestreamed on Rep. Barbara Lee's Facebook page.
> 
> http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archive...-liberty-caucus-to-meet-on-war-authorization/


It's about damned time.

:applause


----------



## MrMister

And people talked about Klobuchar running for president :lmao


----------



## El Grappleador

Did you know he is preparing for his re-election. Question is: from here to a couple of years: what is mighty? His bucks? His cronies's web? His body language? or Social Sickness? 

Believe me. Mexican people let Porfirio Diaz out on 30, Mexican people let Institutional Revolutionary Party out on 71 years, Mexican People let National Action Party on 12, a new PRI Was back, that "New" PRI will leave out Los Pinos on this year... IDK.

The point is... Republic without Democracy is tyranty, and Democracy without Republic is Demagogy... It which means, at these moments on USA There is Democracy but not Republic.


----------



## Cabanarama

BruiserKC said:


> And it might have been done had the current laws on the books were thoroughly enforced. Nikolas Cruz had a long history of mental health issues and behavior problems, with the school district as well as at home. The FBI had been made aware of the threats Cruz was making to the school, yet no one bothered to turn that information over to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (which BTW is MANDATORY per Florida law). If someone had done that, the background check would have denied him the chance to purchase a weapon.
> 
> I go back to Devin Kelley's shooting up the church in Texas. He had been court-martialed and dishonorably discharged from the Air Force for assaulting his wife and child. The Air Force was REQUIRED to report this. If done and Kelley had attempted to purchase a firearm, it would have shown up and he would have been denied.
> 
> My heart goes to the children that lost their lives, their families, and their fellow students that are trying to put together the pieces and are exercising their rights to discuss the issue. I'm not one of those who is going to condemn them like some on my side are. I pray to God that I NEVER have to deal with the sadness of having to bury one of my children before my time comes. At the same time, the case of Cruz and Kelley both show that the gun laws we already have in this country are not being fully enforced. If they were, there's a good chance both of these tragedies could have been avoided.
> 
> Until the laws in this country are actually fully enforced and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is used in the way it was meant to, as far as I'm concerned discussion of adding any future laws to the books is not an option and one I won't even address. To create more laws that will also potentially be ignored is a futile gesture.


You know why this is the case and who is 100% to blame? The NRA terrorists. They are the ones that have ripped so many loopholes in these laws that they have rendered them ineffective. 
They were the ones that went to the supreme court and revoked the mandates toward reporting that kind of stuff. Had it not been for that, Nikolas Cruz would not have been able to buy his gun.
Had Devin Kelley been forced to go through a more thorough background check, they still would have found what happened and he would not have been able to buy a gun. However, thanks to the NRA terrorists and their GOP puppets, only the most basic background checks are required which allows people like Cruz to slip through the cracks. 
And don't forget how Dylan Roof was only able to pass a background check and buy a gun because of the 72 hour limit on background checks, which again, made possible by the NRA terrorists and their GOP puppets.
The problem is not that these gun laws aren't being enforced, they're not working because the pro gun lobby have found ways to create loophole after loophole in order to render them ineffective.
That is one of the key Republican strategies on anything they're against- if they don't like it, they'll sabotage or create flaws to make it as ineffective as they can so they can campaign to get rid of it (or at least, in this case, against expanding it) on the basis of the flaws an inefficiencies that they created.


----------



## FriedTofu

BruiserKC said:


> And it might have been done had the current laws on the books were thoroughly enforced. Nikolas Cruz had a long history of mental health issues and behavior problems, with the school district as well as at home. The FBI had been made aware of the threats Cruz was making to the school, yet no one bothered to turn that information over to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (which BTW is MANDATORY per Florida law). If someone had done that, the background check would have denied him the chance to purchase a weapon.
> 
> I go back to Devin Kelley's shooting up the church in Texas. He had been court-martialed and dishonorably discharged from the Air Force for assaulting his wife and child. The Air Force was REQUIRED to report this. If done and Kelley had attempted to purchase a firearm, it would have shown up and he would have been denied.
> 
> My heart goes to the children that lost their lives, their families, and their fellow students that are trying to put together the pieces and are exercising their rights to discuss the issue. I'm not one of those who is going to condemn them like some on my side are. I pray to God that I NEVER have to deal with the sadness of having to bury one of my children before my time comes. At the same time, the case of Cruz and Kelley both show that the gun laws we already have in this country are not being fully enforced. If they were, there's a good chance both of these tragedies could have been avoided.
> 
> Until the laws in this country are actually fully enforced and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is used in the way it was meant to, as far as I'm concerned discussion of adding any future laws to the books is not an option and one I won't even address. To create more laws that will also potentially be ignored is a futile gesture.


I see your point, but many gun-rights advocates are the ones deterring authorities from fully enforcing existing laws by claiming that their rights are being infringed. They can't have it both ways, saying existing laws are sufficient if enforced, while also working to undermine said laws effectiveness in their messages to the public.


----------



## Vic Capri

Trump is running for re-election! *Keep America Great*

- Vic


----------



## virus21




----------



## Cabanarama

FriedTofu said:


> I see your point, but many gun-rights advocates are the ones deterring authorities from fully enforcing existing laws by claiming that their rights are being infringed. They can't have it both ways, saying existing laws are sufficient if enforced, while also working to undermine said laws effectiveness in their messages to the public.


That's pretty much the key GOP strategy: sabotage something from being effective or create flaws, just so they can use the flaws or ineffectiveness as a talking point to turn the public against it. Is it really any different than what they've done with the ACA?


----------



## Art Vandaley

Reap said:


> Capitalism in its freeist form has created the Scandinavian nations everyone salivates about. So socialists who think that it's "social welfare" that has done this are completely and utterly wrong. They have no clue what it is they're even holding up as an example of social welfare statism.



Umm...

They nationalised the resources industry and used the profits of doing so to fund massive social welfare programs, ie everyone gets a free house etc etc 

The government controls the means of production and redistributes resources more than any other place on earth. 

A strange definition of capitalism in its freest form.

Also enjoy this incredibly not awkward image of the Aus and US first families:










#freemelania


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Umm...
> 
> They nationalised the resources industry and used the profits of doing so to fund massive social welfare programs, ie everyone gets a free house etc etc
> 
> The government controls the means of production and redistributes resources more than any other place on earth.
> 
> A strange definition of capitalism in its freest form.


*sigh*

Have you actually fact checked your own statement? 

Norway started off with owning only around 50% of its oil. The stake has only risen to 67% since. Meanwhile there are lower corporate taxes and lack of government interference in other areas.

Norway's oil fund is a paltry 360 - 400 billion which isn't even enough to pay for one state's healthcare in America. 

Scandinavian corporate taxes hover around 22-27%. America was higher until Trump's tax cuts.

The overall population of the entire Scandinavian countries is less than half the population of New York. 

Economic freedom index has the Scandinavian countries in the high 70s-80s. Meanwhile actually socialist Venezuela is aroind 0-50. 

No. The Nordic Model is not socialist just because the state owns a share in oil production.

---


----------



## Pratchett

samizayn said:


> That's the point, if you really do get that far your arms are going to be little consolation prizes regardless. 2A is irrelevant when it's your rifles vs government tanks.


Much like @Reap pointed out, even with all the impressive might that the US military can bring to bear, they still can't wipe out small determined populations in these countries we are more or less harassing abroad.

There are 330 million+ people in this country. This idea of our military and its soldiers being turned on us borders on being a straw man or hyperbole. Those drones and missiles are controlled and launched by soldiers who have families living in this country that they are sworn to protect. The threat of an "armed citizenry" is not meant to be aimed at our military, it is intended to be a reminder to our elected "leaders" (a term I use very loosely). And even if it did happen, they couldn't take out all of us. Many of us would survive and I see no reason why any of us should be expected to just roll over and die.

If the world, and civilization has collapsed and everything is coming undone, that is the most important time for me to have a weapon to defend myself with. Even if I died in some drone or missile strike, I would hope that someone else has the chance to protect themselves and survive. I'm not going to apologize for wanting to go down fighting if it came down to that.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Reap said:


> No. The Nordic Model is not socialist just because the state owns a share in oil production.


But it can't be considered the freest form of capitalism if that is true surely?


----------



## yeahbaby!

BruiserKC said:


> And it might have been done had the current laws on the books were thoroughly enforced. Nikolas Cruz had a long history of mental health issues and behavior problems, with the school district as well as at home. The FBI had been made aware of the threats Cruz was making to the school, yet no one bothered to turn that information over to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (which BTW is MANDATORY per Florida law). If someone had done that, the background check would have denied him the chance to purchase a weapon.
> 
> I go back to Devin Kelley's shooting up the church in Texas. He had been court-martialed and dishonorably discharged from the Air Force for assaulting his wife and child. The Air Force was REQUIRED to report this. If done and Kelley had attempted to purchase a firearm, it would have shown up and he would have been denied.
> 
> My heart goes to the children that lost their lives, their families, and their fellow students that are trying to put together the pieces and are exercising their rights to discuss the issue. I'm not one of those who is going to condemn them like some on my side are. I pray to God that I NEVER have to deal with the sadness of having to bury one of my children before my time comes. At the same time, the case of Cruz and Kelley both show that the gun laws we already have in this country are not being fully enforced. If they were, there's a good chance both of these tragedies could have been avoided.
> 
> Until the laws in this country are actually fully enforced and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is used in the way it was meant to, as far as I'm concerned discussion of adding any future laws to the books is not an option and one I won't even address. To create more laws that will also potentially be ignored is a futile gesture.


Nope, sorry. You're smack dab in the middle of a climate, a culture now, of not only these sorts of ridiculously frequent mass shootings but also gun accidents that could be reduced and fingers crossed avoided if more is done.

The situation is top level dire, but we just don't realise it any more because it's become part of the culture when nothing is done.

You need to allow for human error in institutions like the FBI and the Air Force, then you need to do more on top that. That's the situation you're in right now. 'They should've done this' after the fact won't cut it anymore in my opinion.


----------



## DesolationRow

http://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/27/us/ben-carson-hud-furniture.html



> Ben Carson’s HUD, Planning Cuts, Spends $31,000 on Dining Set for His Office
> 
> By GLENN THRUSHFEB. 27, 2018
> 
> WASHINGTON — Department of Housing and Urban Development officials spent $31,000 on a new dining room set for Secretary Ben Carson’s office in late 2017 — just as the White House circulated its plans to slash HUD’s programs for the homeless, elderly and poor, according to federal procurement records.
> 
> The purchase of the custom hardwood table, chairs and hutch came a month after a top agency staff member filed a whistle-blower complaint charging Mr. Carson’s wife, Candy Carson, with pressuring department officials to find money for the expensive redecoration of his offices, even if it meant circumventing the law.
> 
> Mr. Carson is also facing questions on another front. Under pressure earlier this month, he requested that HUD’s inspector general investigate his son’s involvement in a department-sponsored listening tour of Baltimore last summer. Department lawyers had warned Mr. Carson that including Ben Carson Jr., an entrepreneur who does business with the federal government, could create a conflict of interest.
> 
> Mr. Carson “didn’t know the table had been purchased,” but does not believe the cost was too steep and does not intend to return it, said Raffi Williams, a HUD spokesman.
> 
> “In general, the secretary does want to be as fiscally prudent as possible with the taxpayers’ money,” he added.
> 
> Department officials did not request approval from the House or Senate Appropriations Committees for the expenditure of $31,561, even though federal law requires congressional approval “to furnish or redecorate the office of a department head” if the cost exceeds $5,000.
> 
> Mr. Williams said department officials did not request congressional approval because the dining set served a “building-wide need.” The table is inside the secretary’s 10th-floor office suite.
> 
> The decision was made by a “career staffer” who selected the company, Sebree and Associates, which is based in Mr. Carson’s longtime hometown, Baltimore, from a list of preapproved federal contractors, Mr. Williams said.
> 
> Neither Mr. Carson nor his wife — who expressed a strong interest in sprucing up the drab, wood-paneled, 1960s-era secretary’s suite, according to several current and former department staff members — requested that the 50-year-old table be replaced, Mr. Williams said.
> 
> But he had remarked how the previous table was covered in scratches, scuff marks and cracks. Mr. Williams emailed several pictures of the old table, which looks polished and not visibly scarred, during events held by Mr. Carson’s predecessor, Julián Castro.
> 
> The new table, listed as “household furniture” in federal procurement documents, has not yet arrived.
> 
> About a month before it was ordered, Helen G. Foster, a former top HUD official, filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel, a federal whistle-blower agency, claiming that she had been demoted and transferred after resisting Mrs. Carson’s attempts to get around the $5,000 redecoration law.
> 
> The pressure began in January 2017, before Mr. Carson was even confirmed, when HUD’s interim secretary, Craig Clemmensen, told Mrs. Foster to help secure redecorating funds for Mrs. Carson, a frequent visitor to the department’s Washington headquarters who serves as an informal adviser to her husband, the complaint said.
> 
> Mr. Clemmensen, acting on Mrs. Carson’s behalf, told Mrs. Foster to “find money” to purchase better furniture for the office — and he quipped that “$5,000 will not even buy a decent chair,” according to the complaint, which was reported by The Guardian newspaper.
> 
> Mrs. Foster refused to comply, and said she then sent HUD officials the text of the law requiring congressional approval for the purchases. After she was removed from her position as the department’s chief administrative officer, she was made head of the agency’s unit overseeing Freedom of Information Act requests, which she viewed as an act of retribution.
> 
> She “has suffered much humiliation and a loss of reputation, and harm to career advancement, as a result of this retaliatory reassignment,” according to a letter written by her lawyer, Joseph Kaplan, to the head of the special counsel investigations unit on Nov. 3.
> 
> Mr. Williams said Mrs. Foster was reassigned as part of a routine agency reshuffle, and denied that Mrs. Carson pressured her to help redecorate the office.
> 
> “Secretary Carson, to the best of our knowledge, is the only secretary to go to the subbasement at his agency to select the furniture for his office,” Mr. Williams said.


----------



## Tater

DesolationRow said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/27/us/ben-carson-hud-furniture.html


:ha

This strikes me as incredibly funny. There's nothing surprising about this in the slightest.


----------



## FriedTofu

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/27/5892...asty-senators-son-stepdaughter-run-for-office

Trump and Bernie are so much alike. :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

The AP said:


> Federal Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, whom candidate Donald Trump said could not be fair because of his connection to Mexico, cleared the way for the president's border wall.


Can't wait for heads to explode when The Wall starts getting improved.

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

Safe to say Trump came out on top in the Curiel debacle. :lol


----------



## Beatles123

64% completion! :trump


----------



## samizayn

Pratchett said:


> Much like @Reap pointed out, even with all the impressive might that the US military can bring to bear, they still can't wipe out small determined populations in these countries we are more or less harassing abroad.
> 
> There are 330 million+ people in this country. This idea of our military and its soldiers being turned on us borders on being a straw man or hyperbole. Those drones and missiles are controlled and launched by soldiers who have families living in this country that they are sworn to protect. The threat of an "armed citizenry" is not meant to be aimed at our military, it is intended to be a reminder to our elected "leaders" (a term I use very loosely). And even if it did happen, they couldn't take out all of us. Many of us would survive and I see no reason why any of us should be expected to just roll over and die.
> 
> If the world, and civilization has collapsed and everything is coming undone, that is the most important time for me to have a weapon to defend myself with. Even if I died in some drone or missile strike, I would hope that someone else has the chance to protect themselves and survive. I'm not going to apologize for wanting to go down fighting if it came down to that.


The situation is obviously far-fetched, if that's what you're trying to say - god willing it stays that way for this lifetime and the next. But I don't know if it's entirely honest to dissociate the government and the military here, considering pretty much every oppressive regime the world has seen. They are and will remain unitary. That's why - IMO - the 2A in that regard will only ever be a symbolism, which as you point out, is regardless important to many in the States.

Committing to this unrestricted right, however, is also committing to the idea that it is more important than not having mass shootings every other day. Your prerogative but not one I can support.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/968905899438993408
I'm usually not in the wishing death on people camp but somebody needs to shut this psycho cunt the fuck up before she gets us all killed.


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> Can't wait for heads to explode when The Wall starts getting improved.
> 
> - Vic


I can't believe Trump people still believe that the wall is gonna get built.


----------



## virus21

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/968905899438993408
> I'm usually not in the wishing death on people camp but somebody needs to shut this psycho cunt the fuck up before she gets us all killed.


I think even the Democrats want that to happen. They are getting sick of her.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Stephen90 said:


> I can't believe Trump people still believe that the wall is gonna get built.


If Trump and the Repubs are indeed dumb enough to go ahead with it, it will be nothing more than a disastrous black hole sucking up more and more taxpayer funds until it's finally abandoned by the next Prez to see straight.


----------



## virus21

It would be easier and cheaper to build manned drone stations to monitor the border anyway.


----------



## Tater

virus21 said:


> It would be easier and cheaper to build manned drone stations to monitor the border anyway.


It would be easier and cheaper to end the drug war and go after the corporations who hire illegal immigrants.


----------



## virus21

Tater said:


> It would be easier and cheaper to end the drug war and go after the corporations who hire illegal immigrants.


Then we would have to jail a good portion of Hollywood and.....on second thought, lets do it!


----------



## Arkham258

News flash people, they've already started building the wall

And Hillary will finally shut the fuck up when she's either put in jail or put through public execution for treason and sedition along with Bathhouse Barry a.k.a Hussein Obama. 

That moment is coming, probably before the year ends.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

No one that high up get's put in jail. Bill,Hilary,Dick Cheney and Donald Trump could also have tape's leaked of them spit roasting 12 year old's with R Kelly as cameraman who gives a golden finish and they still would escape any punishment.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/968955119877414914
Wait, Trump said *what?!* :lmao


----------



## DaRealNugget

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/968955119877414914
> Wait, Trump said *what?!* :lmao


:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

there goes his base. 

turns out, when it comes to gun control, donald trump is more liberal than most liberals.


----------



## Arkham258

BoFreakinDallas said:


> No one that high up get's put in jail. Bill,Hilary,Dick Cheney and Donald Trump could also have tape's leaked of them spit roasting 12 year old's with R Kelly as cameraman who gives a golden finish and they still would escape any punishment.


Maybe you haven't noticed, but things are changing, and it all started when Trump got elected

He upset the whole power structure that's been in place for a long time. Those higher ups your talking about HATE and FEAR him.

Why do you think the controlled, corrupt media is doing everything in its power to turn the country against him? You can smell the desperation of the powers that be right now and nothing they're trying is working. Hell, the Russian collusion thing is going up in smoke and his approval ratings are going up

Have you noticed all the politicians and corporate CEOs mysteriously resigning all of a sudden? The trafficking arrests happening everywhere (Saudi Arabia)? Hollywood being exposed? Things are happening. The Deep State is NOT happy

Do you think that Fisa/Nunez memo would have had any chance in hell of coming out if anyone else was in office right now?

Trump is stirring shit up

MAGA baby!


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Arkham258 said:


> Maybe you haven't noticed, but things are changing, and it all started when Trump got elected
> 
> He upset the whole power structure that's been in place for a long time. Those higher ups your talking about HATE and FEAR him.
> 
> Why do you think the controlled, corrupt media is doing everything in its power to turn the country against him? You can smell the desperation of the powers that be right now and nothing they're trying is working. Hell, the Russian collusion thing is going up in smoke and his approval ratings are going up
> 
> Have you noticed all the politicians and corporate CEOs mysteriously resigning all of a sudden? The trafficking arrests happening everywhere (Saudi Arabia)? Hollywood being exposed? Things are happening. The Deep State is NOT happy
> 
> Do you think that Fisa/Nunez memo would have had any chance in hell of coming out if anyone else was in office right now?
> 
> Trump is stirring shit up
> 
> MAGA baby!


You do know that Trump is most likely going to be pushed to be prosecuted for at min obstruction of justice.


----------



## Arkham258

The Hardcore Show said:


> You do know that Trump is most likely going to be pushed to be prosecuted for at min obstruction of justice.


You have any evidence? Because supposedly he's been colluding with Russia even though a year of investigation has turned up nothing but 13 Russian trolls who probably don't even exist and had nothing to do with him anyway



DaRealNugget said:


> :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao
> 
> there goes his base.
> 
> turns out, when it comes to gun control, donald trump is more liberal than most liberals.


He was talking about mentally ill people, but as usual Project Mockingbird MSNBC and CNN have to spin everything to be anti-Trump


----------



## Tater

Arkham258 said:


> Maybe you haven't noticed, but things are changing, and it all started when Trump got elected
> 
> He upset the whole power structure that's been in place for a long time. Those higher ups your talking about HATE and FEAR him.
> 
> Why do you think the controlled, corrupt media is doing everything in its power to turn the country against him? You can smell the desperation of the powers that be right now and nothing they're trying is working. Hell, the Russian collusion thing is going up in smoke and his approval ratings are going up
> 
> Have you noticed all the politicians and corporate CEOs mysteriously resigning all of a sudden? The trafficking arrests happening everywhere (Saudi Arabia)? Hollywood being exposed? Things are happening. The Deep State is NOT happy
> 
> Do you think that Fisa/Nunez memo would have had any chance in hell of coming out if anyone else was in office right now?
> 
> Trump is stirring shit up
> 
> MAGA baby!


It will never cease to amaze me how easily people get played for suckers by political theater.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Arkham258 said:


> You have any evidence? Because supposedly he's been colluding with Russia even though a year of investigation has turned up nothing but 13 Russian trolls who probably don't even exist and had nothing to do with him anyway
> 
> 
> 
> He was talking about mentally ill people, but as usual Project Mockingbird MSNBC and CNN have to spin everything to be anti-Trump


They way he fired Comey and said he was thinking about the Russia investigation could bring him down no matter if he was working with Putin or not. 

Trump could be cleared of working with Russia but still found guilty of obstructing justice. That is how these things work. 

Trump has already seen three people who worked on his campaign flip plead guilty another one who is looking for a pardon and many people he trusted are quitting. He's not doing well at all.


----------



## El Grappleador

Ladies and gentlemen, I share with us a letter from a Guatemalan Politologist. She Libertarian and her statements are unparcial and realistic.



> Mr. President:
> 
> With the rejection you create in women for your misogynistic comments; in Latinos for your immigration policies and wall-building ideas; on mainstream media who oppose republicans’ religious conservatism; in socialists for your incessant desires to reduce subsidies and privileges; and in Hollywood’s most famous movie stars, whose opinions are apparently worth more than that of any professional, I’m convinced that your victory is not because people voted FOR you. People voted AGAINST Hillary Clinton.
> 
> I won’t use this letter to highlight the Clinton’s 30 years of corruption, nor will I explain its harmful results in the Middle East, Africa and, Latin America via 21st century Socialism’s narco-dictatorships; which have been great ways to get ridiculously wealthy with drug and oil money.
> 
> That will be your job, when you fulfill what you said during your campaign, and have the Department of Justice finally bring Hillary and William Clinton to trial. A trial, which I hope, comes about soon and fast, so that every Latino that still believes that the Clinton family is looking out for them, can finally see, through facts, how their Foundation was the money Laundromat for the Castro family, Lula da Silva, Dilma Rousseff, Hugo Chavez, the Kirchner family, Iranian oil, and the FARC. Whoever wants to deny these facts are in their due right, but I come from a region where people love to choose their presidents based on their personality. Ideas don’t really matter. People vote thinking “do I like him/her?”, “would he/she be someone I could consider my friend?”. Voters don’t seem to care if, once they’re elected, they’ll steal, expropriate, or take their freedoms away. All that matters is how well they speak, how charismatic they are, and how they feel towards him/her. Who cares if they’re corrupt as long as they are nice right?
> 
> Hillary has all these qualities. Who cares if she’s corrupt? She’s nice. You, on the other hand, are not.
> 
> Which is why I doubt that a calm, intellectual, politically correct, open candidate would have beat the nice (but corrupt) Hillary, the way you did. People get bored with the intellectual side of things. They fall asleep to the person who’s trying to explain the economy. They yawn when they try to understand how the Federal Government is growing, and they care very little about the logic behind public policies. Instead, people love entertainment, a circus show, and they feed off of it. Politics are much more entertaining when it looks like a reality show or a sports match. This is what you and your advisors figured out. After all, you are a business man, not a politician.
> 
> You know how to study the market, how to advertise and so, you found what people wanted. This is why you ran a campaign whose major objective was to get as much air time as possible. And the best way to do this was to be a racist, misogynist, chauvinist whenever you could. In a society where information is immediate, there was no time for fact checking. Long behind is the time where respect and well thought out arguments caught the public’s eye. Once the spotlight shone on you, you immediately shared it with your opponent’s corruption in a way that no other republican candidate had done before. As you dubbed her “Crooked Hillary” and by financing most of your own campaign, you had nothing to lose and everything to win. There was no place to be politically correct, like Rand Paul, Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz. This was the Trump Show.
> 
> Well Mr. Trump, you’ve won. You won thanks to the social outrage created by traditional politics found not only in your country but all over the globe. Comedians, athletes and celebrities are being elected in other countries; including ours, where our president’s former job was being a comedian.
> 
> Now, what commonly happens in these situations, Guatemala included, is that once this anti-politician is elected, they have to face the corrupt powers that have benefited for a long time from this rotten system. It only takes a few meetings with the unions, the lobbies, the businessmen in bed with the government, the drug dealers and religious leaders for the now elected anti-politician to lose his courage and his determination. Which are both required to make the tough calls no one wants to make.
> 
> But unlike all these anti-politicians, who quickly become a part of the system they vowed to change, and who disappoint the public even quicker, you’re already super rich. You have money to spare. You’re not in this for money, but because of your ego and for power. This has its upsides and its downsides. Its upside is that you won’t be looking to steal so the tax payers’ money will be well spent, as you won’t look to fill your pockets with it. Its downside is that if you let your ego get the best of you, and if you don’t stay focused, you won’t produce any substantial change that’ll “make America great again” under Constitutional Law.
> 
> Let’s agree that both you and Hillary used populist techniques during this campaign. She used a socialist, Foro deu Sao Paulo style, where she repeated ad nauseam how things should be free and how debt should be fought with more debt. You, on the other hand divided the American society with hate and fear, blaming a foreign enemy for all the misgivings the country is suffering. If your populist tactic was to bring the cameras and win the election, we’re going to see if the entrepreneurial savvy you’ve acquired in over four decades comes into play.
> 
> I hope that you also understand that the USD$20 trillion dollars of debt the United States has is due to five reasons that have nothing to do with Mexicans or any other foreign immigrant. Instead it’s because of:
> 1. The FED
> 2. The failed war on drugs
> 3. The war on the middle east
> 4. Obamacare
> 5. Bailing out banks with bad policies, irresponsible practices, and allowing subprime mortgage loans.
> 
> Which means that even if you do build your wall, if you don’t stop the money hemorrhaging from these five areas, you’re only going to increase the debt, and when the inevitable dollar collapse happens (as the FED is the only thing keeping its value artificially high), your time in power will be as disastrous as if Hillary had been elected.
> 
> Mr. Trump, if you know the bases under which your nation was founded, you’ll know that if Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton or any of the founding fathers saw the state of the United States and its government, they would be sorely disappointed. They designed a small, limited government which has turned into a “babysitter State” that meddles in most aspects of everyone’s lives. And the people, instead of asking for freedom, keep asking for more entitlements which would be paid with someone else’s money. Instead of asking for free banking and a free market, where the reckless and foolish lose their customers and their money, want a government to ensure loans, bailouts and allow irresponsible practices. That the line between church and state is so blurred that science evolution isn’t being taught in schools. That the states are less autonomous and the central government holds more and more power each day.
> 
> Unlike the rest of the nations, the United States of America was the first republic founded in a world of monarchy and dynasties. It was the only nation to establish that the elected governors did not grant rights. People were born with the right to their life, their freedom and their pursuit of happiness, and the government’s only role was to ensure these rights. It was the first nation to treat everyone equally under the law. This country wasn’t built around the idea that things were “free” or that people were entitled to things. It was built around the concept of freedom.
> 
> And whoever doesn’t want to live free, because they’re terrified of being responsible for their actions, and would rather have a meddling government in exchange for entitlements, can move to any of the other 200 countries available in the world.
> 
> So, if you’re doing all these things for something other than money, don’t let the religious conservatism that turns its back on science ruin the minds of the new generations. This country was built using the scientific discoveries of brilliant individuals who used their freedom guaranteed by the government to transform and mold the way we live today. Also, don’t let the paternalistic state ideology pollute your policies. The American dream is to find your own happiness and to grow based off of the fruit of your labor, not entitlements and “free stuf”.
> 
> Use your business knowledge to fix the economy. The war on drugs has been a catastrophic endeavor that has only wasted billions of dollars in taxes, while 80% of drugs still enter the country. When you renegotiate NAFTA and other free trade agreements, keep in mind that a free market without the freedom to enter or leave the country easily will always create conflicts in the long run.
> 
> Finally, if you really want to reduce the rising numbers of migrants into the United States, do whatever you can to bring an end to corruption and money laundering from the 21st century socialist regimes. They have destroyed the institutions and the rule of law, which without, none of the inherent rights of people are guaranteed. This is perhaps, the biggest reason why people will try to enter the United States. They don’t go looking for entitlements or free things. Instead, they go searching for a place to work where they can prosper and not fear for their lives. Perhaps, if you charge against the Castros, Maduro, Morales, Kirchner, Rousseff, Ortega and the rest of the corrupt Latin-American leaders, that will also encourage the weak and cowerad oppostitions in our region to do so as well and finally there can be a shift in the government plans and policies which would ensure the individual rights of people, and in turn, reduce the amount of people wanting to leave. I’m very aware that you’ll never read this letter. But it’s helped me quite a bit as a personal and professional exercise.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Gloria Alvarez.
> Author El Engaño Populista The Populist Deceit


Annexing Link: https://www.facebook.com/notes/glor...d-j-trump-by-gloria-alvarez/1361638540533520/


----------



## DaRealNugget

Arkham258 said:


> He was talking about mentally ill people, but as usual Project Mockingbird MSNBC and CNN have to spin everything to be anti-Trump


"wtf, i hate due process now." 

:lmao

no need for spin, just play the tape. we can hear it for ourselves. nice to know his base will still suck his dick even after he says he's ok with confiscating guns, _without due process_.

it's pretty ironic that the first president to seriously consider taking guns away, is the alt-right "god emperor". :lmao you can't make this shit up.


----------



## FriedTofu

DaRealNugget said:


> "wtf, i hate due process now."
> 
> :lmao
> 
> no need for spin, just play the tape. we can hear it for ourselves. nice to know his base will still suck his dick even after he says he's ok with confiscating guns, _without due process_.
> 
> it's pretty ironic that the first president to seriously consider taking guns away, is the alt-right "god emperor". :lmao you can't make this shit up.


He'll walk it back as fake news once he gets his talking points from the adults in the party. Happened too many times before.


----------



## DaRealNugget

FriedTofu said:


> He'll walk it back as fake news once he gets his talking points from the adults in the party. Happened too many times before.


oh, of course. never doubted it. but how stupid do you have to be to say it in the first place?


----------



## FriedTofu

DaRealNugget said:


> oh, of course. never doubted it. but how stupid do you have to be to say it in the first place?


Trump can't help it. He needs the approval of anyone he meets so he will say any shit to get it.


----------



## Tater

El Grappleador said:


> Ladies and gentlemen, I share with us a letter from a Guatemalan Politologist. She Libertarian and her statements are unparcial and realistic.
> 
> 
> 
> Annexing Link: https://www.facebook.com/notes/glor...d-j-trump-by-gloria-alvarez/1361638540533520/


This is a good read. As with most things from the libertarian right, there are certain parts that are 1000% spot on and others that are hilariously wrong. Still, it got more right than it did wrong. I give it a solid B.


----------



## FriedTofu

Tater said:


> This is a good read. As with most things from the libertarian right, there are certain parts that are 1000% spot on and others that are hilariously wrong. Still, it got more right than it did wrong. I give it a solid B.


The obvious pandering to Trump/his base is pretty funny.


----------



## Miss Sally

BoFreakinDallas said:


> No one that high up get's put in jail. Bill,Hilary,Dick Cheney and Donald Trump could also have tape's leaked of them spit roasting 12 year old's with R Kelly as cameraman who gives a golden finish and they still would escape any punishment.


100% agree with this, once you hit a certain % of wealth or fame status you're untouchable. You also can get things done behind the scenes and can easily setup shop anywhere. 

Hollywood is a perfect example, rape, child abuse and molestation, fucking over workers and unethical business practices yet nothing will be done even with #metoo. Not to mention the fakers, agenda pushers and hypocrites will kill any real movement.


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> 100% agree with this, once you hit a certain % of wealth or fame status you're untouchable. You also can get things done behind the scenes and can easily setup shop anywhere.
> 
> Hollywood is a perfect example, rape, child abuse and molestation, fucking over workers and unethical business practices yet nothing will be done even with #metoo. Not to mention the fakers, agenda pushers and hypocrites will kill any real movement.


Which already happened with Metoo


----------



## Reaper

Well, Trump continues to convince me that there is no reason to continue to support him. I still like some of his politics but mostly he's starting to shift further and further to the center.


----------



## BruiserKC

yeahbaby! said:


> Nope, sorry. You're smack dab in the middle of a climate, a culture now, of not only these sorts of ridiculously frequent mass shootings but also gun accidents that could be reduced and fingers crossed avoided if more is done.
> 
> The situation is top level dire, but we just don't realise it any more because it's become part of the culture when nothing is done.
> 
> You need to allow for human error in institutions like the FBI and the Air Force, then you need to do more on top that. That's the situation you're in right now. 'They should've done this' after the fact won't cut it anymore in my opinion.


Human error is one thing, gross incompetence is something else. They screwed up bigly. Someone should have kept tabs on this clown and maybe this could have been avoided. 

Meanwhile Trump wants to join the mob and go after the rights of gun owners with taking them away and ask questions later. Sorry, Mr. President, there is still such a thing as due process as protected by the Constitution. Any move that flies in the face of the rights of our citizens is unacceptable and I will never support. Yes the discussion needs to be had but not at the expense of our freedom. 

BTW @Reap good job out of you waking up to see what Trump is. This is a man with no value system who is only interested in himself and not the rest of us.


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> BTW @Reap good job out of you waking up to see what Trump is. This is a man with no value system who is only interested in himself and not the rest of us.


I should be legally able to vote by 2020 ... and as a whole I've come to respect Cruz (unfortunately despite his strong politics he's just a complete charisma vacuum so no one is going to vote for him) the most. 

Trump's politics are fine. His ideas are good. But his shifting is bothersome. The thing is, HE has been wanting to shift ever since he's won but his supporters have kept him in check up until now by threatening to abandon him at every turn. In all honesty when I look at it, the only thing he has really delivered on are the tax cuts - but in the end, those tax cuts are completely pointless because he's continuing to run his government on liberal budgets - and of course, tax cuts have been met with inflation (as expected) and eventually if the government borrowing doesn't stop it's going to fuck the rest of us over just like it does every single time there are tax cuts without fiscal responsibility. 

Each man only gets so many chances before people completely abandon him. In 2020, I will likely still cast my vote for him, but it won't be because I support Trump but because I can't even conceive of supporting anyone else unless some maverick that's better at Trumpism than Trump himself shows up.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reap said:


> Well, Trump continues to convince me that there is no reason to continue to support him. I still like some of his politics but mostly he's starting to shift further and further to the center.


I don't like the shifting because he shifts on stupid shit.

There's times where it's good to shift because good ideas come from everywhere but he does so on silly stuff. He also plays too nicely with anti-Trumpers who at every turn want to push their neocon bullshit.



Tater said:


> It would be easier and cheaper to end the drug war and go after the corporations who hire illegal immigrants.


Legalized drugs, targeting companies that hire illegals would reduce illegal immigration greatly. Cut off the money supply and they'll go home. I mean really, Tyson chicken had to shut down when illegals went out to protest, how are these companies not getting fined out the ass? You have people unqualified working long hours with low pay which is against the law. Yet the Government and people tolerate it.

I'd still support drone monitoring and also walls at certain points in border cities.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> I don't like the shifting because he shifts on stupid shit.
> 
> There's times where it's good to shift because good ideas come from everywhere but he does so on silly stuff. He also plays too nicely with anti-Trumpers who at every turn want to push their neocon bullshit.


Shifting on gun rights is actually a very major issue and honestly, the left have no good ideas when it comes to gun control legislation. 

As someone on another forum pointed out, his "off the cuff" comments betray his real ideas and if his mind isn't firm on the importance of gun rights and why they are necessary than that is a fundamental ideological flaw that he either needs to correct or decide that it's something his entire Presidency _will _die over.


----------



## Reaper

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27725/walsh-no-we-cant-just-take-guns-away-mentally-ill-matt-walsh



> *WALSH: Two Reasons Why Taking Guns Away From The 'Mentally Ill' Is A Dangerous And Awful Idea
> *
> 
> It has been said over and over again that we need to "take guns away from the mentally ill." Infamously, President Trump made this same suggestion in a meeting yesterday, explaining that we can take the guns and then the mentally ill person can have "due process after." Of course, giving someone due process after you've already deprived them of liberty and property is like strapping a seatbelt onto a guy who's already been paralyzed in a car wreck. It kind of defeats the purpose.
> 
> Nonetheless, Trump is expressing a relatively common and popular view. His proposal found some support even among supposed conservatives (although if Obama had suggested the same thing, it would have been met with volcanic rage from every conservative in America without exception). And there does seem to be a certain logic to the idea. I mean, we can't just have mentally ill people running around with guns! Right?
> 
> Wrong. Here's why:
> 
> 1) Being mentally ill is not a crime.
> 
> You know what is a crime? Threatening to shoot people. The Parkland killer should have had his guns confiscated and his butt thrown in jail because he explicitly threatened to use his guns against other human beings. His mental state is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether he was a lunatic or lucid. What matters is that he acted violently and threatened violence.
> 
> If he had been kind of a weirdo, kind of "off," yet had never been violent or threatened violence, then it would not be fair to blame law enforcement for their failure to prevent the attack. But he was violent and he did threaten violence, and that is why we hold them accountable. There is no basis upon which we can take away someone's property if they have never committed a crime, threatened to commit a crime, or been caught planning to commit a crime. Of course, we can and must disarm them, at least temporarily, if they need to be admitted into an actual mental health institution; but if they are living on their own and functioning in human society, they are entitled to all of their rights and all of their guns.
> 
> 2) Everyone is mentally ill.
> 
> Here's the crux of the matter. You want to take guns away from mentally ill people? Okay, hand yours over first. There are hundreds of mental illnesses listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and any psychiatrist worth his salt can find at least five or six that apply to you.
> 
> Feeling depressed? Hand over your guns.
> 
> Anxious? Welp. No guns for you.
> 
> Easily distracted? There go your guns.
> 
> Mood swings? Good bye, Second Amendment.
> 
> And on and on. The psychiatry industry has medicalized every human emotion, inclination, temptation, fault, and quirk. They've codified it all, cataloged it, slapped a label on it, and put it in their Mental Illness Bible. They've been trying for years to prove that basically everyone is mentally ill. And now they want to use mental illness as a basis to deprive people of their rights. Call me mentally ill, but it seems almost like the two things might be connected.
> 
> We're already told, absurdly, that 20% of Americans have "mental health conditions." So that's about 60 million Americans who will be exempted from the Bill of Rights from the start. The other 80% are only un-diagnosed because they haven't been to a psychiatrist yet. If "mental illness" is what it takes for your rights to be abolished, all the government has to do is instruct you to see a court appointed shrink. They'll have no trouble pinning at least a couple "conditions" on you. And how will you prove otherwise? I mean, you're crazy, remember?
> 
> This is a dangerous road. You don't want to go down it. Trust me.


Walsh is spot on. 

In fact, there is another unintended consequence of going down the "mentally ill can't have guns" route ... People will become less likely to even seek psychiatric counseling than they already are. What are you going to do then when that happens ... Start forcing people to be psycho-analysed? How are you going to force everyone to be psychoanalysed? Are you going to psych evaluations of every single human in America? 

This is a completely BS idea - and no one in their right mind should be supporting it.


----------



## MrMister

I'm really not sure what Trump is doing saying due process pls go. It's gotta be more of that 3D chess or whatever that meme was.


----------



## FriedTofu

Wait...people think Trump has changed? He's the same loose cannon that says the first thing that pops into his head. What changed is some of you shifting even more towards the right and can't stomach his disregard to ideology when in the past you could just brush it off. :lol

More and more of those who can keep his fringe politics in check are leaving the administration. Trump just imposed tariffs on imported steel and aluminium. Congratulations to his supporters for keeping him in check I guess?


----------



## yeahbaby!

BruiserKC said:


> *Human error is one thing, gross incompetence is something else. They screwed up bigly. Someone should have kept tabs on this clown and maybe this could have been avoided. *
> 
> Meanwhile Trump wants to join the mob and go after the rights of gun owners with taking them away and ask questions later. Sorry, Mr. President, there is still such a thing as due process as protected by the Constitution. Any move that flies in the face of the rights of our citizens is unacceptable and I will never support. Yes the discussion needs to be had but not at the expense of our freedom.
> 
> BTW @Reap good job out of you waking up to see what Trump is. This is a man with no value system who is only interested in himself and not the rest of us.


Should'ves don't help anyone though do they, it's too late when kids are already in graves. More needs to be done on top of what's there because your US gun culture and fear of the NRA allows these things to happen as it is.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

MrMister said:


> I'm really not sure what Trump is doing saying due process pls go. It's gotta be more of that 3D chess or whatever that meme was.


4D chess, you uncultured swine. :quite

As for him living that maymay, I don't think he actually is in this situation, which is SAD! sad because the bump stock gimmick will fail on the grounds thanks to:

1) Instructions to make them being/will be readily available on the internet
2) 3D printing

He threw money at the opioid crisis, so I'm quite surprised that he isn't doing the same in regard to mental health, unless he already did and I missed it.


----------



## Pratchett

samizayn said:


> The situation is obviously far-fetched, if that's what you're trying to say - god willing it stays that way for this lifetime and the next.


On that it appears we are both on the same page. 



> But I don't know if it's entirely honest to dissociate the government and the military here, considering pretty much every oppressive regime the world has seen.


But the USA is not an oppressive regime, especially to its own people 8*D

Seriously though, I highly doubt that any politician would be in favor of using American military assets to respond to unrest within the Continental United States. No matter how tense things get here at home, if our government was to use military force upon US citizens, it would divide the country enough to risk starting another Civil War. Even if things never went that far, it would still weaken us as a nation and potentially leave us ripe for some kind of attack or influence by an aggressive nation like China or Russia. Our "leaders" would rightfully wish to avoid that. It would upset the powers that they themselves currently enjoy over us.



> They are and will remain unitary. That's why - IMO - the 2A in that regard will only ever be a symbolism, which as you point out, is regardless important to many in the States.


Disagree. Not a symbolism, but an inate Right recognized upon the foundation of the country. History has a nasty habit of repeating itself. No matter how "advanced" we think we are becoming as a civilization, we are all still human and suscepitble to our evolutionarily enabled biases. And whichever ones we manage to pick up along the way.

Power corrupts. Or perhaps, just as accurately, the corrupt are drawn to power. Vigilance is essential.



> Committing to this unrestricted right, however, is also committing to the idea that it is more important than not having mass shootings every other day. Your prerogative but not one I can support.


I don't see mass shootings actually happening every other day, but I accept your point. I believe that a lot of the attention for this subject may be directed more towards the symptom than the actual problem. But the most important thing is that we can discuss this issue without name calling and blocking (or ignoring) each other. We need to be able to talk about this like adults, first and foremost to make any progress.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Tater

Pratchett said:


> Power corrupts. Or perhaps, just as accurately, the corrupt are drawn to power. Vigilance is essential.


Instead of being vigilant of those in power, maybe we should decentralize power. People cannot be corrupted by power they do not have.


----------



## Miss Sally

I think trump is just fucking around with his comments since people keep wanting to push the extremes. Regardless what he said is something that people have been advocating for from certain communities, especially the anti-gun community.

Like always I expect the "Left" to about face and claim it's too extreme when people are complaining that these people who've yet to do things end up doing things and it was talked about over and over.


----------



## Reaper

Mental illness is just a political buzzword. The practical application of said policy is unenforceable. It is still however very dumb for anyone to advocate it. The kind of micromanaging required is crazy.

Look the government can't even get sata entry correct. Just yesterday USCIS sent me my change of address receipt and there were two errors in it even though I gave the lady the closing documents in person. Now I have to get that shit fixed fpalm

And these are the guys everyone wants to not only determine whos mentally I'll but also make sure they can't buy guns and shit. Lol it's not happening.


----------



## Pratchett

Tater said:


> Instead of being vigilant of those in power, maybe we should decentralize power. People cannot be corrupted by power they do not have.


The hoi polloi are not ready though...


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

FriedTofu said:


> Wait...people think Trump has changed? He's the same loose cannon that says the first thing that pops into his head. What changed is some of you shifting even more towards the right and can't stomach his disregard to ideology when in the past you could just brush it off. :lol
> 
> More and more of those who can keep his fringe politics in check are leaving the administration. Trump just imposed tariffs on imported steel and aluminium. Congratulations to his supporters for keeping him in check I guess?


 In the 80's he was one of the people who believed int the Japan are the boogeyman winning the trade war. I'd say the one consistent position Trump has had is being an Antitrade Protectionist. Everything else is either him just riffing or saying what he thinks his supporters want to hear. Should be interesting over the next 2 year's to see where he pivots on many issues.


----------



## BruiserKC

Reap said:


> Mental illness is just a political buzzword. The practical application of said policy is unenforceable. It is still however very dumb for anyone to advocate it. The kind of micromanaging required is crazy.
> 
> Look the government can't even get sata entry correct. Just yesterday USCIS sent me my change of address receipt and there were two errors in it even though I gave the lady the closing documents in person. Now I have to get that shit fixed fpalm
> 
> And these are the guys everyone wants to not only determine whos mentally I'll but also make sure they can't buy guns and shit. Lol it's not happening.


That’s a set of goalposts that would always be moving. What would define mental illness? If I say you’re nuts is that enough? If that’s the case no one would have guns


----------



## Miss Sally

BoFreakinDallas said:


> In the 80's he was one of the people who believed int the Japan are the boogeyman winning the trade war. I'd say the one consistent position Trump has had is being an Antitrade Protectionist. Everything else is either him just riffing or saying what he thinks his supporters want to hear. Should be interesting over the next 2 year's to see where he pivots on many issues.


Technically during that time Japan had implemented some shitty business practices that drove American companies out of business with "Dumping", they also wouldn't follow patent laws and reverse engineer things and then steal it. Japanese people who bought American cars or a lot of American products were subject to audits by the Government. 

Quite a few things changed based on Japanese fuckery during that era, for them business is War. There was some interesting book I read about it at school that discussed the decline of American businesses and cars.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Australia still practices dumping with wool.

We save all our wool until there is a shortage and the price is super high even if it takes a decade, then we sell all our wool at once at said high price absolutely wrecking the wool market for another decade or so, then we rinse and repeat.


----------



## Reaper

Pakistan does that too with all commodities. 

Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs won't bring back jobs to America. Our output is double on fewer jobs. Forcing labor ahead of automation just makes it inefficient and expensive for everyone. 

This is an archaic model and no business in the free market. It's a tax and all taxes are bad.


----------



## BruiserKC

yeahbaby! said:


> Should'ves don't help anyone though do they, it's too late when kids are already in graves. More needs to be done on top of what's there because your US gun culture and fear of the NRA allows these things to happen as it is.


I don’t argue we need to take a look at doing something different. It’s not fear of the NRA that’s driving this but the idea that we are unwilling to compromise the rights the Constitution gives us. This is never acceptable to me, period. To excuse taking away due process or adding more gun laws on the books when the ones on the books now aren’t being enforced is a non-starter. 

What Trump saw was outrage from the people that refuse to allow the “Better than Hillary” mantra from just permitting him to throw out ideas that would have people demanding impeachment were it from a Democratic President. Some say he is playing 4D chess, I say he got spanked and it’s about time. The man has no ideology or value set, he just likes to gauge the temperature on what is out there. Our freedoms are not meant to be doing that test on.


----------



## yeahbaby!

BruiserKC said:


> I don’t argue we need to take a look at doing something different. It’s not fear of the NRA that’s driving this but the idea that we are unwilling to compromise the rights the Constitution gives us. This is never acceptable to me, period. To excuse taking away due process or adding more gun laws on the books when the ones on the books now aren’t being enforced is a non-starter.
> 
> What Trump saw was outrage from the people that refuse to allow the “Better than Hillary” mantra from just permitting him to throw out ideas that would have people demanding impeachment were it from a Democratic President. Some say he is playing 4D chess, I say he got spanked and it’s about time. The man has no ideology or value set, he just likes to gauge the temperature on what is out there. Our freedoms are not meant to be doing that test on.


Well I guess we'll just continue the discussion after the next incident - I doubt gun rights will have been placed above innocent's lives before then.


----------



## virus21

So it was the British.


----------



## Draykorinee

virus21 said:


> So it was the British.


It's a real reach to claim it's a British company. It's owned by an Amercan and works out of America, if it worked according to British law they'd have a nightmare with our (European) laws.

The fact its headquarters are in the UK is irrelevant, a vast number of non uk owned companies keep their base here.

The company is shady as fuck mind.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Cambridge Analytica, owned by Robert Mercer, worked for both the Brexit campaign and the Trump campaign. How is this news? This has been common knowledge for well over a year now, no?


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> Well I guess we'll just continue the discussion after the next incident - I doubt gun rights will have been placed above innocent's lives before then.


The "end of history" vibe one gets from opinions like that quoted will be as disappointing and its holders as disappointed as Mr. Fukuyama's opinion and Mr. Fukuyama himself turned out to be.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/970755964642107392


----------



## MrMister

Have the tariffs gone into effect? I'll be surprised if they do. This was to cover his son in law's ass from the media for a bit. 

The wall is 100% not happening and I don't think these tariffs are either.


----------



## CamillePunk

Trump doesn't want tariffs. It's a negotiation. People on the American side of the table need to stop shooting their chief negotiator in the foot.


----------



## Reaper

As long as he recognizes that it's a terrible idea and doesn't go through with them. But proposing the idea and then revealing why the idea is on the table just undermines the negotiation that has been promised imo.

Also NYT gave it their seal of approval so now I really think it's a bad idea even more as if I already didn't.


----------



## MrMister

NYT didn't cry TRADE WAR?

That's surprising.


----------



## Reaper

Two out of three headlines within hours of each other are positive.


----------



## virus21

Reap said:


> Two out of three headlines within hours of each other are positive.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Reap said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/970755964642107392


TBH I think people who want extra tax on sugary drink's are at least being consistent. If you want Govt healthcare to be a thing then in a shared risk pool people who engage in behaivor that makes them more likely to use health service's should pay more. If you get a DUI your car insurance goes up,not sure why those same principles shouldn't apply to healthcare whether you want Universal Healtcare or Capitalist Free Market.


----------



## deepelemblues

The point of taxes is to raise revenue for the King. 

No matter what the stated purpose of the tax is.

Serfs on the manor _and_ the townspeople _and_ the feudal barons living 650 years ago, in a society that most today would classify as an 'unfree' society, would revolt in about 3 seconds over all the taxes we 'free' modern people meekly submit to.


----------



## Reaper

BoFreakinDallas said:


> TBH I think people who want extra tax on sugary drink's are at least being consistent. If you want Govt healthcare to be a thing then in a shared risk pool people who engage in behaivor that makes them more likely to use health service's should pay more. If you get a DUI your car insurance goes up,not sure why those same principles shouldn't apply to healthcare whether you want Universal Healtcare or Capitalist Free Market.


Nothing weirder than Americans advocating for taxes on the day of the Boston Massacre. Just saying.


----------



## deepelemblues

Jeff Flake is an un-American piece of shit.

Cry some more about Stalinism and tyranny then advocate tossing the Constitution in the shredder while you grandstand about how you're an honorable upstanding believer in principle you fucking embarrassment. Thank God you decided to not run for reelection. 

If the people on the "no-fly list" are all so dangerous that they should be denied a constitutional right with no due process (thus denying them yet another constitutional right), then they're too fucking dangerous to be walking around free period. So why aren't you advocating putting everyone on the "no-fly list" behind bars? Oh yeah that's right because you're just being an opportunistic grandstanding piece of shit.

Fuck off Jeff Flake, it's a disgrace that garbage like you ever became a United States Senator.


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> The "end of history" vibe one gets from opinions like that quoted will be as disappointing and its holders as disappointed as Mr. Fukuyama's opinion and Mr. Fukuyama himself turned out to be.


I'm sorry, I drive American, I have no idea what you're talking about.


Seriously though, isn't a sort of 'end of history' or doomsday vibe if anything appropriate for the US love affair with guns vs the never ending trend of random public shootings, shooting accidents etc etc (and which side is clearly on top and not looking like losing).


----------



## virus21

The last sane Democrat


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> I'm sorry, I drive American, I have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> Seriously though, isn't a sort of 'end of history' or doomsday vibe if anything appropriate for the US love affair with guns vs the never ending trend of random public shootings, shooting accidents etc etc (and which side is clearly on top and not looking like losing).


That isn't what "end of history" means, it is not a "doomsday vibe," it's a reference to Francis Fukuyama's 1992 book "The End of History and the Last Man," which expanded upon his 1989 essay "The End of History?"

See when you talk about "never ending," you are betraying your lack of historical knowledge and perspective. (Non-governmental) spree killings with guns are a recent phenomenon (about 50 years), as is the mass disarmament of the private citizenry in non-US Western countries (also about 50 years). This is far too short a period of time to draw conclusions about anything.

And yes, the side that is for individual rights is on top and not looking like losing, as is right and proper. Registration of "assault rifles" in New York and Connecticut, as demanded by laws passed after the Sandy Hook massacre, were 5% and 15%, respectively. The vast majority of citizens will simply ignore any laws attempting to ban the possession or sale of semiautomatic rifles, semiautomatic handguns, or magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. 

https://reason.com/archives/2018/02/20/after-the-gun-ban

These are the realities. You cannot and will not succeed. Pass all the laws you like. They will be ignored. You don't have the money, the manpower, or the will to enforce such a draconian regime on tens of millions of people. That is all there is to it. A serious attempt to enforce gun prohibition would result in far more deaths than all the mass shootings put together, and might result in civil war. It's time to give up on tilting at gun control windmills and start trying to find realistic, practical solutions.

Semiautomatic rifles and handguns were even more widely possessed from their introduction in the late 19th century to the 1960s than they are today, yet spree killings with guns simply did not happen in that time period, outside of gangland massacres during Prohibition. Starting with the University of Texas tower massacre in 1966, something changed. It was not the availability of firearms that changed.


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> That isn't what "end of history" means, it is not a "doomsday vibe," it's a reference to Francis Fukuyama's 1992 book "The End of History and the Last Man," which expanded upon his 1989 essay "The End of History?"
> 
> See when you talk about "never ending," you are betraying your lack of historical knowledge and perspective. (Non-governmental) spree killings with guns are a recent phenomenon (about 50 years), as is the mass disarmament of the private citizenry in non-US Western countries (also about 50 years). This is far too short a period of time to draw conclusions about anything.
> 
> And yes, the side that is for individual rights is on top and not looking like losing, as is right and proper. Registration of "assault rifles" in New York and Connecticut, as demanded by laws passed after the Sandy Hook massacre, were 5% and 15%, respectively. The vast majority of citizens will simply ignore any laws attempting to ban the possession or sale of semiautomatic rifles, semiautomatic handguns, or magazines that hold more than 10 bullets.
> 
> https://reason.com/archives/2018/02/20/after-the-gun-ban
> 
> These are the realities. You cannot and will not succeed. Pass all the laws you like. They will be ignored. You don't have the money, the manpower, or the will to enforce such a draconian regime on tens of millions of people. That is all there is to it. A serious attempt to enforce gun prohibition would result in far more deaths than all the mass shootings put together, and might result in civil war. It's time to give up on tilting at gun control windmills and start trying to find realistic, practical solutions.
> 
> Semiautomatic rifles and handguns were even more widely possessed from their introduction in the late 19th century to the 1960s than they are today, yet spree killings with guns simply did not happen in that time period, outside of gangland massacres during Prohibition. Starting with the University of Texas tower massacre in 1966, something changed. It was not the availability of firearms that changed.



1. Takes me literally in order to construct strawman
2. Projects an idea of total gun ban that was never uttered in the first place in order to strengthen Mr Strawman
3. Pretends to have total undeniable proof that any solution based on more gun control will absolutely not work (even though they have in other countries) 
4. Offers no solution of their own 

Apparently you have such deeply entrenched cynicism you don't see any way out - I'm sorry for you. Perhaps this time praying to your God might work, who knows? Is he free?


----------



## FriedTofu

Gary Cohn is planning to resign as economic advisor. I guess it is OK because he is a globalist banker anyway. :lol


----------



## DesolationRow

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...8e748f892c0_story.html?utm_term=.bbb8940445be



> After reports of chemical attacks, White House considers new military action against Syrian regime
> 
> By Karen DeYoung, Missy Ryan, Josh Dawsey and Carol D. Leonnig March 5 Email the author
> The Trump administration has considered new military action against the Syrian government in response to reports of ongoing chemical weapons use, officials said, raising the prospect of a second U.S. strike on President Bashar al-Assad in less than a year.
> 
> President Trump requested options for punishing the Assad government after reported chlorine gas attacks — at least seven this year — and possibly other chemicals affecting civilians in opposition-controlled areas.
> 
> In a Feb. 25 incident, residents and medical staffers in a rebel-held Damascus suburb, Eastern Ghouta, described symptoms associated with chlorine exposure. One child died, medical staffers reported.
> 
> The president discussed potential actions early last week at a White House meeting that included Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, national security adviser H.R. McMaster and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, officials said.
> 
> One official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to address internal deliberations, said that the president did not endorse any military action and that officials decided to continue monitoring the situation.
> 
> Dana White, chief Pentagon spokeswoman, denied that Mattis took part in discussions about military action in Syria and said the “conversation did not happen.”
> 
> One senior administration official said that Mattis was “adamantly” against acting militarily in response to the recent chlorine attacks and that McMaster “was for it.”
> 
> The prospect of renewed military action, even if tabled for now, underscores the explosiveness of a conflict that has become a battlefield for rivalries between Russia and Iran on one side and the United States and its allies on the other.
> 
> The White House discussions come amid a drumbeat of accusations from Trump administration officials, who have sought to galvanize international pressure on Syria over repeated small-scale chemical attacks amid an escalation of widespread conventional air and ground assaults that have killed hundreds of civilians in recent weeks.
> 
> On Monday, the Assad government allowed a U.N. aid convoy to deliver food and other aid, but not certain medical supplies, to Eastern Ghouta, even as shelling and airstrikes continued.
> 
> The Trump administration has condemned Iran for deploying weapons and fighters that have helped turn the war in Assad’s favor. It has also blamed Russia for failing to enforce a U.N.-backed cease-fire proposal and for allowing the use of chemical weapons to continue.
> 
> “The civilized world must not tolerate the Assad regime’s continued use of chemical weapons,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement Sunday.
> 
> Russian and Syrian officials have rejected reports of government chemical weapons use.
> 
> Images of Syrians suffering the effects of chemical exposure appear to have energized the president to explore launching a new assault, as they did before the missile attack he authorized on a Syrian air base in April.
> 
> Trump ordered the Pentagon to fire Tomahawk missiles on the Syrian facility believed to be linked to a sarin gas attack that killed 80 people. It was the first direct American assault on the Assad government, a step that President Barack Obama had shied away from, even after an estimated 1,400 people were killed in a gruesome attack in August 2013.
> 
> Administration officials say Syria has continued to make and employ chemical weapons despite an internationally backed deal to remove its stockpiles after the 2013 incident.
> 
> According to the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS), which tracks reports from medical staffers, patients have reported symptoms linked to chlorine exposure seven times this year. In November, also in Eastern Ghouta, hospitals described seeing patients with symptoms indicative of sarin, the society said.
> 
> Unlike with earlier deadly incidents, U.S. officials say, the Assad regime is now conducting only small-scale attacks and is relying mainly on chlorine, which is made from commercially available materials and is more difficult to detect than nerve agents such as sarin.
> 
> “They clearly think they can get away with this if they keep it under a certain level,” a senior administration official told reporters last month.
> 
> Officials also suspect Syria of using ground-based systems rather than aerial means for delivering chemical agents, because they are harder to track.
> 
> The Syrian government has resorted to such attacks, officials say, to compensate for manpower shortages and to discourage supporters of the opposition from returning to strategic areas.
> 
> Even as the U.S. military winds down its campaign against the Islamic State, the Trump administration risks being more deeply drawn into Syria’s civil war, in which NATO ally Turkey is another important player. Many U.S. officials say that only greater political stability can prevent the extremists’ return.
> 
> The Pentagon has sought to keep its mission in Syria tightly focused on the Islamic State. There are about 2,000 U.S. troops in the east and north, tasked with advising local forces who have been battling the extremists.
> 
> Some officials also have raised concerns about conclusively assigning responsibility for chlorine attacks. Others express skepticism that another strike would deter Assad when the last one did not.
> 
> But other officials, particularly at the White House and the State Department, appear more open to renewed action against Assad. They say that a U.S. response might deter the Assad regime from rebuilding its chemical arsenal in a way that might eventually threaten the United States and might demonstrate that the United States will not be deterred by Russia’s presence in Syria.
> 
> The discussions highlight the gray area that chlorine has occupied in the West’s response to chemical weapons use in Syria. While chlorine is not a banned substance, its use as a choking agent is prohibited under international chemical weapons rules.
> 
> The Assad government’s reported employment of chlorine has been much less lethal than that of sarin, at least in recent reported incidents in Syria. SAMS said two people had been killed in the seven attacks this year.
> 
> Mattis told reporters last month that the United States was seeking evidence of renewed sarin use.
> 
> Fred Hof, an Obama administration official who is now at the Atlantic Council, said the United States would send a “deadly” message if it lashes out after chemical attacks but does nothing when civilians are killed with conventional arms.
> 
> “When we go out of our way to say, in effect, the only time we will lift a finger to protect Syrian civilians is when particularly deadly chemical weapons are employed, we are inadvertently — unintentionally but inevitably — encouraging the Assad regime, the Russians and the Iranians to attack civilians with everything at their disposal,” he said.
> 
> Even if Trump authorizes another attack, the Pentagon is likely to advocate limiting U.S. involvement in the war. The April attack, which included 59 cruise missiles, was aimed narrowly at an isolated airfield, minimizing the likelihood of tit-for-tat escalations.
> 
> The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is investigating whether chlorine was used in recent attacks in Eastern Ghouta, Reuters reported.
> 
> Greg Jaffe in Washington and Louisa Loveluck in Beirut contributed to this report.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

"In a Feb. 25 incident, residents and medical staffers in a rebel-held Damascus suburb, Eastern Ghouta, described symptoms associated with chlorine exposure. *One child died*, medical staffers reported."


@DesolationRow and @CamillePunk , I've got $100 on Ivanka using her waterworks to make her old man needlessly bomb Syria again. :armfold


----------



## Art Vandaley

FriedTofu said:


> Gary Cohn is planning to resign as economic advisor. I guess it is OK because he is a globalist banker anyway. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />


Apparently he has. 

Guess Trump was serious about the tarriffs and they weren't "just a negotiating tactic" as some seemed to believe. 

How threatening tariffs against Australia/Europe was meant to be a negotiating tactic for renegotiating an agreement with Mexico and Canada I never quite understood.

But yeah, a globalist cuck who used to work for Goldman Sachs... The majority of Trump supporters would dismiss the notion Trump had hired him in the first place as fake news.


----------



## DesolationRow

@Lumpy McRighteous, Upon seeing Ivanka, one must ask, "Were these the tears that launch'd a thousand tomahawk missiles, / And burnt the topless towers of Shayrat."


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

DesolationRow said:


> @Lumpy McRighteous, Upon seeing Ivanka, one must ask, "Were these the tears that launch'd a thousand tomahawk missiles, / And burnt the topless towers of Shayrat."


Ideally, Trump will have Don Jr. distract her with a colossal bowl of Skittles until she finds something else to get overly motherly about, such as her kids and whatnot.


----------



## Vic Capri

deepelemblues said:


> Jeff Flake is an un-American piece of shit.
> 
> Cry some more about Stalinism and tyranny then advocate tossing the Constitution in the shredder while you grandstand about how you're an honorable upstanding believer in principle you fucking embarrassment. Thank God you decided to not run for reelection.
> 
> If the people on the "no-fly list" are all so dangerous that they should be denied a constitutional right with no due process (thus denying them yet another constitutional right), then they're too fucking dangerous to be walking around free period. So why aren't you advocating putting everyone on the "no-fly list" behind bars? Oh yeah that's right because you're just being an opportunistic grandstanding piece of shit.
> 
> Fuck off Jeff Flake, it's a disgrace that garbage like you ever became a United States Senator.


He's a real piece of work. Bashing Trump yet on votes things supporting him.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

Interesting tidbit about guns that deep left out. The original and first legislation that ever infringed upon the 2nd amendment was a Supreme Court decision that was designed to ensure that blacks could not own guns in the post civil-war era .. 

Just another wonderful law put in place to make sure the "right" people are protected from the "wrong" people.


----------



## Cabanarama

Reap said:


> Interesting tidbit about guns that deep left out. The original and first legislation that ever infringed upon the 2nd amendment was a Supreme Court decision that was designed to ensure that blacks could not own guns in the post civil-war era ..
> 
> Just another wonderful law put in place to make sure the "right" people are protected from the "wrong" people.


it makes sense, considering that the sole reason for the 2nd amendment even being in the constitution was to insure the right of southern whites to form militias to keep slaves in check....
And the fact is, the overwhelming majority of NRA terrorist supporting/ 2nd amendment touting scumbags would support any anti-gun legislation that only applied to black people.


----------



## Reaper

Cabanarama said:


> it makes sense, considering that the sole reason for the *2nd amendment even being in the constitution was to insure the right of southern whites to form militias to keep slaves in check....*


Entirely and completely wrong. The second amendment debate in the 1700's did not even have slavery as a consideration because at the time it was the lay of the land and considered moral in the majority of the original states. 

The original founding father's debate on the 2nd amendment was essentially a compromise that to the best of my ability to analyse suggests that there was deep-rooted divisions between Federalists and anti-federalists and justified mistrust of an authoritarian state developing that would look and operate very much like the Imperialist British ... hence the compromise was made that while a well-regarded militia would be operated by Congress, individuals had every right to possess arms and organize similar militias independent and individual. The original debate is very much the same as the debate today with regards to fear of tyranny. The revolutionary war, the success of the colonists, the massacre of unarmed colonists by the British were fresher in people's memory at the time. But they did also consider the potential impact of having any authoritarian government becoming too powerful and corrupt which required an armed citizenry to prevent it from enacting more massacres of their own people. 

Interestingly, that division culminated in the 1800s and tore this country apart BUT at the same time, it was the litmus test of the 2nd amendment that while resulting in huge losses essentially ensured that such an event would not be repeated on American soil amongst its own citizens given that such a conflict would result in heavy losses again. The 2nd amendment while leading to great blood loss then became the deterrent for any such future conflict. 

The divisions you talk about have existed for 300 years. They have very little to nothing to do with slavery, but with the mistrust that generations of colonists have against being oppressed. 

Slavery runs parallel to the issue but is not related. It was not one of the factors when it comes to arming/disarming people until after the civil war. You can say that the civil war happened over slavery, but not one actual historian has ever claimed that keeping guns in the arms of whites to control blacks was a consideration in the the drafting and ratification of the 2nd amendment. To suggest so is absolute revisionism: 



> A. The Antifederalist View
> Additional views on the relationship between freedom and arms were expressed when the Constitution was being submitted to the states for ratification. The Antifederalist views were stated in pamphlets entitled Letters (p.1024)from the Federal Farmer to the Republican.[133] Richard Henry Lee is credited with authorship.[134] The self-styled federal farmer thought of himself as a supporter of federalism and republicanism.[135] His view of federalism was not that set forth in the proposed Constitution of 1787. The federal farmer argued that a distant national government was antithetical to freedom:
> 
> [T]he general government, far removed from the people, and none of its members elected oftener than once in two years, will be forgot or neglected, and its laws in many cases disregarded, unless a multitude of officers and military force be continually kept in view, and employed to enforce the execution of the laws and to make the government feared and respected. No position can be truer than this, that in this country either neglected laws, or a military execution of them, must lead to revolution, and to the destruction of freedom. Neglected laws must first lead to anarchy and confusion; and a military execution of laws is only a shorter way to the same point--despotic government.[136]
> 
> The federal farmer also saw evil in Congress's power to raise an army, despite the two-year limit on money appropriations and the states' control over the militia via the appointment of officers.[137] He understood the need to provide for the common defense but believed an additional check was necessary. He proposed requiring two-thirds consent in Congress before a standing army could be raised or the militia could be pressed into service by the national government.[138] Additionally, the federal farmer argued that a select militia composed of less than all the people ought to be avoided. The farmer argued that, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.[139]
> 
> Another Antifederalist, George Mason, spoke on the relationship between (p.1025)arms and liberty. Mason asserted that history had demonstrated that the most effective way to enslave a people is to disarm them.[140] Mason suggested that divine providence had given every individual the right of self-defense, clearly including the right to defend one's political liberty within that term.[141]
> 
> Patrick Henry argued against ratification of the Constitution by Virginia, in part because the Constitution permitted a standing army and gave the federal government some control over the militia.[142] Henry objected to the lack of any clause forbidding disarmament of individual citizens; "the great object is that every man be armed .... Everyone who is able may have a gun."[143] The Antifederalists believed that governmental tyranny was the primary evil against which the people had to defend in creating a new Constitution. To preserve individual rights against such tyranny, the Antifederalists argued for the addition of a Bill of Rights which included, among other rights, the right to keep and bear arms.[144]
> 
> B. The Federalist View
> The Federalists, those supporting the Constitution as drafted, did not dispute the premise that governmental tyranny was the primary evil that people had to guard against.[145] Nor did the Federalists dispute the nexus between (p.1026)arms and freedom.[146] In one of the first Federalist pamphlets, Noah Webster argued that the proposed Constitution provided adequate guarantees to check the dangers of any standing army.[147] His reasoning acknowledged checks and balances, but did not rely on the same. Rather, Webster argued:
> 
> Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every Kingdom of Europe. The Supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.[148]
> 
> Similarly, James Madison made clear that, although the proposed Constitution offered sufficient guarantees against despotism by its checks and balances, the real deterrent to governmental abuse was the armed population.[149] To the Antifederalist criticism of the standing army as a threat to liberty, Madison replied:
> 
> To these [the standing army] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from amongst themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by government possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops .... Besides the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are (p.1027)attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.[150]
> 
> Another leading Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, voiced a similar view.[151] Hamilton suggested that if the representations of the people, elected under the proposed Constitution, betrayed their constituents, the people retained the right to defend their political rights and possessed the means to do so.[152]
> 
> In summary, both Federalists and Antifederalists believed that the main danger to the republic was tyrannical government and the ultimate check on tyrannical government was an armed population.[153] Federalists and Antifederalists disagreed, however, on several issues. First, they disagreed as to whether sufficient checks and balances had been placed on the proposed national government to control the danger of oppression.[154] Second, the Antifederalists believed a bill of rights should be incorporated into the Constitution to guarantee certain rights.[155] The Federalists argued that such a bill of rights was unnecessary because the power of the federal government was restricted to the grant of authority provided by the Constitution.[156] There was no need to (p.1028)provide exceptions to powers not granted.[157] Further, the Federalists argued that providing exceptions to powers not granted was dangerous because it could encourage a claim that powers not expressly stated had been granted.[158] Again, both sides not only agreed that the people had a right to be armed, both sides assumed the existence of an armed population as an essential element to preserving liberty. The framers quite clearly had adopted James Harrington's political theory that the measure of liberty attained and retained was a direct function of an armed citizenry's ability to claim and hold those rights from domestic and foreign enemies.[159]


----------



## FriedTofu

Stormy Daniels is suing Trump to invalid the NDA by claiming Trump didn't sign it. :lol

Seems like a move to deflect attention from Cohn and the tariffs. But what a world we are living in where a porn star is suing a president and it feels just like any regular story for the day. :lmao


----------



## Tater

DesolationRow said:


> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...8e748f892c0_story.html?utm_term=.bbb8940445be


You posted this without comment, so I have to ask. You can't _possibly_ believe this bullshit war propaganda from WaPo, can you?


----------



## DesolationRow

Tater said:


> You posted this without comment, so I have to ask. You can't _possibly_ believe this bullshit war propaganda from WaPo, can you?


I'm one of the more consistent skeptics concerning all of it around these parts, definitely. Many of the points raised by Ian Wilkie in a _Newsweek_ article from a few weeks ago are worthwhile and logical: http://www.newsweek.com/wheres-evidence-assad-used-sarin-gas-his-people-810123

It is not to suggest that Assad is some good chum or that the thought of regime actors using chemical weapons is inconceivable, but the plain truth is that the U.S. government's track record with regard to propaganda when looking to justify a war should warrant thorough questioning and almost unceasing doubt. 

In any event, however, it is critical to keep gauging where the Trump administration stands on further intervention in Syria. Putting the chemical weapons issue aside, it's not like there haven't been myriad atrocities committed by both anti-Assad fighters and pro-Assad forces, as in the past few days clusters of fighters intensely loyal to Assad have been bombing the Damascus suburb in which rebels, mainly jihadists, are still attacking government forces. Elsewhere in the Kurdish enclave of Afrin in northern Syria the Turks are endeavoring to ethnically cleanse the Kurds from the area to create a greater buffer for themselves. To quote Sergeant Horvath from _Saving Private Ryan_, it's all a "godawful shitty mess," and one which continues to bedevil just about every side for on one hand the Americans are purportedly fighting the Islamic State while we also hear war drums against Assad emanate from AIPAC and the Saudi lobby and the neocons, and the Turks are supposedly fighting both ISIS as well as the Kurds. For Assad, too, he has been having to make difficult decisions, resulting in his quietly aiding the Kurds against the Turks for some of the Kurdish forces in Syria have been persistently brutal toward the Islamic State fighters sworn to topple Assad's regime. Syria is geopolitically something almost approaching the blackest comedy around.


----------



## Miss Sally

Cabanarama said:


> it makes sense, considering that the sole reason for the 2nd amendment even being in the constitution was to insure the right of southern whites to form militias to keep slaves in check....
> And the fact is, the overwhelming majority of NRA terrorist supporting/ 2nd amendment touting scumbags would support any anti-gun legislation that only applied to black people.


:laugh:


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *After concealed carry allowed on campus, KU hired more safety officers and crime fell*
> 
> While the national debate over arming teachers heats up, the University of Kansas — where this year students and faculty can carry concealed weapons on campus — reports that crime there is down.
> 
> In a report released late last week, KU Public Safety officials said crime on the Lawrence campus declined 13 percent from 2016 to 2017. In the first six months of permitted concealed guns on campus, there have been no criminal weapons violations.
> 
> KU Public Safety attributes the drop in crime to steps the university took to improve campus security after the legalization of concealed carry. Three additional police officers and three security officers were hired.
> 
> The crime report does not include an incident in which a loaded .38 revolver found unattended in the bathroom of Wescoe Hall last September. That was a university gun policy violation but not criminal, said Capt. James Anguiano, spokesman for KU Public Safety.
> 
> It also does not include sexual assault reports made only to university administration and not investigated by campus police.
> 
> Kansas State University, where concealed guns are also allowed, does not keep similar crime stats, officials there said.
> 
> At University of Missouri in Columbia, campus police reports indicate the number of overall crimes was up from 228 in 2016 to 257 in 2017, with the biggest increase being thefts. However, MU saw five fewer rapes, and three fewer violent crimes with no change in the number of aggravated assaults.
> 
> As of July 1, The Kansas Personal and Family Protection Act allowed students and faculty to carry concealed handguns into nearly all campus buildings.
> 
> Prior to 2017, KU campus police since 2008 recorded a total of 14 weapons violations. There was one violation in 2016. They handled five sexual assaults in 2016 and 2017, with one more rape in 2017 and one less fondling. KU Public Safety handled 671 total criminal offenses in 2017, down from 770 in 2016.
> 
> Anguiano said the most reported crime on the campus historically is theft. "That is where we saw our biggest drop," he said. In 2017 there were 156 thefts reported, down from 213 in 2016.
> 
> He said KU Public Safety believes that having more officers on campus deterred criminal behavior. "Their main function is community policing," he said.
> 
> In a statement about the crime report, KU Chief of Police Chris Keary said, “The added visibility of officers on campus helped people feel safer, but conversations with those officers also helped the community understand their role in safety and crime prevention.”
> 
> Also adding to the drop in crime, Keary said, was added crime prevention technology, including 750 cameras throughout campus. The university also is hosting more crime prevention programs during the year for students and faculty.
> 
> Anguiano acknowledged that the report reflected only one year. "We know that crime could go up next year," he said.
> 
> The campus public safety report, released every spring, is not as broad as the so-called Clery report, which includes all crime reported on or near campus whether it was investigated by campus police, the city's police or in a university investigation.
> 
> Clery is a 1990 federal statute, named after Jeanne Clery, who in 1986 was raped and murdered in her dorm room by another student at Lehigh University. Her parents believed the school had failed to share vital information about campus safety with students.
> 
> The law requires public and private colleges and universities that get federal funding to maintain and annually disclose campus crime statistics and security information.


http://www.kansascity.com/news/article203516929.html

Not that I think teachers should be armed , but none the less its interesting that there has been some positive effects .


----------



## deepelemblues

Cabanarama said:


> it makes sense, considering that the sole reason for the 2nd amendment even being in the constitution was to insure the right of southern whites to form militias to keep slaves in check....
> And the fact is, the overwhelming majority of NRA terrorist supporting/ 2nd amendment touting scumbags would support any anti-gun legislation that only applied to black people.


Oddly enough, during the debates at the Constitutional convention, in the Federalist papers, and in the private and public letters of the Founding Fathers, this argument that private citizens needed guns so they could keep slaves in check did not appear _once._

Where you will find arguments for the need of private citizens to possess and bear arms for the purpose of keeping slaves in check is in the writings of men like Judge Joseph Lumpkin (from Georgia), who expressed such arguments _decades_ after the writing and ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The :fact is, you are indistinguishable from a skinhead with your constantly expressed hateful bigotry.


----------



## Tater

DesolationRow said:


> I'm one of the more consistent skeptics concerning all of it around these parts, definitely. Many of the points raised by Ian Wilkie in a _Newsweek_ article from a few weeks ago are worthwhile and logical: http://www.newsweek.com/wheres-evidence-assad-used-sarin-gas-his-people-810123
> 
> It is not to suggest that Assad is some good chum or that the thought of regime actors using chemical weapons is inconceivable, but the plain truth is that the U.S. government's track record with regard to propaganda when looking to justify a war should warrant thorough questioning and almost unceasing doubt.
> 
> In any event, however, it is critical to keep gauging where the Trump administration stands on further intervention in Syria. Putting the chemical weapons issue aside, it's not like there haven't been myriad atrocities committed by both anti-Assad fighters and pro-Assad forces, as in the past few days clusters of fighters intensely loyal to Assad have been bombing the Damascus suburb in which rebels, mainly jihadists, are still attacking government forces. Elsewhere in the Kurdish enclave of Afrin in northern Syria the Turks are endeavoring to ethnically cleanse the Kurds from the area to create a greater buffer for themselves. To quote Sergeant Horvath from _Saving Private Ryan_, it's all a "godawful shitty mess," and one which continues to bedevil just about every side for on one hand the Americans are purportedly fighting the Islamic State while we also hear war drums against Assad emanate from AIPAC and the Saudi lobby and the neocons, and the Turks are supposedly fighting both ISIS as well as the Kurds. For Assad, too, he has been having to make difficult decisions, resulting in his quietly aiding the Kurds against the Turks for some of the Kurdish forces in Syria have been persistently brutal toward the Islamic State fighters sworn to topple Assad's regime. Syria is geopolitically something almost approaching the blackest comedy around.


Yep, it's a godawful shitty mess over there and the USA bears a large portion of the blame for it. So, instead of continuing to stink up the joint with our presence, what we should be doing is getting the fuck out. Regardless of what else is going on in the area, the United States military is an illegal invading army on foreign land. They have no right to be there. All the bullshit about Assad using chemicals weapons is Iraq and WMDs all over again. It's the manufacturing consent machine lying their way into justification for being there at all.

In related news: an Independent, a Republican and a Democrat all walk into a bar...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/971387580745945088
It's not often you see bipartisan support being on the correct side of an issue. We should laud the rare occasion when it happens.


----------



## deepelemblues

I see no reason the United States should be getting directly involved in a bunch of assholes who all don't like the US killing each other.

We should sit back and sell arms to everybody and hope they kill each other even harder. Iran and Saudi Arabia fighting a proxy war in Yemen? TITS. Iran and Saudi Arabia fighting a proxy war in Syria? Even more TITS. Maybe they'll kill enough of each other that they have their Peace of Westphalia moment eventually with their cultures moving on from religious blood feuds being more important than anything and everything else.


----------



## MrMister

These tariffs can be enacted and the United States can still negotiate with certain allies to be exempt from the tariffs.

So the tariffs being a negotiating ploy could still be a reality.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Stinger Fan said:


> http://www.kansascity.com/news/article203516929.html
> 
> Not that I think teachers should be armed , but none the less its interesting that there has been some positive effects .


The thing is though.....

Who's gonna pay for that?

(Damn tried to link a questioning Tucker Carlson face but didn't work. Damn you Carlsonnnnnn!)


----------



## Reaper

Fund my capitalist enterprise to bring communism to end capitalism yo !! 

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Draykorinee

Stinger Fan said:


> http://www.kansascity.com/news/article203516929.html
> 
> Not that I think teachers should be armed , but none the less its interesting that there has been some positive effects .


They hired more security and put in more cameras, its nearly impossible to draw any conclusion to this. 

The ONLY thing to take out of this in regards to guns is at least there were no negative affects, ie increased shooting.


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> They hired more security and put in more cameras, its nearly impossible to draw any conclusion to this.
> 
> The ONLY thing to take out of this in regards to guns is at least there were no negative affects, ie increased shooting.


How many times have you seen bank guards or other armed security whip out their guns and start blasting in this, that, and the other direction, hitting random people nearby?

I'm sure it has happened but it is very extremely very very rare. The training and other requirements are pretty thorough.


----------



## skypod

Reap said:


> Fund my capitalist enterprise to bring communism to end capitalism yo !!
> 
> :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao



Is it a parody account? There are a lot of those. That's the Adidas logo. I'd think someone wouldn't be stupid enough to print and sell shirts with that logo. Immediate copyright lawsuit surely.


----------



## Stinger Fan

yeahbaby! said:


> The thing is though.....
> 
> Who's gonna pay for that?
> 
> (Damn tried to link a questioning Tucker Carlson face but didn't work. Damn you Carlsonnnnnn!)


Not sure. If I were to guess, its probably the school itself but I honestly have no clue. I think that's probably the only way you can realistically do that. I wouldn't make it into a law though and force schools that may not make a lot of money to have armed officers at the school .



draykorinee said:


> They hired more security and put in more cameras, its nearly impossible to draw any conclusion to this.
> 
> The ONLY thing to take out of this in regards to guns is at least there were no negative affects, ie increased shooting.


I think it would be rather ignorant to just dismiss it because its not the method you'd want to enact. My post wasn't a "see this is the right way to do it!" kind of post, but rather "hmm, that's interesting". 

You can take it in your way sure, but you can also take it in a different way in that , logically speaking do you think a criminal would attempt to commit crimes on a campus that allows conceal carry? Don't you think criminals would rather take the road of least resistance ? When you advertise your school as a "gun free zone", you're ultimately painting a massive target on yourself and thats evident when you look at the statistics where an overwhelming majority of mass shootings happen in gun free zones. 

Am I saying every school should allow conceal carry ? Not necessarily no, but the stats are real and shouldn't be dismissed


----------



## yeahbaby!

Stinger Fan said:


> You can take it in your way sure, but you can also take it in a different way in that , *logically speaking* do you think a criminal would attempt to commit crimes on a campus that allows conceal carry? Don't you think criminals would rather take the road of least resistance ? When you advertise your school as a "gun free zone", you're ultimately painting a massive target on yourself and thats evident when you look at the statistics where an overwhelming majority of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.
> 
> Am I saying every school should allow conceal carry ? Not necessarily no, but the stats are real and shouldn't be dismissed


I don't think 'common sense' logic can always be applied to would be public/school shooters who seemingly don't care whether they come out of their attacks alive or dead - a lot of them commit suicide at the end after all.

But I'm not dismissing any stats, do whatever needs to be done I suppose - I'm sure glad I never went to a school that needed guns concealed all over the place.


----------



## DesolationRow

Agreed, @tater. The U.S. has done infinitely more harm than good in Syria. Washington, D.C. just cannot get out of the habit.


----------



## Tater

DesolationRow said:


> Agreed, @tater. The U.S. has done infinitely more harm than good in Syria. Washington, D.C. just cannot get out of the habit.


Fun fact: "tater." is an account with zero posts that last logged in 2003.


----------



## Draykorinee

Stinger Fan said:


> yeahbaby! said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is though.....
> 
> Who's gonna pay for that?
> 
> (Damn tried to link a questioning Tucker Carlson face but didn't work. Damn you Carlsonnnnnn!)
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure. If I were to guess, its probably the school itself but I honestly have no clue. I think that's probably the only way you can realistically do that. I wouldn't make it into a law though and force schools that may not make a lot of money to have armed officers at the school .
> 
> 
> 
> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> They hired more security and put in more cameras, its nearly impossible to draw any conclusion to this.
> 
> The ONLY thing to take out of this in regards to guns is at least there were no negative affects, ie increased shooting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it would be rather ignorant to just dismiss it because its not the method you'd want to enact. My post wasn't a "see this is the right way to do it!" kind of post, but rather "hmm, that's interesting".
> 
> You can take it in your way sure, but you can also take it in a different way in that , logically speaking do you think a criminal would attempt to commit crimes on a campus that allows conceal carry? Don't you think criminals would rather take the road of least resistance ? When you advertise your school as a "gun free zone", you're ultimately painting a massive target on yourself and thats evident when you look at the statistics where an overwhelming majority of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.
> 
> Am I saying every school should allow conceal carry ? Not necessarily no, but the stats are real and shouldn't be dismissed
Click to expand...

I think the small minority of psychos who want to mass shoot people at school tend to shoot up the schools they went to to teach their peers 'a lesson', I don't see most of them caring about it.

I don't dismiss conceal carry at schools, I've said before if you're going to keep defending the second amendment and gun culture then just arm everyone. It's beyond tiresome to see these shootings and the only solution from some parts it's more guns.

Thankfully even the right are getting on board with some restrictions.

I fail to see the causation of reduced crime in one year here being guns, but other gun nuts will probably jump in this data and ignore the implementation of hired guards and cameras.


----------



## Reaper

The Gun Free Zone Act in the US was passed during the major gang crime waves of the 80's and 90's where school children had become the primary target of recruitment of gangs in low income areas. 

Drug culture, youth corruption and violence were unchecked and they believed that restricting access to guns in the schools would be a good idea as it would disarm the gang members from being armed while in school, but that never panned out because while they made guns illegal to be carried in schools, there was no actual physical check to ensure that it wasn't still happening. At lot of shootings at schools today are still gang related. 

It's something that's actually practically very hard to enforce. The gang violence and gang related shootings have reduced over time (but that's the case with all other types of violent crime in most of America). The real reason for that is that communities got together to have a harsher stance on gangs overall. It's not the laws that make a difference, but enforcement of existing laws that does. 

However, the unintended consequence of that was the rise of the lone-wolf school shooter. The solution to that isn't passing more "common sense" and practically unimplementable policies. There are many factors that go into the creation of the lone-wolf school shooter. While easy access to guns is one of those factors, so is the knowledge that people will cower instead of fight back or shoot back. The FBI finally admitted today that they dropped the ball on the Parkland shooter ... but it's no surprise. The Parkland Sherrif's office dropped the ball as well. 

As I said earlier, it's not about the laws, but the law enforcement that really makes a difference.


----------



## Stinger Fan

yeahbaby! said:


> I don't think 'common sense' logic can always be applied to would be public/school shooters who seemingly don't care whether they come out of their attacks alive or dead - a lot of them commit suicide at the end after all.
> 
> But I'm not dismissing any stats, do whatever needs to be done I suppose - I'm sure glad I never went to a school that needed guns concealed all over the place.


Criminals have their own logic about how to do things. Majority of them would rather attack as many people as humanly possible before stopping or being stopped, they want the road of least resistance to do as much damage as possible. The Unabomber , Columbine shooters etc all have their own logic and reason to do things, just because its wrong doesn't mean its not their own logic . 



draykorinee said:


> I think the small minority of psychos who want to mass shoot people at school tend to shoot up the schools they went to to teach their peers 'a lesson', I don't see most of them caring about it.
> 
> I don't dismiss conceal carry at schools, I've said before if you're going to keep defending the second amendment and gun culture then just arm everyone. It's beyond tiresome to see these shootings and the only solution from some parts it's more guns.
> 
> Thankfully even the right are getting on board with some restrictions.
> 
> I fail to see the causation of reduced crime in one year here being guns, but other gun nuts will probably jump in this data and ignore the implementation of hired guards and cameras.


At the end of the day, there's an overwhelming majority of mass shootings(not just in schools) that happen in "gun free" areas. It's pretty obvious why that would be but some how it gets easily dismissed by many people , maybe its because they don't want to acknowledge that it doesn't actually work that well.

The problem with people who want to restrict guns as much as possible , refuse to actually see the stats. Want to know how many guns were legally obtained that were used in committing a crime? Roughly 3-11%. Why not ban "assault rifles"? Well less than 2% of all killings were done with firearms that weren't pistols. Some how those statistics get ignored but people who bring that up are some how labelled "gun nuts" and don't care about the deaths of people. The issue isn't the legal gun owner but people want a "change" no matter how superficial it may be, and when things don't change that drastically....guess who gets blamed?


----------



## skypod

If adults are allowed to bring guns to school, does that mean an 18 year old student could as well? Surely it'd be discriminatory to not allow a student of age to bring a gun to school but allow a teacher or other member of faculty? Where's the legal line there if everyone carrying has a license? 

And then how do you stop fighting students having a Mexican standoff on the playground?


----------



## Draykorinee

skypod said:


> If adults are allowed to bring guns to school, does that mean an 18 year old student could as well? Surely it'd be discriminatory to not allow a student of age to bring a gun to school but allow a teacher or other member of faculty? Where's the legal line there if everyone carrying has a license?
> 
> And then how do you stop fighting students having a Mexican standoff on the playground?


Students are allowed conceal carry in this university.

I did chuckle watching the news the other day in the UK, they had a teacher standing outside these school gates stopping kids walking in with energy drinks, just thought it was an interesting parallel to the US. (Not to say our schools don't have knife issues in some rough areas).


----------



## Reaper

skypod said:


> If adults are allowed to bring guns to school, does that mean an 18 year old student could as well? Surely it'd be discriminatory to not allow a student of age to bring a gun to school but allow a teacher or other member of faculty? Where's the legal line there if everyone carrying has a license?
> 
> And then how do you stop fighting students having a Mexican standoff on the playground?


Violent kids and gang bangers have always carried. That was the whole point of the GFRZA. It did next to nothing in terms of reducing gang violence. 

---------

BTW. A little fact check: 

The 18 "school shootings" figure that is so wrongly spouted these days includes several accidental shootings, a few suicides, some gang violence, fights (near school property) and targeted killings. 

https://hellogiggles.com/news/school-shootings-2018/

Posting this so it's important that a distinction be made and maintained in order to address what can and should be addressed instead of spreading false hysteria by spouting disingenuous misrepresentations of actual "facts"


----------



## TB Tapp

Sessions to California: 'There is no secession'



> Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a warning to California the same day he announced a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) over the state's immigration policies.
> 
> “I understand that we have a wide variety of political opinions out there on immigration. But the law is in the books and its purposes are clear and just,” Sessions said during a speech to the California Peace Officers’ Association in Sacramento on Wednesday.Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a warning to California the same day he announced a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) over the state's immigration policies.
> 
> *“There is no nullification. There is no secession. Federal law is the supreme law of the land. I would invite any doubters to go to Gettysburg, to the tombstones of John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln. This matter has been settled,” he continued.*


Bring the good old bugle, boys, we'll sing another song
Sing it with a spirit that will start the world along
Sing it as we used to sing it, fifty thousand strong
While we were marching through Cali.

(Chorus)
Hurrah! Hurrah! we bring the jubilee!
Hurrah! Hurrah! the flag that makes you free!
So we sang the chorus from Las Vegas to the sea
While we were marching through Cali.


----------



## Vic Capri

Megyn Kelly went from news anchor, even 'moderating' a presidential debate to the next Jerry Springer. :lol

- Vic


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*https://www.fws.gov/international/pdf/memo-withdrawal-of-certain-findings-ESA-listed-species-sport-hunted-trophies.pdf*



> *Trump Administration Quietly Decides — Again — To Allow Elephant Trophy Imports*
> 
> The Trump administration has lifted a ban on importing sport-hunted trophies of elephants from certain African countries, just over three months after President Trump appeared to pause a first attempt to do so amid public uproar. In a memo dated March 1, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said that in place of the Obama-era blanket ban, the agency will consider importation permits "on a case-by-case basis."
> 
> The memo, which was not publicized by the agency, did not clarify the specific guidelines by which the permits would be judged. It is also not clear what role was played in the decision by the president, who has publicly expressed his opposition several times to rolling back the ban.
> 
> In November 2017, just one day after the Fish and Wildlife Service announced it had lifted the ban, Trump said he had put that move "on hold until such time as I review all conservation facts." Two days later, he tweeted that he "will be very hard pressed to change my mind that this horror show in any way helps conservation of Elephants or any other animal."
> 
> As recent as late January, Trump rejected the possibility he would lift the ban.
> 
> "I didn't want elephants killed and stuffed and have the tusks brought back into this [country]. And people can talk all they want about preservation and all other things that they're saying," he told British broadcaster Piers Morgan, referring to the argument proffered by his own interior secretary, Ryan Zinke, and others that fees paid by big-game hunters could help fund conservation programs. "In that case, the money was going to a government that was probably taking the money, OK?"
> 
> "That was done by a very high-level government person," he added in reference to the agency's decision. "As soon as I heard about it, I turned it around."
> 
> Since that decision in November, however, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Obama administration had acted improperly in implementing its ban. That late December ruling, which addressed a lawsuit brought by Safari Club International and the National Rifle Association, found that the administration did not sufficiently observe the rules around creating a new regulation, such as inviting public comment.
> 
> The Fish and Wildlife Service directly cited the court ruling in its letter, saying that as a result it was withdrawing several previous Endangered Species Act findings dating back to 1995. They "are no longer effective for making individual permit determinations for imports of those sport-hunted ESA-listed species," the memo said — including not only elephants from a number of African countries but also lions and bonteboks from South Africa.
> 
> The agency added that it would still use some of the information included in those findings, whenever relevant to the evaluation of an individual permit application.
> 
> It did not issue a release to announce the decision, which was instead surfaced Monday by The Hill and other media outlets.
> 
> As The Associated Press reports, Zinke has long held a position apparently at odds with the one expressed in January by Trump, arguing that hunting promotes wildlife conservation. In fact, he had the arcade game Big Buck Hunter installed in the employee cafeteria to help support his point.
> 
> "Get excited for #hunting season!" Zinke tweeted last September.
> 
> Conservationist activists have expressed skepticism that fees paid by big game hunters actually get to the wildlife agencies they're intended to support.
> 
> "A lot of the money has been siphoned away by corruption," Rachel Bale, a wildlife reporter for National Geographic, explained on NPR's Morning Edition back in November, "so there are serious concerns with hunting management in Zimbabwe."
> 
> And the numbers of these animals continue to decline. A census of African elephants, for instance, said their population had plummeted roughly 30 percent from 2007 to 2014 alone.
> 
> Some activists, such as Jimmiel Mandima of the African Wildlife Foundation, have told media outlets they do not view the new case-by-case system as a complete reversal of Fish and Wildlife Service policy. But they object to the perceived lack of clarity offered by the administration.
> 
> "The Trump administration is trying to keep these crucial trophy import decisions behind closed doors, and that's totally unacceptable," Tanya Sanerib of the Center for Biological Diversity told the AP. "Elephants aren't meant to be trophies; they're meant to roam free."
> 
> "The president has been very clear in the direction that his administration will go," a Fish and Wildlife Service spokesperson told NBC News — but would not comment further on next steps, as the broadcaster reports, "citing ongoing litigation."


----------



## Reaper

Vic Capri said:


> Megyn Kelly went from news anchor, even 'moderating' a presidential debate to the next Jerry Springer. :lol
> 
> - Vic


You were right.


----------



## MrMister

Is that Adidas/Antifa shirt real :lmao

I love stuff like this. It's like that guy taking the selfie at a riot. Just so clueless to reality, irony, hypocrisy and all that entails.


----------



## Hangman

skypod said:


> And then how do you stop fighting students having a Mexican standoff on the playground?


Build The Wall!


----------



## DOPA

Stinger Fan said:


> At the end of the day, there's an overwhelming majority of mass shootings(not just in schools) that happen in "gun free" areas. It's pretty obvious why that would be but some how it gets easily dismissed by many people , maybe its because they don't want to acknowledge that it doesn't actually work that well.
> 
> The problem with people who want to restrict guns as much as possible , refuse to actually see the stats. Want to know how many guns were legally obtained that were used in committing a crime? Roughly 3-11%. Why not ban "assault rifles"? Well less than 2% of all killings were done with firearms that weren't pistols. Some how those statistics get ignored but people who bring that up are some how labelled "gun nuts" and don't care about the deaths of people. The issue isn't the legal gun owner but people want a "change" no matter how superficial it may be, and when things don't change that drastically....guess who gets blamed?


The main problem is the gun control issue is so emotionally charged and contemptuous that sometimes rational discussion about the statistics and the issues at hand gets muddied in the water. That may sound condescending to some but I'm not even stating this as a criticism of anybody in particular. It's just when people's lives are involved as well as people's freedom to use firearms for the defence of themselves and their loved ones as well as for sport then it becomes a touchy subject. I'd love to have an open and honest conversation about potential solutions going forward and with some I have but with others it's pretty hostile. But again considering the nature of the conversation it can't be helped.

I've had a similar experience to you being maybe the only Brit on here who is for gun ownership (I could be wrong on that but I haven't seen anyone else). When I've brought up the same sort of statistics as you as well as the statistics showing what has happened with the violent crime and murder rate over the years in the UK since the 1997 firearms act and also the crime/murder rate of states with heavy gun control in the US I got some pretty heavy backlash for bringing it up. Not that I mind or can't handle it but it was pretty visceral. This coming from someone who probably favours heavier restrictions than many of the Americans in this thread. I'd consider myself a little more moderate maybe but I can't be sure.

The problem is for example and this doesn't apply to all who are in favour of more gun control ( This doesn't apply to my boy @draykorinee for example), when the issue of gun free zones is brought up and the fact a lot of these shootings happen in those areas in those particular schools, some of those that favour of gun control don't want to look into the possibility of that being one of the problems why these mass shootings keep happening because then the solution would require something in the opposite direction of what they feel is the correct pathway which would include banning assault weapons, limiting magazine capacities and closing the gun show loopholes as an example. I'm not even personally closed off to most of those things as a potential solution or at least as a trial to see if it will make a significant difference but none of things would make a slight bit of difference if the problem is that these shooters are taking advantage of the fact no one on site is armed in the event that a shooting takes place to protect the school.

I said this before when I responded to the mass shooting in Florida but the worst possible thing you can do right now in the United States where there is such a big gun culture and there are so many weapons in circulation both legally and illegally is to make it public that a school is a gun free zone. You are opening yourself up to become a target so it's little wonder these shootings keep happening. It's one thing if we were talking about Switzerland which is another gun carrying country but with far greater restrictions and regulations but in the United States it's a disaster waiting to happen. As Dray already alluded to, if the gun laws aren't changing, then it makes no sense to not have conceal carry in those schools.

As I already mentioned before, another thing some gun control advocates hate when you bring it up is some of the statistics surrounding states with heavy gun control. They will often ignore it or say that the problem is the neighboring states where there are easier access to guns. Which is part of the problem but then logically you would think other states with lighter gun control would be worse yet for example Alabama only had 1 gun related murder in 2017. There are of course many reasons for the difference including in regards to Alabama too, a key one being population density but then in order to gain a clearer picture of what is going on you'd have to focus on other factors in the states such as Michigan as to why there is such a high level of gun crime and murder: poverty, gang culture, lack of/poor education system, a thriving black market, lack of job opportunities etc. These are much harder areas to focus on rather than just the guns themselves but they are all extremely relevant as to why there is a big problem in those inner cities. 

And it's different depending on the states. In regards to both Las Vegas and the area in Florida after looking at all the evidence, I think in those cases you could argue that heavier gun control is needed in regards to access to guns in the form of more stringent background checks. Having said that in both cases there was some real government fuck ups: In Las Vegas, somehow the shooter managed to pass federal background checks to gain access to fully automatic weapons. This demonstrates that there are serious flaws in the background checks already on the books. Whether or not the shooter used bumper stocks which of course is possible, it still shows some real problems with the US's background check system on the federal level. And of course we all know how badly the FBI had messed up by not taking the level of threat of the Florida shooter seriously enough and then having the gall to try and cover it up. 

So when Conservatives and Libertarians say that the US needs to enforce it's current gun laws more forcefully and efficiently, they do have a point. If the US can't get it's house in order with the laws in the books now then even the most bipartisan agreeable measure won't have much effect. Not that it's not worth trying but those in charge of current gun control measures need to get serious.

In regards to mass shootings, gun control measures in the UK for example have worked in stopping them from ever happening again but the biggest difference with the US is the huge gun culture (something which we haven't had in a long time) and the sheer number of firearms in the United States. Logistically it would pretty much be impossible to implement for example a gun buyback program because there's no way a) More than half the gun owners will give up their weapons willingly, which still leaves more than 150 million guns in the US, which I believe is more than the number Australia has had for example, b) to logistically count for all the legal guns in the country to be able to take them all in and c) The huge black market of illegal weapons. That's why I don't think an assault weapons ban would work or is worthwhile in the long run. You'd be better off working on the restriction of access to firearms which you could in the form of more extensive background checks and gun licenses potentially as a couple of examples.

I honestly think that would be even too much for some Americans on this forum (maybe even you :lol) but I've personally never gotten the obsession with firearms. My reasoning for being for gun ownership is the right to defend yourself, your family, your liberty and your property. I could care less about hunting or target shooting personally :lol.


----------



## deepelemblues

> You'd be better off working on the restriction of access to firearms which you could in the form of more extensive background checks and gun licenses potentially as a couple of examples.


Nope. Any law that would have the effect of greatly decreasing legal gun sales would be ignored and a huge black market would be created.

The last law that actually worked to restrict the sale of a certain type of firearms was the 1930s law about machine guns and its updating in 1986, and that was only because most Americans then and now were and are not interested in owning actual automatic firearms. If they had been, that law would have been a massive failure as well. 

The touted "assault weapons ban" that was ended during the Dubya administration did nothing to restrict the sale of semi-automatic AR-15 style rifles as the features that were deemed to make a semiautomatic rifle an "assault weapon" had absolutely nothing to do with the rifle's capability to fire bullets semiautomatically from a detachable magazine. Semiautomatic rifle designs were slightly changed so they adhered to the new law and essentially the exact same semiautomatic rifles were sold as before.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Estimates are 146,000 lost jobs in the first year of the new steel/aluminum tariffs.

Same thing happened in 2002-2003 when Bush imposed a 8-30% tariff on imported steel. Cost an estimated 200,000 jobs. Added 46,000 jobs to the steel industry. Steel prices rose about 30% I think.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Makise Kurisu said:


> The main problem is the gun control issue is so emotionally charged and contemptuous that sometimes rational discussion about the statistics and the issues at hand gets muddied in the water. That may sound condescending to some but I'm not even stating this as a criticism of anybody in particular. It's just when people's lives are involved as well as people's freedom to use firearms for the defence of themselves and their loved ones as well as for sport then it becomes a touchy subject. I'd love to have an open and honest conversation about potential solutions going forward and with some I have but with others it's pretty hostile. But again considering the nature of the conversation it can't be helped.
> 
> I've had a similar experience to you being maybe the only Brit on here who is for gun ownership (I could be wrong on that but I haven't seen anyone else). When I've brought up the same sort of statistics as you as well as the statistics showing what has happened with the violent crime and murder rate over the years in the UK since the 1997 firearms act and also the crime/murder rate of states with heavy gun control in the US I got some pretty heavy backlash for bringing it up. Not that I mind or can't handle it but it was pretty visceral. This coming from someone who probably favours heavier restrictions than many of the Americans in this thread. I'd consider myself a little more moderate maybe but I can't be sure.
> 
> The problem is for example and this doesn't apply to all who are in favour of more gun control ( This doesn't apply to my boy @draykorinee for example), when the issue of gun free zones is brought up and the fact a lot of these shootings happen in those areas in those particular schools, some of those that favour of gun control don't want to look into the possibility of that being one of the problems why these mass shootings keep happening because then the solution would require something in the opposite direction of what they feel is the correct pathway which would include banning assault weapons, limiting magazine capacities and closing the gun show loopholes as an example. I'm not even personally closed off to most of those things as a potential solution or at least as a trial to see if it will make a significant difference but none of things would make a slight bit of difference if the problem is that these shooters are taking advantage of the fact no one on site is armed in the event that a shooting takes place to protect the school.
> 
> I said this before when I responded to the mass shooting in Florida but the worst possible thing you can do right now in the United States where there is such a big gun culture and there are so many weapons in circulation both legally and illegally is to make it public that a school is a gun free zone. You are opening yourself up to become a target so it's little wonder these shootings keep happening. It's one thing if we were talking about Switzerland which is another gun carrying country but with far greater restrictions and regulations but in the United States it's a disaster waiting to happen. As Dray already alluded to, if the gun laws aren't changing, then it makes no sense to not have conceal carry in those schools.
> 
> As I already mentioned before, another thing some gun control advocates hate when you bring it up is some of the statistics surrounding states with heavy gun control. They will often ignore it or say that the problem is the neighboring states where there are easier access to guns. Which is part of the problem but then logically you would think other states with lighter gun control would be worse yet for example Alabama only had 1 gun related murder in 2017. There are of course many reasons for the difference including in regards to Alabama too, a key one being population density but then in order to gain a clearer picture of what is going on you'd have to focus on other factors in the states such as Michigan as to why there is such a high level of gun crime and murder: poverty, gang culture, lack of/poor education system, a thriving black market, lack of job opportunities etc. These are much harder areas to focus on rather than just the guns themselves but they are all extremely relevant as to why there is a big problem in those inner cities.
> 
> And it's different depending on the states. In regards to both Las Vegas and the area in Florida after looking at all the evidence, I think in those cases you could argue that heavier gun control is needed in regards to access to guns in the form of more stringent background checks. Having said that in both cases there was some real government fuck ups: In Las Vegas, somehow the shooter managed to pass federal background checks to gain access to fully automatic weapons. This demonstrates that there are serious flaws in the background checks already on the books. Whether or not the shooter used bumper stocks which of course is possible, it still shows some real problems with the US's background check system on the federal level. And of course we all know how badly the FBI had messed up by not taking the level of threat of the Florida shooter seriously enough and then having the gall to try and cover it up.
> 
> So when Conservatives and Libertarians say that the US needs to enforce it's current gun laws more forcefully and efficiently, they do have a point. If the US can't get it's house in order with the laws in the books now then even the most bipartisan agreeable measure won't have much effect. Not that it's not worth trying but those in charge of current gun control measures need to get serious.
> 
> In regards to mass shootings, gun control measures in the UK for example have worked in stopping them from ever happening again but the biggest difference with the US is the huge gun culture (something which we haven't had in a long time) and the sheer number of firearms in the United States. Logistically it would pretty much be impossible to implement for example a gun buyback program because there's no way a) More than half the gun owners will give up their weapons willingly, which still leaves more than 150 million guns in the US, which I believe is more than the number Australia has had for example, b) to logistically count for all the legal guns in the country to be able to take them all in and c) The huge black market of illegal weapons. That's why I don't think an assault weapons ban would work or is worthwhile in the long run. You'd be better off working on the restriction of access to firearms which you could in the form of more extensive background checks and gun licenses potentially as a couple of examples.
> 
> I honestly think that would be even too much for some Americans on this forum (maybe even you :lol) but I've personally never gotten the obsession with firearms. My reasoning for being for gun ownership is the right to defend yourself, your family, your liberty and your property. I could care less about hunting or target shooting personally :lol.


Very well written post amigo 

I probably come off more of a gun advocate or "gun nut" than I actually am :lol I don't have a license, much less even held a real gun in my life lol. Like you, I believe we should have a right to defend ourselves however we see fit. I do believe in certain restrictions though like say convicted violent criminals or people with mental illnesses that have a propensity for violence. I think the idea of yelling "gun control!" and "ban that gun!" doesn't really solve anything and I do believe people need to be a bit more informed on the statistics, that's why I bring it up. I don't do it to be argumentative but rather to give more information and saying why making it more difficult for normal people to get guns may not be the magical solution that fixes everything.


----------



## deepelemblues

:trump and the leader of North Korea to meet sometime in the next 2 months.

No new nuclear or missile tests by North Korea in the interim.

South Korean president says credit goes to :trump for bringing the North Koreans back to a position of (ostensibly) wishing to negotiate instead of threaten and beat their chest.

Now Pyongyang has done this shit before and then after an agreement is reached it ignores the agreement, it will be up to the President and the other countries in the region to reach an agreement and make sure North Korea abides by it, but I sure do remember when everyone was tearing their shirts over how that crazy asshole :trump was about to start a nuclear war because he was an incompetent boob recklessly flinging threats and escalating tension between the US and its allies and Pyongyang.

Now Pyongyang is willing to at least have some talks, for the first time in years. :hmmm

Another 'impossible' achievement by this dangerously incompetent reckless fool of a president. :trump3


----------



## Art Vandaley

Personally I credit Dennis Rodman.




But seriously, its a good sign, congrats to Trump for achieving even just this, if nothing else comes of the talks, in and off themselves they are impressive.


----------



## Draykorinee

Because this is Trump's doing and not South Korea's...


----------



## Art Vandaley

draykorinee said:


> Because this is Trump's doing and not South Korea's...


You have to credit Trump at least somewhat, if you think the meeting is a good idea.

This couldn't have happened under Obama no matter what South Korea did as Obama had outright refused to ever meet with Kim Jong Un. The Obama doctrine was to isolate and ignore North Korea, the Trump doctrine is to engage with it directly.


----------



## Draykorinee

Alkomesh2 said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because this is Trump's doing and not South Korea's...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to credit Trump at least somewhat, if you think the meeting is a good idea.
> 
> This couldn't have happened under Obama no matter what South Korea did as Obama had outright refused to ever meet with Kim Jong Un. The Obama doctrine was to isolate and ignore North Korea, the Trump doctrine is to engage with it directly.
Click to expand...

He didn't refuse to ever met with them though. He refused to meet with them while NK refused to add the nuclear testing to the talks. Now, thanks to SK, they're offering to talk denuclerisation.


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> *but I sure do remember when everyone was tearing their shirts over how that crazy asshole :trump was about to start a nuclear war because he was an incompetent boob recklessly flinging threats and escalating tension between the US and its allies and Pyongyang.*
> 
> Now Pyongyang is willing to at least have some talks, for the first time in years. :hmmm
> 
> Another 'impossible' achievement by this dangerously incompetent reckless fool of a president. :trump3


Everyone except Scott Adams, who has called Trump's foreign policy re: North Korea spot on all along. :mj Right up to the detail that Kim Jong Un could see the Little Rocket Man joke for what it was, as confirmed by media reports today that he was laughing about the whole thing in the meeting with S. Korea.

Meanwhile, an update on "Trump is Hitler/loves Nazis": 



> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-trump-coin-honours-recognition-jerusalem-as-capital/
> 
> JERUSALEM -- An Israeli organization said Wednesday it has minted a coin bearing President Donald Trump's image to honor his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. The Mikdash Educational Center said the "Temple Coin" features Trump alongside King Cyrus, who 2,500 years ago allowed Jews to return to Jerusalem from their exile in Babylon.
> 
> Rabbi Mordechai Persoff said that Trump, like Cyrus, made a "big declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of the holy people."
> 
> His organization minted 1,000 biblical half-shekel coins that can be purchased with a minimum donation of $50. The coin cannot be used as currency.
> 
> Mikdash bills itself as a non-profit educational and religious organization. The donations will "help spread the light of Jerusalem and the spirit of the Holy Temple throughout the world," it said.
> 
> Israel has warmly welcomed Trump's move, which angered Palestinians.
> 
> The Trump coin is likely to rile Iranians, who uniformly respect King Cyrus as an ancient Persian hero.


I need one of these coins. :done :trump2


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> Because this is Trump's doing and not South Korea's...


South Korean president said credit goes to :trump


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because this is Trump's doing and not South Korea's...
> 
> 
> 
> South Korean president said credit goes to <img src="http://i.imgur.com/MpRFDoq.png" border="0" alt="" title="trump" class="inlineimg" />
Click to expand...

Pandering to their US overlords. Trump isn't completely without credit of course. It would be unfair of me to discredit him entirely.


----------



## MrMister

the Trump/Cyrus coin :lmao

I'm dying.


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> Pandering to their US overlords. Trump isn't completely without credit of course. It would be unfair of me to discredit him entirely.


Don't get bitter and go into globalresearch.ca territory because of it


----------



## FriedTofu

Trump stans should hold your horses before praising him with North Korea. During the past 2 decades, North Korea have always invited sitting presidents to a meeting to appear as equals and the American's biggest leverage is to withhold that from them unless certain conditions are met. Trump is the only one bold or reckless enough to accept publicly before plans are set in stone for the publicity it will generate to feed his ego. His administration is already backtracking and saying certain conditions must be me before any meeting takes place, i.e it is the same as usual besides Trump's desire for theatre pushing his own allies into a difficult position.

Trump is just being Trump and jumping ahead and announcing stuff before the groundwork is prepared. It is the same as eliminating Daca without a solution to the problem in place. It is the same as promising to repeal and replace without a replacement in place. It is the same banning people from certain Muslim countries without telling the people in charge of day to day border control. It is the same as signing tariffs that will be implemented 'without exceptions', and backtracking and saying there will be exceptions. The market has already stopped taking his statements seriously, maybe we should too.


----------



## Reaper

Don't care about Trump meeting Un. There's no point in those two meeting. It's a waste of everyone's time. The only thing that matters is results and those are not coming. 

Meanwhile, new Democrat incumbent: 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/2797...tm_content=092117-news&utm_campaign=dwtwitter


> Pot-Smoking Dem House Candidate Accused Of Stolen Valor, False FBI Claim, Abusing Women
> 
> A Democrat running for the U.S. House of Representatives — who caused an uproar with a campaign ad showing him smoking marijuana — now faces a slew of allegations, including physically abusing women.
> *
> Benjamin Thomas Wolf, a candidate in the Democratic primary against incumbent U.S. Rep. Mike Quigley for an Illinois House seat, is accused of abusing a girlfriend and falsely claiming he is an “Iraq veteran" and "former FBI agent."
> 
> “He actually hit me, threw me to the ground, put his foot on my chest. He was really angry. He grabbed my face,” Katarina Coates, a former girlfriend who interned for Wolf’s campaign, told Politico. She also said Wolf emotionally abused her and and “doxxed” her by posting her name and home address on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Coates described at least six incidents of physical abuse.*
> 
> *I thought it was normal. I cannot explain the logic. It seemed like he cared about me when he did that. After that time he stood on my chest, he went and took me for chocolate cake. I kind of associated it with his caring. ... There were times I would ask him, "Do you ever regret hitting me?" He would say: "No, but I'm relieved when you put your head down so I don't have to do it again."
> *
> The Democrat also faces scrutiny over his claims of being an “Iraq veteran” and “former FBI agent," Fox News reports.
> 
> The candidate has reportedly never been a member of the armed forces, but says on his website that he has been a diplomat in the Foreign Service under the State Department during the Iraq war. One tweet from him reportedly read: "Wolf served multiple terms in Africa and Iraq. Wolf for Congress."
> 
> The candidate contends that one does not have to be in the military to call oneself a veteran.
> 
> “People in the military get upset when I say I served in Iraq. The military doesn't have a patent on the word 'served,’” he told Politico.
> 
> In a news release last week, Wolf’s campaign also identified him as a “former FBI agent,” despite contrary claims by the agency.
> 
> A spokesperson for the FBI told the Chicago Tribune that the candidate worked at the agency as “a non-special agent professional support employee” rather than an agent.
> 
> Wolf confirmed to the outlet that he failed the FBI’s agent test but denied he ever identifies himself as such, adding that there is a small difference between his role at the agency and that of actual FBI agents.
> 
> CNN wrote a glowing piece on Wolf headlined "Ex-FBI official hoping to blaze a path to Congress as 'cannabis candidate,'" while Newsweek chimed in with an article that said with the pot stunt, Wolf "is hoping his progressive political stances on marijuana and gun reform will connect with the predominantly young and liberal area of Chicago’s North and Northwest 5th District neighborhoods."












That expression is creepy af. Those eyes are soul-less. 



draykorinee said:


> *Pandering to their US overlords.* Trump isn't completely without credit of course. It would be unfair of me to discredit him entirely.


Yo calm down, Comrade.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/972484296542957570
I laughed way harder at this than I should have. :lmao


----------



## DesolationRow

CamillePunk said:


> Everyone except Scott Adams, who has called Trump's foreign policy re: North Korea spot on all along. :mj Right up to the detail that Kim Jong Un could see the Little Rocket Man joke for what it was, as confirmed by media reports today that he was laughing about the whole thing in the meeting with S. Korea.


Everyone except Scott Adams and I.  :mj :lol http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anyth...ent-donald-trump-thread-118.html#post72558929


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Back to the 80s. The drug problem is one of demand. You can lock up and kill dealers and there will still be more to take their place.. or a pharma company.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/972977475864084480
:lmao he just keeps giving


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/972977475864084480
> :lmao he just keeps giving


Some people just can't handle their weed

You'd never catch me making such a goff if I were high as fuck during an interview or a speech or at a presidential debate

Actually if I were running for president I would 100% be high as fuck at the first debate and at the end be like "and I've been stoned off my ass these last two hours and I still whipped you like a rented mule" :trump3


----------



## yeahbaby!

Can't wait for the circus surrounding the Trump / Kim Jong meeting, should it ever actually happen. Trump will probably call Vince McMahon for tips on how to promote it.


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> Can't wait for the circus surrounding the Trump / Kim Jong meeting, should it ever actually happen. Trump will probably call Vince McMahon for tips on how to promote it.


:trump goes to Pyongyang -> :trump orders a nuclear strike on Pyongyang WHILE HE IS THERE and tells Mike Pence to inform the nation that Kim tried to kidnap the president during the summit so there was no choice. :trump tells Pence don't worry my hair will protect me. Pence is skeptical but after the mushroom cloud clears :trump walks out of the rubble without a scratch

Kim comes to DC -> :trump puts him in a headlock and gives him a noogie then orders a nuclear strike on Pyongyang while he's giving Kim a swirlie in the Oval Office lavatory. All on LIVE TV


----------



## 2 Ton 21

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/972977475864084480
> :lmao he just keeps giving


Gary...


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> :trump goes to Pyongyang -> :trump orders a nuclear strike on Pyongyang WHILE HE IS THERE and tells Mike Pence to inform the nation that Kim tried to kidnap the president during the summit so there was no choice. :trump tells Pence don't worry my hair will protect me. Pence is skeptical but after the mushroom cloud clears :trump walks out of the rubble without a scratch
> 
> Kim comes to DC -> :trump puts him in a headlock and gives him a noogie then orders a nuclear strike on Pyongyang while he's giving Kim a swirlie in the Oval Office lavatory. All on LIVE TV


Don't forget :Trump orders Kim Jun Un's body exumed then does an atomic Stone Cold Stunner on the corpse, all the while motorboating Miss North Korea. Then he cuts a promo on the world declaring himself the new Master and Ruler of the World > presents Sid Eudy blubbering and begging Trump to be part of his new world domination cabinet.


----------



## DesolationRow

I just want a golf game between :trump and Kim Jung-un. Maybe something akin to the James Bond/Auric Goldfinger golf game. Of course who's Bond and who's Goldfinger will depend on which movie you're watching, eh, @CamillePunk? :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

DesolationRow said:


> I just want a golf game between :trump and Kim Jung-un. Maybe something akin to the James Bond/Auric Goldfinger golf game. Of course who's Bond and who's Goldfinger will depend on which movie you're watching, eh, @CamillePunk? :lol


Trump throws his god bullion block down but it breaks, revealing the inside is made of chocolate.


----------



## Draykorinee

2 Ton 21 said:


> Back to the 80s. The drug problem is one of demand. You can lock up and kill dealers and there will still be more to take their place.. or a pharma company.


China are lying, they have a much bigger drug problem than they'd let on to.


----------



## deepelemblues

China lies about everything, they have tens of thousands of riots a year. Actual riots like Ferguson. Most of them just happen in the rural interior far away from any cameras that aren't controlled by the Chinese government so you never know about them.


----------



## Reaper

Someone created a fake account for Maxine P. Waters and it's great :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/972291126630678528

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/967258108044234752


----------



## CamillePunk

https://www.nysun.com/national/dilbert-scoops-them-all-on-inside-story-of-trump/90212/



> Give “Dilbert” cartoonist Scott Adams the Pulitzer Prize for commentary. He deserves it for understanding and explaining all along what’s been going on with President Trump and North Korea, in a way that the coastal establishment elites missed because of their blinding contempt for Trump.
> 
> Click Image to Enlarge
> 
> For those who haven’t been following the political commentary of Mr. Adams, it’s worth going back and reading.
> 
> In an April 12, 2017, blog post headlined “The North Korea Reframe,” Mr. Adams wrote about how Mr. Trump had reframed North Korea as a challenge to China.
> 
> “President Trump has said clearly and repeatedly that if China doesn’t fix the problem in its own backyard, the USA will step in to do what China couldn’t get done,” Mr. Adams wrote. “See the power in that framing? China doesn’t want a weak ‘brand.’...His reframing on North Korea is pitch-perfect. We’ve never seen anything like this.”
> 
> Mr. Adams followed up with an April 17, 2017, post headlined “How To Structure a Deal With North Korea.” He suggests giving North Korea “a story to save face.” He went on, “In persuasion language, you need to give North Korea a ‘fake because.’ They probably already want peace, but they don’t have a good public excuse for why they would cave to pressure and settle for it. Giving them something that has little value but can be exaggerated to seem like it has great value becomes the ‘fake because.’”
> 
> In a July 5, 2017, post, “Solving the North Korea Situation,” Mr. Adams wrote about the possibility of shifting from a win-lose framework on such a deal to a win-win framework, including a “100-year deal” leading to reunification.
> 
> In a July 31, 2017, post, headlined “People Keep Telling Me To Stop Blogging About North Korea,” Mr. Adams wrote, “My critics have been extra vocal lately in saying I should stop writing about North Korea because I have no expertise in that area. So I decided to talk about North Korea some more.”
> 
> In a September 5, 2017, post, Mr. Adams wrote, “in Kim Jong Un I suspect we have a negotiating partner who understands all dimensions.... we are also closer than we have ever been to a permanent solution.”
> 
> And in a January 3, 2018, post Mr. Adams rebutted critics who called President Trump’s tweet about having a bigger nuclear button than North Korea “crazy.”
> 
> Mr. Adams wrote, “what is missed in the hysterics over wording is that President Trump and Kim Jong Un are negotiating personally, albeit in public. And I think it is safe to say both players know they are being over-the-top with their trash-talk. The odds of a nuclear miscalculation based on anything said so far is effectively zero.”
> 
> He went on, “while it might look to many observers as two crazy leaders heading for a nuclear showdown, to me it looks like two colorful characters who probably have a weird kind of respect for each other.”
> 
> A January 17, 2018, Mr. Adams post headlined “How North Korea Can Become Switzerland of the East” noted, “Kim Jong Un went to school in Switzerland. He knows it as a country that gets just about everything right and does it without a traditional army.”
> 
> Mr. Adams hasn’t posted about North Korea on his blog, at least so far as I can tell, since President Trump earlier this month accepted a North Korean offer of direct talks. But if Mr. Adams does write something, an accurate headline might be, “I told you so.”
> 
> The Trump-North Korea talks could end inconclusively, or even dangerously, so the story isn’t over yet. On the basis of what’s happened so far, though, it certainly looks like Mr. Adams was correct. Mr. Trump’s tactics, rather than leading to war, have brought the North Koreans to the bargaining table.
> 
> Compare Mr. Adams’ take to elite opinion. As recently as February 1, in an editorial headlined, “Playing With Fire and Fury on North Korea,” the New York Times editorial board said, “It’s hard to come away from the State of the Union address without a heightened sense of foreboding about President Trump’s intentions toward North Korea. The signs increasingly point to unilateral American military action....
> 
> “Mr. Trump seemed to be building a case for war on emotional grounds... such words were in line with his history of bellicosity toward North Korea... Last year he threatened to answer North Korean provocations with fire and fury ‘the likes of which this world has never seen before.’... Mr. Trump’s preoccupation with military action and refusal to seriously pursue a diplomatic overture to North Korea are foolhardy.”
> 
> If anyone’s “foolhardy” here, it’s not Mr. Trump, but the Times editorial writers, who apparently hate Mr. Trump so much that they couldn’t see the truth of what Scott Adams had been writing for nearly a year. Part of the point of journalism is to explain to readers what’s really happening rather than stoking false, anxiety-provoking (if click-generating) fears or “foreboding.” By that standard, on the evidence so far, Mr. Adams has done a far better job on the North Korea story than the Times has.
> 
> Whatever power the Pulitzer committees have, individual readers have a power, too. That is to treat “elite” commentary with the skepticism it deserves, and to keep an eye out for outside-the-box thinkers such as Mr. Adams. If the fears about war with North Korea were unwarranted, maybe the fears about a Trump-tariff-provoked trade war are also phony, and there, too, presidential rhetoric and actions are being used in a fashion more calculated than reckless. At least it’s worth keeping an open mind about the possibility.


B-B-B-BUT HE'S A COMIC STRIP ARTIST

:lol


----------



## virus21




----------



## DesolationRow

yeahbaby! said:


> Trump throws his god bullion block down but it breaks, revealing the inside is made of chocolate.


:lol Only the best chocolate, though. :trump


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> https://www.nysun.com/national/dilbert-scoops-them-all-on-inside-story-of-trump/90212/
> 
> B-B-B-BUT HE'S A COMIC STRIP ARTIST
> 
> :lol












Admit it. This is you.


----------



## Slickback

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973360355790479361
*CAPS LOCK GOD *


----------



## virus21




----------



## FriedTofu

Seneca said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973360355790479361
> *CAPS LOCK GOD *


What is Scott Adams saying about this manner of persuasion?


----------



## Miss Sally

Reap said:


> Someone created a fake account for Maxine P. Waters and it's great :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/972291126630678528
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/967258108044234752


Not going to lie but Maxine is such an idiot that I thought this was true for a split second lol


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973544168470515719

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973544674186145792
Tillerson was one of the relatively lesser of evils in the Trump administration. With Pompeo taking over as Secretary of State and Haspel being elevated as the head of the CIA, things just got much more evil.


----------



## Reaper

> WikiLeaks
> In a 2017 speech addressing the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Pompeo referred to WikiLeaks as "a non-state hostile intelligence service" and described founder Julian Assange as a narcissist, fraud, and coward.
> 
> "... we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us. To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now.... Assange and his ilk make common cause with dictators today. Yes, they try unsuccessfully to cloak themselves and their actions in the language of liberty and privacy; in reality, however, they champion nothing but their own celebrity. Their currency is clickbait; their moral compass, nonexistent. Their mission: personal self-aggrandizement through the destruction of Western values."[47]
> 
> Edward Snowden
> In February 2016, Pompeo said Edward Snowden "should be brought back from Russia and given due process, and I think the proper outcome would be that he would be given a death sentence."[48] But he has spoken in favor of reforming the Federal Records Act, one of the laws under which Snowden was charged, saying "I'm not sure there's a whole lot of change that needs to happen to the Espionage Act. The Federal Records Act clearly needs updating to reflect the different ways information is communicated and stored. Given the move in technology and communication methods, I think it's probably due for an update."[49]
> 
> In March 2014, Pompeo denounced the inclusion of a telecast by Snowden in the South by Southwest conference in Austin, Texas and asked that it be cancelled, predicting that it would encourage "lawless behavior" among attendees.[50]


Pompeo sounds like quite the charmer. 

Fuck this administration. I'm out.


----------



## FriedTofu

NO CHAOS.

:ha


----------



## Tater

Every time you think Russiagaters can't get more insane, they take it to a whole new level. First, it was Trump hired Tillerson because Putin told him to. Now it's Trump fired Tillerson because he was too tough on Russia and Putin told him to and had him replaced with... someone extremely hawkish again Russia, Mike Pompeo? fpalm

And then of course there's this little bit of insanity:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973552250558828544
Toughen up? There's your Democratic Senate leader, who would rather risk WWIII than admit the failures of his own party.

These fucking psychos won't be satisfied until we're all dead from thermonuclear war. Tillerson, who held relatively sane foreign policy views compared to others in DC just got replaced by one of the biggest anti-Russia neocon hawks in all of DC, and yet somehow, defying all definitions of the term logic, the monumentally retarded Russiagaters are still at it. These people are so fucking insane that the bombs could be in mid-flight and they'd still try to find a way to claim that destroying all life on Earth is Trump doing Putin's bidding.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> Every time you think Russiagaters can't get more insane, they take it to a whole new level. First, it was Trump hired Tillerson because Putin told him to. Now it's Trump fired Tillerson because he was too tough on Russia and Putin told him to and had him replaced with... someone extremely hawkish again Russia, Mike Pompeo? fpalm
> 
> And then of course there's this little bit of insanity:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973552250558828544
> Toughen up? There's your Democratic Senate leader, who would rather risk WWIII than admit the failures of his own party.
> 
> These fucking psychos won't be satisfied until we're all dead from thermonuclear war. Tillerson, who held relatively sane foreign policy views compared to others in DC just got replaced by one of the biggest anti-Russia neocon hawks in all of DC, and yet somehow, defying all definitions of the term logic, the monumentally retarded Russiagaters are still at it. These people are so fucking insane that the bombs could be in mid-flight and they'd still try to find a way to claim that destroying all life on Earth is Trump doing Putin's bidding.


People won't be happy until we're dead from Nuclear war or Super AIDs as long as they get what they want!


----------



## Draykorinee

The revolving door continues.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/847945942833790977
That about sums it up.


----------



## deepelemblues

Edward Snowden and Wikileaks :triggered?

Excellent. We need more Pompeos and Haspels in high government positions if this is the result. 

Simply because Wikileaks momentarily aligned with their short-term political interests, some people seem to have forgotten that Wikileaks and its founder are rabidly anti-American with zero regard for the consequences of their obsession, with the stated purpose of fucking the United States over to help increase the geopolitical power of the two brutally authoritarian regimes that rule the countries of Russia and China. And they seem to have forgotten that Snowden is nothing more than the pathetic puppet of the FSB. Ostensibly this fucking over of the United States will somehow make the world a better place, because people like Julian Assange and Snowden are really really myopic and stupid little puppets of the FSB. Anyone that thinks that geopolitics would be more peaceful and equitable with either or both Russia and China having more power and influence than the United States is a fool that needs to shut their fool mouth. The best thing that could happen to traitor Edward Snowden is a drone-fired Hellfire missile right up his ass, and the best thing that could happen to Assange is the same.


----------



## BRITLAND

I'm surprised Trump hasn't hired John Bolton as Sectetary of State or Defence, they seem like a good pairing on foreign/defence policy. Does Trump have some beef with him or is Bolton simply not interested?


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> Edward Snowden and Wikileaks :triggered?
> 
> Excellent. We need more Pompeos and Haspels in high government positions if this is the result.
> 
> Simply because Wikileaks momentarily aligned with their short-term political interests, some people seem to have forgotten that Wikileaks and its founder are rabidly anti-American with zero regard for the consequences of their obsession, with the stated purpose of fucking the United States over to help increase the geopolitical power of the two brutally authoritarian regimes that rule the countries of Russia and China. And they seem to have forgotten that Snowden is nothing more than the pathetic puppet of the FSB. Ostensibly this fucking over of the United States will somehow make the world a better place, because people like Julian Assange and Snowden are really really myopic and stupid little puppets of the FSB. Anyone that thinks that geopolitics would be more peaceful and equitable with either or both Russia and China having more power and influence than the United States is a fool that needs to shut their fool mouth. The best thing that could happen to traitor Edward Snowden is a drone-fired Hellfire missile right up his ass, and the best thing that could happen to Assange is the same.


Yes. Anyone that opposes Americans, American intelligence, or the American Authoritarian government is a traitor. We know this. :eyeroll 

We oppose it. You can list off 100's of facts, but ultimately, espionage / counter-espionage and whistle blowing are part of the checks and balances that need to exist to control power. The state maneuvers to continue to consolidate its power - we also know this. There are those who support that kind of growth of state power. We also know this. But it's something that should be opposed.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

:lol


----------



## CamillePunk

Staff turnover % is just another "popular vote". Meaningless statistic used to distract from the fact that Trump is winning, meaning he's accomplishing the things he (not I) wants to accomplish. If he can do it while having the white house be a revolving door, not really sure how or why it matters. Having a seemingly chaotic leadership style and a proclivity for firing people are two things everyone already knew about Trump before he became president. The fact these are enduring traits as president is a good sign that Trump is his own man, at least. 

Deeply concerned by the firing of Rex Tillerson and the empowerment of neocons from within the CIA. Hopefully the revolving door picks up a little speed where Mike Pompeo and Gina Haspel are concerned.


----------



## MrMister

The only thing I like about this clusterfuck is that Haspel is the first female CIA director and libs everywhere say "not like this."

I have heard no lib acknowledge the fact she's the first female CIA director.

Not like this.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Tillerson officially being sacked is disappointing, to say the least. Despite his inexperience, the fact that talks with North Korea regarding de-nuclearization became a real possibility instead of the fevered dream of a madman under his tenure is nevertheless impressive. Hell, he even came off as somewhat personable during his confirmation to boot.

Now he's being replaced by essentially a doughy version of Sessions, who in turn is being succeeded in the CIA by some cunt that would probably be gal pals with Hilldog over their mutual love of destroying secrets and torturing people.

If Trump keeps doing drastically dumb shit like this, he'll lose his senpai status sooner than later. :armfold


----------



## CamillePunk

MrMister said:


> The only thing I like about this clusterfuck is that Haspel is the first female CIA director and libs everywhere say "not like this."
> 
> I have heard no lib acknowledge the fact she's the first female CIA director.
> 
> Not like this.


I still think the simulation would peak and shut itself down if Trump came out as trans aka the first female president of these united states (unless the left wants to misgender her). 

Trump hiring a woman to be CIA director didn't surprise me at all because Trump has a history of breaking new ground via empowering women that the left simply doesn't want to acknowledge. :draper2 Doesn't fit the narrative.


----------



## deepelemblues

Reap said:


> Yes. Anyone that opposes Americans, American intelligence, or the American Authoritarian government is a traitor. We know this. :eyeroll
> 
> We oppose it. You can list off 100's of facts, but ultimately, espionage / counter-espionage and whistle blowing are part of the checks and balances that need to exist to control power. The state maneuvers to continue to consolidate its power - we also know this. There are those who support that kind of growth of state power. We also know this. But it's something that should be opposed.


Edward Snowden is literally a traitor to his country. Get the fuck over it. He ran off to unfriendly foreign powers with loads of secret information that he released to them and the entire world for the purpose of harming the United States. Too bad he's an incompetent little bitch so the end result was essentially no change, his manufactured self-righteous masturbatory goals were not met, and now he gets to live with the realization that he accomplished almost nothing and will never be a free man, but rather will be a Russian tool, the rest of his life. Poor widdle twaitor didn't get what he expected boohoo. Maybe if he had been an adult man instead of a soyboy ****** he would have had more brains and done things differently which would have resulted in real change. Nope, he ran off to get buttfucked by some pig of an FSB official who controls every aspect of his bitch life now. 

Julian Assange isn't American so he can't be a traitor, he's just a piece of shit who hates the United States so much he doesn't give a fuck what the world would look like if he achieved his goals. He's an openly avowed foreign enemy, fuck him. He can be an enemy of my country all he wants, but don't expect me to act like he's some kind of good guy when his goal is not openness and fair play, it's fucking over my country. I marked him for what he is when he hemmed and hawed and gave excuses for why he doesn't go after the Russians or the Chinese or anyone as hard as he does the United States. He doesn't go after them at all actually. He's another fucking tool who's managed to fool fools into thinking he isn't a fucking tool. 

Oppose the growth of State power all you want, sometimes I'll agree and sometimes I won't. I won't agree when it comes to ****** bitchboys like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, who are not opposed to the growth of State power if it isn't the American State being talked about. They're owned lock stock and barrel by piece of shit unfriendly foreign governments and are used by those governments to grow their own power. Yeah they're real crusaders for good, proudly fighting to make Russia stronger. Fuck Russia. They haven't wanted to be our friends since the civil war. The _American_ civil war. They don't want to be our friends. This shit about making nice with Russia is total fucking fantasy which is why :trump has been smart enough to not seriously pursue it. Instead he is pursuing an interests-based policy where if Russia wants to work with us then that is fine and dandy, but we're not going to bend over to get fucked in the ass. There will never be an alliance that isn't one of convenience, and there will never be true friendship, between Russia and the United States until Russia gives up on its dream of becoming as powerful as the USSR was and re-trying the Cold War but with a different outcome this time.


----------



## Reaper

Some of what you wrote does read like conspiracy theory material so I'll reject those parts.

You are making sense. But you're missing the point that Trump surrounding himself with ultra authoritarians makes his cabinet closer to the Obama cabinet that right wingers have been whining about for 8 years. 

Or am I wrong about that?


----------



## virus21

Democrats, you need to dump this crone.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

BRITLAND said:


> I'm surprised Trump hasn't hired John Bolton as Sectetary of State or Defence, they seem like a good pairing on foreign/defence policy. Does Trump have some beef with him or is Bolton simply not interested?


Hates his mustache apparently.

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-bolton-mustache-cost-him-trump-cabinet-post-fire-and-fury-claims-2018-1


----------



## virus21




----------



## BoFreakinDallas

virus21 said:


> Democrats, you need to dump this crone.


Not sure what they can do other then buy her a 1 way ticket to a Tahiti and send her text's saying please don't give any more speeches. She has always been about her own ego above trying to help Democrats so she will never lay low for a few cycles the way Gore,Kerry,Dukakis etc. did after they lost.


----------



## deepelemblues

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Not sure what they can do other then buy her a 1 way ticket to a Tahiti and send her text's saying please don't give any more speeches. She has always been about her own ego above trying to help Democrats so she will never lay low for a few cycles the way Gore,Kerry,Dukakis etc. did after they lost.


Drop her off in Port au Prince without an army of heavily armed security and the Haitans will take care of Hillary right quick after what she and hubby did to their country.


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> Edward Snowden is literally a traitor to his country. Get the fuck over it. He ran off to unfriendly foreign powers with loads of secret information that he released to them and the entire world for the purpose of harming the United States. Too bad he's an incompetent little bitch so the end result was essentially no change, his manufactured self-righteous masturbatory goals were not met, and now he gets to live with the realization that he accomplished almost nothing and will never be a free man, but rather will be a Russian tool, the rest of his life. Poor widdle twaitor didn't get what he expected boohoo. Maybe if he had been an adult man instead of a soyboy ****** he would have had more brains and done things differently which would have resulted in real change. Nope, he ran off to get buttfucked by some pig of an FSB official who controls every aspect of his bitch life now.
> 
> Julian Assange isn't American so he can't be a traitor, he's just a piece of shit who hates the United States so much he doesn't give a fuck what the world would look like if he achieved his goals. He's an openly avowed foreign enemy, fuck him. He can be an enemy of my country all he wants, but don't expect me to act like he's some kind of good guy when his goal is not openness and fair play, it's fucking over my country. I marked him for what he is when he hemmed and hawed and gave excuses for why he doesn't go after the Russians or the Chinese or anyone as hard as he does the United States. He doesn't go after them at all actually. He's another fucking tool who's managed to fool fools into thinking he isn't a fucking tool.


Little bitch soy boy lol, you seem to be super 



















I thought Snowden was quite brave doing what he did, stood up against government abuses for the greater good basically. He blew the whistle on shit that needed to come out.


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> Little bitch soy boy lol, you seem to be super
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Snowden was quite brave doing what he did, stood up against government abuses for the greater good basically. He blew the whistle on shit that needed to come out.


I think he's a crybaby traitor who tried to fuck over his country to the benefit of an unfriendly power and willingly became the bitch boy of that power. A bitch boy which he remains to this day.

What did he accomplish? Nothing as far as the policies of the United States goes. He sure as fuck helped Russia out though, it was a nice turn of events for them. 

And you're damn right I'm triggered by some piece of shit throwing his country under the bus from an unfriendly power's capital. Acting like he's standing up for principle when he damn well knew and knows the country he ran to spies on everyone under the sun but he's too much of a little bitch to stand up to them. Nope, he knows what would happen if he said a bad word about his vodka-swilling borscht-spilling masters. 

Fuck him. I hope he spends the rest of his life thinking every day about how he failed to change the policies of the United States and how he sold himself out like the whore he is to ex-KGB Colonel Vladimir and how he made it easier for ex-KGB Colonel Vladimir to do all the things Edward Snowden claims to hate. Another fucking idiot millenial who doesn't know his asshole from his elbow. Hurr durr USA so bad hurr durr I must do something hurr durr who cares if I'll actually accomplish anything or who my ignorant stupidity will actually benefit.

The only thing he really stood up for was and is the greater good of Vladimir Putin. Dumbass millenial. I wanna say it's not his fault he's an ignorant little shit overflowing with egotistical self-righteousness but he went well past the line of there being excuses for him.

I understand where you are coming from but fuck him he decided to run off to Moscow. He acts like he never intended to stay in Russia but he didn't run from Hawaii to Hong Kong and then to Moscow by accident. He went to the two countries strong enough to tell the US where to head in and get away with it. If he didn't think one of them deciding to hang on to him was a distinct possibility then that's just another sign of how ignorant and stupid he is. He made statement after statement castigating the United States and several Western European countries, portraying their governments like something straight out of an Oliver Stone wet dream. He didn't just reveal domestic intelligence gathering programs he revealed foreign intelligence programs as well, definitely helping terrorists and assholes like Putin and the PRC. Revealing Western countries secretly gathering mass intelligence on domestic financial and communications data with the cooperation of major corporations is one thing, revealing details of foreign intelligence and shit talking like a 1950 Pravda editorial is another. A lot of what he did and said benefited no one but vladimir putin and the red chinese. Snowden's a fucking traitor, probably the worst traitor in the history of the country when looking at how much he aided the country's foes, and he should get what traitors get.


----------



## Laughable Chimp

deepelemblues said:


> I think he's a crybaby traitor who tried to fuck over his country to the benefit of an unfriendly power and willingly became the bitch boy of that power. A bitch boy which he remains to this day.
> 
> What did he accomplish? Nothing as far as the policies of the United States goes. He sure as fuck helped Russia out though, it was a nice turn of events for them.
> 
> And you're damn right I'm triggered by some piece of shit throwing his country under the bus from an unfriendly power's capital. Acting like he's standing up for principle when he damn well knew and knows the country he ran to spies on everyone under the sun but he's too much of a little bitch to stand up to them. Nope, he knows what would happen if he said a bad word about his vodka-swilling borscht-spilling masters.
> 
> Fuck him. I hope he spends the rest of his life thinking every day about how he failed to change the policies of the United States and how he sold himself out like the whore he is to ex-KGB Colonel Vladimir and how he made it easier for ex-KGB Colonel Vladimir to do all the things Edward Snowden claims to hate. Another fucking idiot millenial who doesn't know his asshole from his elbow. Hurr durr USA so bad hurr durr I must do something hurr durr who cares if I'll actually accomplish anything or who my ignorant stupidity will actually benefit.
> 
> The only thing he really stood up for was and is the greater good of Vladimir Putin. Dumbass millenial. I wanna say it's not his fault he's an ignorant little shit overflowing with egotistical self-righteousness but he went well past the line of there being excuses for him.


Yawn.

Your entire spiel on Snowden basically boils down to “How dare he do something against America. Fuck him, the dumb millenial”. Ignoring the fact that he did what he did because he felt like the American people needed to know what the government were doing because what they were doing was wrong.

Like, for fucks sake you’re acting like he broke into the Pentagon, took every single classified data he could find then gave it to Russia to take down America amd everything it stands for.


----------



## deepelemblues

Laughable Chimp said:


> Yawn.
> 
> Your entire spiel on Snowden basically boils down to “How dare he do something against America. Fuck him, the dumb millenial”. Ignoring the fact that he did what he did because he felt like the American people needed to know what the government were doing because what they were doing was wrong.
> 
> Like, for fucks sake you’re acting like he broke into the Pentagon, took every single classified data he could find then gave it to Russia to take down America amd everything it stands for.


Exactly, how dare he massively aid the foes of his country, shit talk and lie about his country, go to both of his country's biggest rivals where they could grab and interrogate him if they wanted to, which one of them ended up doing, and generally fuck his country over.

I don't give a shit what he thought or what his intentions were. He revealed information he should not have revealed along with information that he was correct in revealing. He willingly propagandized against his country's government as if it were the Gestapo. 

Like for fuck's sake you don't understand how much _everything_ he did helped out Russia and China. He made them stronger and the United States weaker. The world would be a better place if he'd showed some discernment and judgement and then he would have been an undeniable hero. He could have leaked only the domestic intelligence gathering stuff and not fled the country. He would have had a pretty strong case and much more public support than he got. He's the one who decided to go full crusade on America's ass to the benefit of most of the tinpot dictators and all of the formidable dictators in the world.


----------



## Art Vandaley

deepelemblues said:


> I think he's a crybaby traitor who tried to fuck over his country to the benefit of an unfriendly power and willingly became the bitch boy of that power. A bitch boy which he remains to this day.
> 
> What did he accomplish? Nothing as far as the policies of the United States goes. He sure as fuck helped Russia out though, it was a nice turn of events for them.
> 
> Nope, he knows what would happen if he said a bad word about his vodka-swilling borscht-spilling masters.
> 
> Fuck him. I hope he spends the rest of his life thinking every day about how he failed to change the policies of the United States and how he sold himself out like the whore he is to ex-KGB Colonel Vladimir and how he made it easier for ex-KGB Colonel Vladimir to do all the things he claims to hate.
> 
> The only thing he really stood up for was and is the greater good of Vladimir Putin. Dumbass millenial. I wanna say it's not his fault he's an ignorant little shit overflowing with egotistical self-righteousness but he went well past the line of there being excuses for him.
> 
> A lot of what he did and said benefited no one but vladimir putin and the red chinese.





deepelemblues said:


> Exactly, how dare he massively aid the foes of his country, shit talk and lie about his country, go to both of his country's biggest rivals where they could grab and interrogate him if they wanted to, which one of them ended up doing, and generally fuck his country over.
> 
> I don't give a shit what he thought or what his intentions were. He willingly propagandized against his country's government as if it were the Gestapo.
> 
> Like for fuck's sake you don't understand how much _everything_ he did helped out Russia and China. He made them stronger and the United States weaker. The world would be a better place if he'd showed some discernment and judgement and then he would have been an undeniable hero. He's the one who decided to go full crusade on America's ass to the benefit of most of the tinpot dictators and all of the formidable dictators in the world.


I 100% agree, these 2 posts pretty nicely sum up my opinion of Trump too.


----------



## Reaper

"Fucking Russians did this" - Democrats probably.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973969323986509824

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973967214448652288
There are liberals who are so deranged that they're viewing the deep state as an ally against Trump and there are Trump supporters who are stupid enough to believe that Trump is fighting against the deep state.

:ha


----------



## DOPA

@Tater

Trump's latest moves in regards to the Secretary of State and CIA director positions signals one of if not the outright worst decisions Trump has made thus far in his presidency. If you want any indication that this move represents the interests of the establishment, the military industrial complex and the duopoly at large then look no further than how Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Senate for the Democrats responded which was remarkably with quiet optimism considering the outward conflict between himself and Trump concerning DACA. If that corporate hack is showing any positive reaction to these particular moves then you know without a doubt that these are some downright terrible appointments. And they no doubt are.

I had a lot of concerns at the beginning of the Trump administration when the likes of Rudy Guilani and particularly John Bolton were floated as potential nominees for the Secretary of State nomination and Bolton did end up getting the deputy spot. Yet despite that and despite the administration being filled with Neo-Con's, the eventual nomination of Tillerson proved to actually not to be a bad move in general. Despite his inexperience, Tillerson was a rather sane move in comparison to recent past secretary of states and whilst not a complete non-interventionist was more of a foreign policy realist than those who were linked. Considering what the US had since Bush, it could be viewed as a positive step forward and at least we had someone in the administration who was skeptical if not downright against regime change and nation building. He didn't want to just tear up the Iran deal either which was a sort of conflict between him and Trump. Now he's been removed and replaced by Mike Pompeo, who is one of the most hawkish when it comes to a matter of Russia and Iran. The takeover of CIA operatives into the matters of foreign policy is deeply disturbing to say the least.

The new CIA director Gina Haspel might even be worse considering her past connections to and endorsement of torture programs as well as covering them up in 2005. In a way, maybe we shouldn't be surprised considering Trump did endorse the idea of torture repeatedly during the campaign trail.

Credit is due to the Trump administration and Trump himself for managing to arrange a future meeting with North Korea, something that hasn't been done for decades. Though with these administration changes, one has to wonder how that meeting will actually go considering who he will now have advising him. A wait and see approach realistically is all we can do, but I am less optimistic than I was with the news that Tillerson is gone.

Foreign policy is where I hoped Trump would be a lot better in reality than what we knew was coming with Hillary and at first it was a not perfect but decent start: stopping the arming program to the so called moderate rebels in Syria, pushing for less funding and involvement in NATO (@DesolationRow;), only focusing on taking the fight to ISIS rather than trying to tackle Assad and regime change. He had some mess ups like conducting an airstrike in Syria in response to another gas attack that was blamed but not proven to be from Assad but things looked okay. Fuck they are now....

We've had an absolutely enormous weapons deal to Saudi Arabia who have used them indiscriminately against Yemen, so that genocide is continuing. Trump has increased troops in Afghanistan, a place which both the US and the UK have been at war in for over 15 years and the situation is worse than it was before we invaded. Trump has armed Ukrainian rebels in the Crimea against the Russians who just so happen to be Neo-Nazis....as well as actually bulking up NATO in the balkans in opposition to Russia. What happened to holding NATO accountable and scaling back American responsibility? And recently he announced the US would be staying in Syria indefinitely......Oh and the US is still in Iraq despite saying repeatedly that the war was a huge mistake.

Non-Interventionist my fucking ass.


----------



## Reaper

> Rand Paul vows to block Trump's nominees to run State and CIA
> 
> by.Susan Ferrechio
> 
> .| March 14, 2018 11:24 AM
> 
> .
> 
> Print this article
> 
> [https://mediadc]Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky, said he opposes Trump's pick for secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, who is now the CIA director, because he backs “regime change” in Iran and was a supporter of the Iraq War.
> 
> Graeme Jennings/Washington Examiner
> 
> Sen. Rand Paul announced Wednesday he will oppose the nominations of both Mike Pompeo and Gina Haspel, who President Trump has selected to serve as secretary of state and CIA director, respectively.
> 
> Paul, R-Ky., pledged “I’m going to do everything I can to block them,” and was particularly critical of Haspel, who he said showed “joyful glee” when a suspected terrorist was tortured at one of the so-called black sites during the Iraq War. Haspel has served at the CIA for more than three decades and is currently the deputy director. She was in charge of one black site located in Thailand.
> 
> Paul said he opposes Pompeo, who is now the CIA director, because he backs “regime change” in Iran and was a supporter of the Iraq War.
> 
> Paul voted against Pompeo when he was confirmed as the head of the CIA last year.
> 
> He’s even more determined to keep Haspel from confirmation.
> 
> “It’s galling to read of her glee during the waterboarding,” Paul said. “It’s absolutely appalling.”
> 
> The information about Haspel was revealed during an investigation of the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques during the Bush administration.
> 
> A U.S. official told the.Washington Examiner.that Paul's claims about Haspel are "not only inaccurate, but contradicted by the very source materials he relied on."
> 
> "The Senator quotes liberally from page 263 of James Mitchell’s book.Enhanced Interrogation.in describing the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah in claiming that Ms. Haspel was the CIA Chief of Base who was present and expressing joy at this interrogation," the official said. "A reading of the same page demonstrates that the Chief of Base present and quoted during this event was a man, not Gina Haspel. This is just one of many false claims about Ms. Haspel being peddled by the uninformed."
> 
> Paul’s opposition could create a big hurdle for the two nominees, but particularly Haspel, who unlike Pompeo, has not been vetted by the Senate.
> 
> A simple majority is needed to confirm executive branch nominees but Republicans control only 51 votes and it’s not clear whether Democrats would unify in opposition to Haspel.
> 
> If confirmed, Haspel would be the first women to run the agency.
> 
> Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., has expressed doubts about Haspel’s nomination. However, it's not clear if McCain will be able to vote as he remains in Arizona getting treatment for a brain tumor.
> 
> “It may be enough,” to block her, Paul said. “It depends on the solidarity of the Democrats,”
> 
> More than a dozen Democrats voted to confirm Pompeo to the CIA, which suggests he’ll get some of their votes again to run the State Department..


Good.


----------



## DOPA

Haspel could be dead in the water if McCain can actually vote because the guy being a torture victim himself I don't think will want her as the head of the CIA.

No surprise that Rand will try to block this (Y).


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Thank You Based Paul. roud


----------



## Tater

Makise Kurisu said:


> Trump's latest moves in regards to the Secretary of State and CIA director positions signals one of if not the outright worst decisions Trump has made thus far in his presidency. If you want any indication that this move represents the interests of the establishment, the military industrial complex and the duopoly at large then look no further than how Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Senate for the Democrats responded which was remarkably with quiet optimism considering the outward conflict between himself and Trump concerning DACA. If that corporate hack is showing any positive reaction to these particular moves then you know without a doubt that these are some downright terrible appointments. And they no doubt are.


Did you see this?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/972133067195371520





The deep state runs both parties. At a time when Trump is putting an insane neocon war hawk as Secretary of State and an actual torturer as head of the CIA, the Democrats are actively recruiting people from the CIA to run for office. Meanwhile, the Senate today just passed a bill to further deregulate Wall Street. Although, the people who are saying that this will cause the next economic crash are incorrect. Dodd-Frank was never strong enough to prevent the next crash. All it did was delay the inevitable. Today's bill will cause it to happen sooner and make it worse when it does happen but will not be the cause of it in and of itself.

That's what we have to look forward to. More war, more economic hardship for the masses and a furthering of the lockdown the deep state has over the levers of power.


----------



## Draykorinee

So is Lamb winning as big as the BBC say? I don't know much about the guy, looks like he's pulled off a pretty spectacular victory in a previously republican area.


----------



## DOPA

@Tater Great video from Jimmy Dore whose been killing it since the Trump election as far as coverage from the left is concerned. I'm going to be committed I feel to switching from Secular Talk to Dore as I feel whilst Dore's content has only gotten better, Kyle's has slightly deteriorated for a number of months.

Both concerning yet unsurprising at the number of ex-CIA and military personnel who are running for the Democrats in the House, though what did take me back for a moment was the fact that these operatives are actually choosing the Democrats as their preferred party of interest. Dore did a pretty good job in stating that the Democrats have been the party of war for over a decade now supporting pretty much every intervention the US has undertaken in recent years but I think there is one component that he is missing which just hit me.

The Democrats in terms of foreign policy have actually been opposing Trump from the interventionist/authoritarian angle in criticizing his supposed links to and corruption with Russia, arguing for heavier sanctions, economic intervention and military intervention and propping up of opposition forces to Russia because many of them are still arguing that Trump is a puppet of Russia. Of course, it's an absolutely deluded argument in reality as I've explained that Trump is still continuing and in some cases is actually escalating interventionism with Russia but if you are a former CIA or military operative knowing that the Democrats are pushing for an even more hawkish foreign policy towards Russia and you believe in the military industrial complex of having a war economy, the Democrats are absolutely an even better ticket on paper in terms of rhetoric to achieving that due to the Democrats still being under Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Of course, if the Democrats somehow do manage to take the House which I personally think there is a high chance that won't happen and many of the people who are seated are linked to the CIA and the military, then it just guarantees that the war machine continues. Defence spending will continue to go up and we'll see the Democrats push for more interventionist policies as a way to "resist Trump" even though they are doing the complete opposite. The last thing the US needs is more military spending and more fucking escalation in foreign policy.

What I found interesting with Dore's interview, is the one particular case that was singled out and explained in detail. That being Elissa Slotkin, former CIA operative who also worked with the Pentagon afterwards. The Pentagon is a key piece in both the actions of the CIA both in past and present in foreign affairs and in the military industrial complex as far as military contractors, pushing for more unaccountable spending and further interventionism abroad....as well as maintaining and increasing the number of bases around the world....just closing those bases saves the US over $100 Billion dollars a year, a significant chunk of the deficit spending that continues engulf the country.....which has been between $700 to a trillion dollars a year ever since Bush's final years in office.

Why the focus on the Pentagon? I've talked about how the FED has never had a proper audit in the history of it's existence, meaning there is no accountability on how taxpayer money is being spent, borrowed or printed by the FED, how it is being used, what fraudulent activities they have been involved in (the partial audit after the economic crash showed us the tip of the iceberg in that regard), and what policies they have been implementing on a fiscal and monetary level. *The Pentagon has never been audited either. * The biggest department in the US government, that being the department of defense which is headed by the Pentagon has never been audited. There is no direct accountability or oversight into how that money is being spent, for what purpose, if there has been any fraudulent activity or if any money has not been accounted for or lost. I've only ever seen Rand Paul mention it, it seems no else in the senate really cares (there may be some congressmen or women who have brought this to light as well, wouldn't surprise me if Thomas Massie or Justin Amash have talked about this).

You know what the Pentagon's response is to a potential audit is? We're too big to be audited. Of course that is insulting but it is indicative of how screwed up things are at the moment.

Government restraint of power and also oversight, direct accountability in terms of results and responsibility should be the number one priority in terms of having a political system which is incumbent to it's citizens. And it is the one thing that the Department of Defense does not have in the slightest.


----------



## MrMister

draykorinee said:


> So is Lamb winning as big as the BBC say? I don't know much about the guy, looks like he's pulled off a pretty spectacular victory in a previously republican area.


What are the BBC saying? Could be good for some lulz.

Lamb's win is pretty big for Dems. All signs are pointing to big turnover in Congress in November. 

That region of Pennsylvania is similar to places like rurul/suburban Texas and the Deep South. We're talking white Christians and lots of them.


----------



## Draykorinee

MrMister said:


> What are the BBC saying? Could be good for some lulz.
> 
> Lamb's win is pretty big for Dems. All signs are pointing to big turnover in Congress in November.
> 
> That region of Pennsylvania is similar to places like rurul/suburban Texas and the Deep South. We're talking white Christians and lots of them.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43390652

Nothing too exciting.


----------



## virus21

MrMister said:


> What are the BBC saying? Could be good for some lulz.
> 
> Lamb's win is pretty big for Dems. All signs are pointing to big turnover in Congress in November.
> 
> That region of Pennsylvania is similar to places like rurul/suburban Texas and the Deep South. We're talking white Christians and lots of them.


Correct me if Im wrong, but isn't this Lamb guy more conservative than most Democrats?


----------



## Draykorinee

virus21 said:


> Correct me if Im wrong, but isn't this Lamb guy more conservative than most Democrats?


He's definitely more on the conservative side of democrats it seems.


----------



## MrMister

virus21 said:


> Correct me if Im wrong, but isn't this Lamb guy more conservative than most Democrats?


Probably since that region is conservative. That's most likely intentional on the part of the DNC. This is a function of Saccone being bad and Lamb being not as bad. Or seeming not as bad. Lamb is new so he automatically can't suck as much as Saccone, but only because he hasn't had the opportunity to suck yet. Anti-Trump sentiment probably factored in there too.


----------



## MrMister

I just heard about the SPACE FORCE :mark:


----------



## Art Vandaley

Space force is a good idea, making a big publicity stunt about it less so.

Also been reading up on this Lamb character:

- Anti Nancy Pelosi
- Anti National Democrats generally
- Pro Gun Rights
- Relatively Pro Trump (or at least Pro Trump Supporters)

However:

- Pro Union
- Pro Economic Equality 
- Heavily anti Paul Ryan

Very interestingly however, Democrats didn't even bother running a candidate at all in 2016 for congress and Trump won it by 20 points for the Presidency. 

Dems winning in places like this should terrify republicans re the mid terms.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973969323986509824
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973967214448652288
> There are liberals who are so deranged that they're viewing the deep state as an ally against Trump and there are Trump supporters who are stupid enough to believe that Trump is fighting against the deep state.
> 
> :ha


I thought that Trump would fight against them as he had been spied on by the previous administration yet all he did was legalize their ability to spy and do shady shit.

Someone here has a sig that says something something about running like Obama. My version of it would be "Start illegal Wars like Bush, illegally Spy and disrupt countries like Obama, legalize it all like Trump."

The fact Democrats want CIA agents to run for office in 2020 is telling. People thought that the in house fighting over in the FBI/CIA was nonsense when Trump won yet it doesn't seem to be the case. The whole "Muh Russia" and them trying to undermine the President at every turn is the same "King Maker" bullshit they pull in other countries.

It's safe to say that powerful people within the CIA and other agencies want to play King Maker and that's bad, like super super bad. This is like secret party authoritarian level bad.


----------



## virus21

Alkomesh2 said:


> Space force is a good idea, making a big publicity stunt about it less so.
> 
> Also been reading up on this Lamb character:
> 
> - Anti Nancy Pelosi
> - Anti National Democrats generally
> - Pro Gun Rights
> - Relatively Pro Trump (or at least Pro Trump Supporters)
> 
> However:
> 
> - Pro Union
> - Pro Economic Equality
> - Heavily anti Paul Ryan
> 
> Very interestingly however, Democrats didn't even bother running a candidate at all in 2016 for congress and Trump won it by 20 points for the Presidency.
> 
> Dems winning in places like this should terrify republicans re the mid terms.


Democrats have more to worry about since this is the type of guy they are trying to keep out of power, the same way they do to progressives and moderates.


----------



## Art Vandaley

virus21 said:


> Democrats have more to worry about since this is the type of guy they are trying to keep out of power, the same way they do to progressives and moderates.


He's a lifelong Democrat from a family of Democratic politicians who backs 90% of Democratic political stances.


----------



## FriedTofu

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974367418356256768
This is Baghdad Bob level of sycophancy.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

WaPo is reporting Trump is getting rid of McMaster.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-decides-to-remove-national-security-adviser-and-others-may-follow/2018/03/15/fea2ebae-285c-11e8-bc72-077aa4dab9ef_story.html?utm_term=.8becc2d9f07c


----------



## Draykorinee

FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974367418356256768
> This is Baghdad Bob level of sycophancy.


If you include only goals scored by them and not conceded Man United won the match the other night and did not lose.


----------



## Tater

Makise Kurisu said:


> @Tater Great video from Jimmy Dore whose been killing it since the Trump election as far as coverage from the left is concerned. I'm going to be committed I feel to switching from Secular Talk to Dore as I feel whilst Dore's content has only gotten better, Kyle's has slightly deteriorated for a number of months.
> 
> The Democrats in terms of foreign policy have actually been opposing Trump from the interventionist/authoritarian angle


Jimmy has always been better than Kyle but Kyle still does a pretty good of covering the news. Kyle's problem is that he's far too moderate and trusting in the so-called democratic institutions. Jimmy has already reached conclusions that Kyle hasn't gotten to yet. Kyle is still naive enough to believe the DNC can be taken over by progressives and Jimmy is smart enough to know that Wall Street 100% owns the party and will never let it go.

I will point out one thing about the both of them that annoys me to no end. When Democrats attack Trump for not being hawkish enough, both Jimmy and Kyle describe that as attacking Trump from the right. Um, no, being opposed to neocons and the MIC is not a left vs. right issue; it's a libertarian vs. authoritarian issue. You'd think Kyle would know that, considering he is a political science major. If anyone thinks opposing neocons and the MIC is a left position, please go explain to Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams that they are leftists and see how that conversation goes. The main reason this annoys me so much is that it divides left leaning and right leaning libertarians who should be natural allies in opposing the war machine.



MrMister said:


> What are the BBC saying? Could be good for some lulz.
> 
> Lamb's win is pretty big for Dems. All signs are pointing to big turnover in Congress in November.
> 
> That region of Pennsylvania is similar to places like rurul/suburban Texas and the Deep South. We're talking white Christians and lots of them.





virus21 said:


> Correct me if Im wrong, but isn't this Lamb guy more conservative than most Democrats?





draykorinee said:


> He's definitely more on the conservative side of democrats it seems.





MrMister said:


> Probably since that region is conservative. That's most likely intentional on the part of the DNC. This is a function of Saccone being bad and Lamb being not as bad. Or seeming not as bad. Lamb is new so he automatically can't suck as much as Saccone, but only because he hasn't had the opportunity to suck yet. Anti-Trump sentiment probably factored in there too.


Lamb is the exact kind of conservative right wing Democrat that led us into this mess. You can see the repeating cycle coming from a mile away. The Democrats are continuing to run to the right and fixing none of the problems that caused them to lose to Trump and get wiped out nationally in the first place. It will probably work too because any time Republicans gain this much power, the voting public realizes how horrific they are and Democrats get voted back into office. And of course, they'll still be just as shitty and neoliberal as they were during the Obama years if not more so, then people will get disgusted with them and Republicans will get another turn.

Politics in the USA is like a clogged toilet where the turds constantly swirl but never actually get flushed.



Miss Sally said:


> I thought that Trump would fight against them as he had been spied on by the previous administration yet all he did was legalize their ability to spy and do shady shit.
> 
> Someone here has a sig that says something something about running like Obama. My version of it would be "Start illegal Wars like Bush, illegally Spy and disrupt countries like Obama, legalize it all like Trump."
> 
> The fact Democrats want CIA agents to run for office in 2020 is telling. People thought that the in house fighting over in the FBI/CIA was nonsense when Trump won yet it doesn't seem to be the case. The whole "Muh Russia" and them trying to undermine the President at every turn is the same "King Maker" bullshit they pull in other countries.
> 
> It's safe to say that powerful people within the CIA and other agencies want to play King Maker and that's bad, like super super bad. This is like secret party authoritarian level bad.


Trump is a repackaged Obama who was a repackaged Bush who was a repackaged Clinton and so on and so forth. The more things change, the more they stay the same.


----------



## DesolationRow

2 Ton 21 said:


> WaPo is reporting Trump is getting rid of McMaster.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-decides-to-remove-national-security-adviser-and-others-may-follow/2018/03/15/fea2ebae-285c-11e8-bc72-077aa4dab9ef_story.html?utm_term=.8becc2d9f07c


It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. McMaster has been the most consistent war hawk in this administration, ostensibly yearning to exercise the military option in just about every imaginable international squabble. Granted, in many instances such as these some other cretin is right around the corner toward receiving the post, but, still, objectively good to see McMaster likely on the outs.


----------



## FriedTofu

draykorinee said:


> If you include only goals scored by them and not conceded Man United won the match the other night and did not lose.


My analogy would be we won the 2nd leg 1-0 so it is correct to say that we won. Forgetting to mention losing the 1st leg 0-2 and losing the tie 1-2. :lol


----------



## virus21

> Retiring U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake, an inveterate critic of President Donald Trump, charged in a Thursday speech to the National Press Club that his fellow Republicans “might not deserve to lead” because of their blind loyalty to the president.
> The Arizonan also said he could wage a 2020 GOP primary challenge against Trump.
> "It's not in my plan to run for president, but I am not ruling it out. Somebody needs to stand up for traditional Republicanism," Flake said. "Somebody needs to raise that, for nothing else than to give people hope that that decent party will be back. We'll get through this."
> 
> "It's not in my plan to run for president, but I am not ruling it out. Somebody needs to stand up for traditional Republicanism."
> - U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.
> 
> Flake's comments came on the eve of his first solo political appearance in New Hampshire, the state expected to host the nation's first presidential primary election in less than two years. Flake will deliver a speech Friday morning titled "Country Over Party," as part of the esteemed "Politics and Eggs" speaker series at Saint Anselm College.
> A full year before presidential candidates typically begin courting local voters, there is already an expectation among top Republicans that Trump will face a challenge from within his own party in the next presidential contest. Yet few think Trump could be defeated, even under the worst circumstances.
> "It's virtually impossible to beat an incumbent for the nomination,” said Steve Duprey, who represents New Hampshire at the Republican National Committee. “But that doesn't prevent people from trying with various degrees of seriousness."
> Flake acknowledged that Trump is too popular among the Republican base to lose a primary in the current political climate, but suggested that a disastrous mid-term for the GOP could realign voter loyalty.
> "Things can unravel pretty fast," Flake said.
> And if Trump's standing with the base doesn't fade, Flake would consider a presidential bid as an independent.
> "I'm not ruling that out either," he said. "There are going to be a lot of other people in the party looking for something else."
> On Monday, just three days after Flake's visit, Trump is expected to make his first appearance in New Hampshire since winning the 2016 election.


http://archive.is/etSmy#selection-1347.0-1421.144


----------



## virus21

> WASHINGTON — Attorney General Jeff Sessions late Friday night accepted the recommendation that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who took the reins of the agency during the turbulent days after the abrupt firing of James Comey, be terminated — two days before he was to retire and become eligible for full pension benefits.
> 
> 
> Though McCabe — who has been attacked by President Donald Trump — stepped down as deputy director in late January, he remained on the federal payroll, planning to retire on Sunday. The firing places his federal pension in jeopardy.
> Unlike Trump's removal of Comey last year, which produced widespread resentment inside the FBI, McCabe's termination was recommended by the agency he served for 21 years.
> Sunday is McCabe's 50th birthday, which would have made him eligible for certain substantial retirement benefits.
> The FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility proposed the termination, based on the findings of the Justice Department's inspector general. That office has been examining the bureau's handling of the Clinton e-mail investigation.
> "After an extensive and fair investigation and according to Department of Justice procedure, the Department's Office of the Inspector General provided its report on allegations of misconduct by Andrew McCabe to the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility," Sessions said in a statement at about 10 p.m. ET Friday night. "The FBI's OPR then reviewed the report and underlying documents and issued a disciplinary proposal recommending the dismissal of Mr. McCabe. Both the OIG and FBI OPR reports concluded that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor — including under oath — on multiple occasions."
> As part of the inquiry, McCabe was questioned about conversations FBI officials had with a reporter in October 2016 regarding the FBI's investigation of the Clinton Foundation. The inspector general's report, which has not been made public, concluded that McCabe was not completely candid in answering questions about those conversations, according to officials familiar with the report.
> The findings of the inspector general apparently played a role in McCabe's decision to step down in late January from the deputy director post.
> In a message to employees at the time, FBI Director Christopher Wray said, "It would be inappropriate for me to comment on specific aspects of the IG's review right now. But I can assure you that I remain staunchly committed to doing this job, in every respect, 'by the book.' I will not be swayed by political or other pressure in my decision making."
> After Comey was fired in May 2017, McCabe became the FBI's acting director. Two days later, he was asked at a congressional hearing if the shake-up was affecting operations.
> "Quite simply put, sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution," he replied, a comment that cheered the FBI's rank and file.
> But McCabe became a target of Republicans who questioned the FBI's impartiality in how the Clinton investigation was conducted.
> When McCabe's wife, Jill, ran for the state Senate in Virginia in 2015, she accepted a donation from a political action committee controlled by Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a friend and supporter of Hillary Clinton's — and that became the basis for a series of Twitter attacks from Trump.
> "Problem is that the acting head of the FBI & the person in charge of the Hillary investigation, Andrew McCabe, got $700,000 from H for wife!" Trump wrote in July 2017, erroneously claiming that McCabe had a role in facilitating the contribution.
> 
> The next day, the president asked in a tweet, "Why didn't [Attorney General] Sessions replace Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, a Comey friend who was in charge of the Clinton investigation?"
> In response to criticism that McCabe should not have played a role in the Clinton investigation, the FBI said he consulted with internal ethics officials who concluded that because his wife's campaign ended before the investigation began, there was no conflict.
> The number-two official at the FBI is now Acting Deputy Director David Bowdich, who supervised the investigation of the deadly 2015 shooting at the San Bernardino, California, community center.


http://archive.is/QCvia#selection-1473.0-1753.193


----------



## Tater

Cambridge Analytica is blowing up the news today because they got kicked off Facebook but Jimmy and Lee were talking about them a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Draykorinee

Once again misusing the term British company.

People have been talking about Cambridge analytica for ages. It's not new.


----------



## virus21

About time someone in the Democrat side said it


> Washington (CNN)North Dakota Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp said on a radio show this week that it's past time for Hillary Clinton to exit the political landscape.
> Heitkamp, who is facing a tough re-election race in a state Donald Trump won in 2016, was asked Tuesday by her brother, KFGO host Joel Heitkamp, when Clinton will "ride off into the sunset."
> "I don't know, not soon enough, I guess," she responded.
> 
> The host asked, "What's the answer?"
> And Heitkamp said again: "Not soon enough."
> The comment came as Joel Heitkamp pointed to Clinton's remarks during a recent speech in India about why the middle of the country voted for Trump in 2016.
> "I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product," Clinton said. "So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, 'Make America Great Again,' was looking backwards. You know, 'You didn't like black people getting rights, you don't like women, you know, getting jobs, you don't want to, you know, see that Indian-American succeeding more than you are. Whatever your problem is, I'm going to solve it.'"
> "I mean, she's bashing the middle of the country and my state again. I don't need her to do that," the host said during the exchange about Clinton that began about 12 minutes and 30 seconds into the interview.
> "Yeah, I know," Heidi Heitkamp responded.
> It's a much different tone than Heitkamp struck about Clinton prior to the 2016 election. She said at an event with female Democratic senators endorsing Clinton in November 2015 that "we're supporting Hillary Clinton because she is going to be one of the greatest presidents of the United States of America that we have ever seen."
> But Heitkamp did criticize Clinton in September 2016, after she referred to half of Trump's supporters as being part of a "basket of deplorables."
> "I think it was a wrong thing to say," Heitkamp said in a radio interview at the time. "I think that it ignores the very true concerns that we have about needing change in this country. I think that it was ill-advised."
> Heitkamp campaign spokeswoman Julia Krieger told CNN in a statement, "Heidi will never stand for comments that insult North Dakotans and rural America -- no matter who, or which party, they come from."
> There are 10 Democratic senators in states Trump won who are up for re-election this November, and several others criticized Clinton's remarks this week, too.
> Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown told the Huffington Post: "I don't really care what she said. I just think that that's not helpful."
> Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill told reporters on Capitol Hill when asked about Clinton's comments: "Oh, come on," adding, "You're killing me here."


----------



## Vic Capri

President Trump's lawyer in the Stormy Daniels case is Mr. Harder.

The universe has a sense of humor.

- Vic


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

The stranglehold of the Pelosi, Clinton and Schumer democrats needs to break for the Democrats to come back to their original glory days. 

I have nothing against Democrat policies that are closer to center right from the pre-Obama days. If someone who's somewhat in the center wins, I'm ok with that because they are less likely to vote like a brainless Pelosi drone.

Also: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975781534560112641
:sodone


----------



## virus21




----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> Once again misusing the term British company.
> 
> People have been talking about Cambridge analytica for ages. It's not new.


Yeah I'm surprised the people in here didn't already know everything about them tbh considered they're basically headed by the same people who head Breitbart and so many of them are fans of the kings of fake news. Hell, Bannon used to be VP of Cambridge Analytica and both are funded by Robert Mercer (who's also a big Trump donor.) I thought the whole thing had been common knowledge well over a year by now, I even brought it up in one of these Trump threads and got dismissed like they had nothing to do with anything. I thought it was common knowledge a lot of these "alt-right" organisations and figureheads were dancing to the Mercer's strings :lol

edit: a little bit of insight into the company at question.


----------



## DOPA

@DesolationRow @Reap @Tater @Miss Sally @draykorinee @Pratchett @virus21 @Vic Capri @Lumpy McRighteous @deepelemblues

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/world/europe/uk-nhs-france.html



> CALAIS, France — Serge Orlov, a 62-year-old Briton, likes to rail against what he calls the tyranny of the European Union. Like most supporters of his country’s withdrawal from the bloc, he wants Britain to strike out on its own, a fully sovereign state unshackled from Europe’s pettifogging rules and the Continent’s overweening state.
> 
> But faced with excruciating pain and a seemingly endless wait for a knee replacement, Mr. Orlov temporarily shelved his euroskepticism to take advantage of a little known National Health Service program and jump to the head of the line — in France.
> 
> After waiting a year just for the possibility of the knee replacement he badly needed, he turned to Calais Hospital in northern France, where in a matter of 10 days he found himself on the operating table for the three-hour procedure, he said in an interview. He plans to get his second knee replaced in a few weeks’ time. Back home, it took him a year to receive a letter informing him when he might have the operation.
> 
> “Waiting, it’s just miserable,” he said, describing how he had been shuttled to five different hospitals in Britain over more than eight months. Waiting rooms are “full of sick people,” he said, adding swiftly, by way of explanation, “I can be a grumpy old git.”
> 
> Mr. Orlov, who has Russian-Italian ancestry, is among a rapidly growing number of British patients who are crossing the English Channel to seek medical treatments — mostly elective surgeries — in France.
> 
> Given that the Brexit vote was largely won on highly emotive issues surrounding British sovereignty and a misleading promise by politicians that leaving the bloc would free up 350 million pounds, or about $490 million, a week to fund the N.H.S., the paradox of Britain seeking aid from France is not lost on the French hospital, nor on Mr. Orlov.
> 
> “I find something quite ironic about it,” he readily admitted. “I think it’s hilarious, actually.”
> 
> After years of austerity, Britain’s lumbering National Health Service is *under enormous strain, with severe shortages of beds and medical staff, all of which is producing waiting times for nonemergency procedures to stretch over months, and sometimes beyond a year.*
> 
> *To cope, the N.H.S. has been quietly outsourcing some surgeries to three hospitals in France for the last year or so. It is a little-known partnership, because the N.H.S. is not eager to advertise the measures it is being forced to take.*
> 
> But as more people join Mr. Orlov in crossing the English Channel — and with a predictable but particularly severe “winter crisis” this year, forcing the cancellation of tens of thousands of elective surgeries — word is spreading.
> 
> Mr. Orlov was only Calais Hospital’s 15th patient under the program, but it has received *450 inquiries from British patients over six weeks, after fielding fewer than 10 a month previously. With 500 beds and a surgery ward with an occupancy rate of 70 percent, the hospital could treat as many as 200 N.H.S. patients a year, officials said.*
> 
> Mr. Orlov marveled that he had a spacious private room in the French hospital, with a window looking out on some greenery and a television set that offered the BBC. Parking is free, he exclaimed several times. “And the food is pretty good,” he said as an afterthought. “I’ve got to say, I’m not averse to French cooking.”
> 
> *Hospitals in Britain “are so old they should be museums,” he said. “It’s shocking what’s going on.”*
> 
> *N.H.S. England’s outsourcing deal has technically little to do with Britain’s decision nearly two years ago to leave the European Union, a process known as Brexit. Rather, it has more to do with the myriad ways that countries across Europe are tied together, but that are often ignored in public discussions about Britain’s relationship with Europe.*
> 
> “Let’s hope the talks don’t speed up too quickly though, I want to get this done first, and ideally the second one,” Mr. Orlov added, half seriously, referring to negotiations about the terms of Britain’s departure.
> 
> He asked that his surgeon not be told that he had voted for Brexit — just yet. “I’m happy to tell him when he’s finished carving me up, but certainly not beforehand,” he whispered. “I do have my second knee.”
> 
> (“Oh, la la,” Martin Trelcat, the director of Calais Hospital, groaned in mock outrage when he heard he had a Brexit supporter on his hands. “It’s time for a new vote,” he joked.)
> 
> *Britain has about 340 available beds per 100,000 inhabitants, compared with a European Union average of 515, according to Eurostat, the European statistics agency. France has 706 beds for every 100,000 people, and Germany 813. Only three countries — Denmark, Ireland and Sweden — have lower rates of available beds than Britain does.*
> 
> Britain spends almost 8 percent of its gross domestic product on health care, slightly less than France and Germany, and the share is forecast to fall to about 6.8 percent by 2020, according to the Office for Budgetary Responsibility.
> 
> Estimates from the King’s Fund, an organization that researches the British health care system, suggest that N.H.S. England funding is at least $5.6 billion below what is needed this year, and that the shortfall will rise to around $30 billion by 2023.
> 
> But Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt argues that pressures on the N.H.S. are increasing not because of a lack of funding but partly because people are going to emergency rooms when they have bad colds or other minor afflictions.
> 
> *This winter, people have been left on trolleys in corridors, in scenes of chaos some have likened to “war zones.” Patients in emergency wards sometimes waited up to 12 hours to get treated. The situation generally comes to a head every winter — so much so that the “winter crisis” has almost become an annual tradition. But even Mr. Hunt admitted that this year’s was the worst, and the British Red Cross declared the situation a “humanitarian crisis.”*
> 
> Mr. Trelcat, the hospital director, said that the most likely explanation is that Britons are more patient than the French. *“We don’t understand how you can delay so many operations that make many patients suffer,” he said. “A knee replacement that is delayed for one year — in France, it just can’t happen. It takes a maximum of one month here.”
> *
> 
> The N.H.S. insists that the outsourcing partnership is “purely about patient choice.” Officials declined to comment for this article, despite repeated requests.
> 
> *But Calais Hospital representatives said that in private meetings, N.H.S. officials had told them they wanted to enter a partnership because many of its hospitals were old but had little chance of being refurbished or improved soon.*
> 
> The delays are a “sign of failure” of the N.H.S., Britain’s national pride, Mr. Trelcat said. The limited publicity about the deal may stem from an “embarrassment that most certainly comes from the fact that our hospitals are so reliable,” he added.
> 
> *N.H.S. officials who visited Calais Hospital were probably “not aware of the gap between a standard British hospital and a standard French hospital,” he continued.
> *
> 
> Mr. Orlov proffered his own explanation for the N.H.S.’s reticence to advertise the possibility of treatment abroad. *“I don’t know if it’s a breakdown in communication,” he said, “or because the N.H.S. doesn’t like the idea of parting with the hard cash and bringing it to France.”*
> 
> Either way, he said, "it’s shocking.”


I'm sure Dray knows about this already and is going to hate me for this post but here we go .

Whilst the debate in the United States surrounding healthcare at least in the public forum is not huge on the agenda as of right now (it will be at some point again guaranteed), the UK with the much touted "envy of the world" the NHS continues to struggle due to both short term and long term reasons putting pressure on our nationalized single payer system.

The last winter crisis saw around 50,000 cancellations of operations over the winter due to the NHS not being able to cope with the influx of emergency cases. Lack of rooms, hospital beds and other basic equipment saw those who in many cases had been waiting for months now having to wait even longer for operations. Whilst some both in the media and the public played down this fact, this article outlines what I thought the next basic step would be in this continuous story: patients opting out of the waiting lists altogether and going to hospitals outside the UK, which shockingly enough are now partnered with the NHS.

Whilst waiting lists are a key component of single payer systems, in the NHS's case it is an even more unique problem especially in the busiest time of the year in winter where there is a bigger demand for medical treatment due to the fact that our hospitals are nationalized. This is something even countries like Canada, Finland and Denmark have avoided doing.

Whilst funding will be continue to be the key argument surrounding the NHS and cited as the main (or in some people's minds only) problem, hospitals continue to struggle due to state mismanagement of and lack of resources due to the high level of bureaucracy within the system. Hospitals continuing to be managed by one source in the state has lead to the NHS not being able to cope with higher levels of demand with both a growing and aging population. There is a problem within the NHS that money can't solve that politicians and in the media continues to ignore. A problem which doesn't plague other countries within Europe and across the modern world.

Despite the focus on Brexit, which although there is a level of irony even within the same article the author admits has little to do with what is happening, this is a brilliant article detailing some of the long term and short term problems the system is facing which I have been talking about for years. It also manages to outline the vast difference in efficiency and quality between the NHS and our neighbours who we've just started outsourcing to in France, not even talking about countries like Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands who are arguably even better.

Whilst the author does a great job in tackling for example the lack of and bad management of resources such as beds, his focus mainly seems to be on the short term decline of the NHS focusing on funding. Whilst that is a short term problem, there is other information he could have added which is missing. For example, according to the Kingsfund thinktank, the leading non-partisan authority on the NHS, the UK has had the sharpest decline in the number of beds per patient provided by the health service in the modern world. The number of beds in the last 30 years has more than halved and has dropped by 45% in the last 20 years alone....under consecutive Conservative and Labour governments. Whilst the number of beds has declined worldwide in all healthcare services due to more modern technology and better medicine allowing patients to leave hospital on average earlier, this is a unique problem to the NHS that does not plague any other healthcare system, not even other single payer models. It cannot be explained away solely due to the so called austerity measures of the last seven years. It is a key failing of the NHS system few people want to talk about or admit.

So Americans in this thread, particularly the ones I've tagged. Remember that when a Brit mocks your healthcare system that our NHS is nothing we should in reality brag about or be proud of. It is a truly terrible system that needs major reform. If you want universal healthcare, look elsewhere to countries like Singapore and Switzerland and stay the hell away from this model .


----------



## Draykorinee

Makise Kurisu said:


> So Americans in this thread, particularly the ones I've tagged. Remember that when a Brit mocks your healthcare system that our NHS is nothing we should in reality brag about or be proud of. It is a truly terrible system that needs major reform. If you want universal healthcare, look elsewhere to countries like Singapore and Switzerland and stay the hell away from this model .


5 years ago I would have said multiple expletives, how dare you bash the NHS! 

The last 2 years have been hell on earth, I could go on for days about the NHS and the mismanagement from Labour and the Tories, from PPI, abuse constant failed restructuring and the Tories decimation of funding and services but I am finally done with supporting the NHS in its state.

The philosophy of the NHS is still sound, I know the whole socialist thing always gets thrown around like some negative but fuck that, free healthcare systems work. But the NHS no longer does, we need to go the Denmark route or something.

The thing is privatisation is such a dirty word here, probably because rail privatisation has given the UK the worst and most costly rail system in the entire world (Hyperbole) and even right wing media won't let you touch the NHS. There is a place for privatisation within a free healthcare system as evidenced by Denmark, and I think even Reaper could get on board with their limited input as a regulator and not as a provider, not the taxes of course though


----------



## Reaper

Taxes can get fucked and so can social welfare ... BUT ... IF the government is going to involved, then it needs to be forced to be involved in at most creating public hospitals and place limits on who can access those services based on income. I think that's a compromise I'm willing to accept. 

Limit the NHS to only being able to provide services to people who fall below the poverty line. 

Everyone else pays and they get tax breaks to be able to afford private healthcare. Same model can be followed successfully for schools. If a family's household income is over a certain threshold, they get to pay their own way. Most people would be happy with that. It reduces the cost burden on public services and back to the individuals. You live according to your equity, not equality. Most rich people already send their kids to private schools and seek out private healthcare. 

You want more people to get rich instead of forcing everyone to be poor. 

As far as the retirees are concerned, whatever happened to their retirement planning? This imo is a direct result of Western's cultural abandonment of shared/pooled family resources. My dad is currently on my brother's medical health insurance at 75. Of course, he also planned for his retirement and has a ton of money, but even if he didn't, his health insurance is his children. It works.


----------



## Tater

Makise Kurisu said:


> If you want universal healthcare, look elsewhere to countries like Singapore and Switzerland and stay the hell away from this model .


Rub some dirt on it and walk it off.


----------



## virus21

Tater said:


> Rub some dirt on it and walk it off.


Get a Z Pack




> FRANKFORT, Ky. (WKYT)- Senator Rand Paul says he supports a bill that would legalize the use of medical marijuana in the state of Kentucky.
> Senator Paul made his support public following the Kentucky House Judiciary Committee voting to not vote on the bill on Wednesday.
> Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes tweeted Pauls statement on Friday. The Senator says the decision on the bill should be left to state governments, but the currently stagnant bill has his support.
> "I believe decisions on how to regulate cannabis should be left to state governments," Paul said in the statement. "I will continue to work to make sure the federal government respects federalism and does not interfere with such state decisions."
> Senator Paul, a medical doctor himself, says medical marijuana should be an option for patients.
> "I support passage of House Bill 166. I believe patients suffering from medical illness should have the right to try medical cannabis."
> The bill will now stay in the House Judiciary Committee.
> 
> In response to letters from State Sen. Albert Robinson, Sen. @RandPaul has indicated he supports #HB166 – #MedicalCannabis!
> 
> It's time to act! #kyga18 pic.twitter.com/j9nr8nRXja
> — Alison L. Grimes (@KySecofState) March 9, 2018


http://archive.is/BXMJK#selection-1823.0-1927.13


----------



## Vic Capri

John McCain said:


> An American president does not lead the Free World by congratulating dictators on winning sham elections.


Did this fucking dinosaur criticize Barack Obama for doing the same thing 6 years ago?

- Vic


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/976697582121463808
Props to what I just read described as the Fox News of Australia for having Jimmy Dore on their channel. You sure as shit would never see that in the USA; especially the part about Syria. :clap


----------



## Art Vandaley

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/976697582121463808
> Props to what I just read described as the Fox News of Australia for having Jimmy Dore on their channel. You sure as shit would never see that in the USA; especially the part about Syria. :clap


Sky News is nothing like Fox News not sure who would have said that or why tbh


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

Total fucking sell-out. 

Passed another 1.3 trillion dollar bill. Keeps funding Planned Parenthood. Keeps Obamacare afloat. No stoppage of funding for sanctuary states. Gets little to no money for the wall. 

No point in voting republican because there is no such thing anymore. America is a uniparty system pretending to be a two party system. It really does not matter who you vote for anymore.


----------



## virus21

Reap said:


> Total fucking sell-out.
> 
> Passed another 1.3 trillion dollar bill. Keeps funding Planned Parenthood. Keeps Obamacare afloat. No stoppage of funding for sanctuary states. Gets little to no money for the wall.
> 
> No point in voting republican because there is no such thing anymore. America is a uniparty system pretending to be a two party system. It really does not matter who you vote for anymore.


Its been that way for a looooooong time now.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> Its been that way for a looooooong time now.


Yeah well, fuck me for being optimistic.


----------



## virus21

Reap said:


> Yeah well, fuck me for being optimistic.


Nothing wrong with that. Even I was optimistic last election and was willing to give Trump and chance. But its just business as usual.


----------



## Reaper

At least we will always have the memes and the memories. Good times.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Keeps Obamacare afloat.


Obamacare is on life support since the Tax Reform Bill got rid of the $700 fine. It will collapse on its own. 

- Vic


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Vic Capri said:


> Obamacare is on life support since the Tax Reform Bill got rid of the $700 fine. It will collapse on its own.
> 
> - Vic


Any answer for people that are on it or should they also be on life support? I am one of those people since have seizures and sleep apnia and would be thousands of dollars of debt without it.


----------



## DaRealNugget

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/976948306927607810
How soon before we go to war?


----------



## Reaper

He should just step down and officially let Hillary take over because he's become her and there's no difference at all.


----------



## MrMister

This is quite terrible. All I can say really.


----------



## DesolationRow

Fourteen months into his presidency Donald Trump seems to have largely become just another generic Republican president, save for the twitter hot takes and willingness to meet people as notorious as the North Korean head of state. Sad.


----------



## Tater

DaRealNugget said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/976948306927607810
> How soon before we go to war?


Well, been nice knowing you guys. 

The worst of the worst of the neocons just got a high ranking position in Trump's administration. This psycho wants to go to war with both Iran and North Korea at the same time on top of all the other war insanities we've got going on right now. This is a mother fucker who still believes the Iraq catastrophe was a good idea. Bolton is so bad that he makes Pompeo and Bloody Gina look like sane picks by comparison.

Remember when Trump still occasionally acted anti-establishment and said we should stop intervening militarily abroad so we can rebuild at home? He's a puppet alright and it's not of Putin. The reality is that he's a puppet of Wall Street, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the overall deep state neocon military industrial complex, just the same as Obama/Bush/Clinton/Bush/etc. before him.


----------



## Vic Capri

> How soon before we go to war?


May

- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

Don't worry guys, once the latest Scott Adams blog drops this will all make sense, there's nothing to worry about, believe me.


----------



## Vic Capri

I've supported President Trump on just about everything. This is where I draw the line.










- Vic


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977037946154045440
Everyone should be legit terrified of Bolton getting this position in Trump's administration. You don't hire a butcher if what you want is a manicure. He would not have been given this position if a major war was not already being planned. When it comes to politics, a lot of hyperbole is thrown around. There is no hyperbole surrounding Bolton. He's as evil as everyone says he is. War with Iran and North Korea is basically guaranteed at this point. If we end up in a hot war with Russia too, a country who can only match us in nuclear power, kiss the human race goodbye. Everyone knows Russia is far overmatched in conventional military means. We'd be putting Putin in a position of choosing between certain defeat and using nukes. 

Fuck. These are genuinely scary times.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977037946154045440
> Everyone should be legit terrified of Bolton getting this position in Trump's administration. You don't hire a butcher if what you want is a manicure. He would not have been given this position if a major war was not already being planned. When it comes to politics, a lot of hyperbole is thrown around. There is no hyperbole surrounding Bolton. He's as evil as everyone says he is. War with Iran and North Korea is basically guaranteed at this point. If we end up in a hot war with Russia too, a country who can only match us in nuclear power, kiss the human race goodbye. Everyone knows Russia is far overmatched in conventional military means. We'd be putting Putin in a position of choosing between certain defeat and using nukes.
> 
> Fuck. These are genuinely scary times.


Wouldn't surprise me if the stink on this guy gets too much for The Don and he does a quick backflip and Mooches him.


----------



## Tater

yeahbaby! said:


> Wouldn't surprise me if the stink on this guy gets too much for The Don and he does a quick backflip and Mooches him.


I don't care how it's done. Bolton must be removed from power by any means necessary.


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> Wouldn't surprise me if the stink on this guy gets too much for The Don and he does a quick backflip and Mooches him.


One can hope!

Bolton is a lunatic. 

What's scary is that both parties sans a few social issues are pushing for a more hawkish and overbearing approach to how the Government works. Both parties are pushing for bipartisanship that's not in the best interest of the Nation or it's people.


----------



## Tater

Just in case anyone was still having any doubts about how much of a cuck Trump has become since taking office...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/375705302382817281


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> Just in case anyone was still having any doubts about how much of a cuck Trump has become since taking office...
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/375705302382817281


Yea I was pretty much done when he legalized the shit the Obama Administration was doing. At least with Trump will hopefully be a slow burn because with Hilary it would be much further along now.

Well in 2020 Democrats can speed up the process while the sheep tell us how great it is because the Democrat candidate parrots some social issues that effect like 30 people in the US. 

Meanwhile issues with things like "Dreamers" are going to get worse years down the road because we're going to have loads more people with no new jobs, constant war, fracturing American culture and more inane identity politics further segregating people. 

Not to worry, increasing crime, poverty, a failing HC system, more crony capitalism and more taxes to further increase our welfare state which helps non-citizens more than actual citizens will be solved by removing some more statues and some fluff legislation being added like bathroom laws.


----------



## Vic Capri

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/976172356250034176
- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

yeahbaby! said:


> Don't worry guys, once the latest Scott Adams blog drops this will all make sense, there's nothing to worry about, believe me.


Yeah just waiting for the 4d chess posts.


----------



## GothicBohemian

I hate to say I told you so in a situation this important but guys, I told you so. Trump is an inconsistent, unreliable phony, not particularly intelligent, and will do whatever strikes him as a good idea in the moment, and that includes loading up his support staff with yes-men-and-women culled from conservative tv and the worst lows of establishment politicians. He's no swamp drainer or 4D chess master. 

Bolton is just the latest in a string of poor decisions that may have devastating consequences.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Stormy Daniel's lawyer.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977015170231885825


----------



## MrMister

I heard that buried under the Bolton hire is the announcement that the aluminum/steel tariff thing won't affect any of our allies. So that was a just a publicity stunt like I thought.


----------



## Draykorinee

2 Ton 21 said:


> Stormy Daniel's lawyer.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977015170231885825


What is that?


----------



## virus21




----------



## Tater




----------



## Arya Dark




----------



## BruiserKC

And true to form...Trump throws out the transgender troops ban to pacify his diehard supporters who just got screwed when he rolled over and signed a giant pile of crap with a side of crap fries. 

There is no justification for his surrender. He says he will never sign a bill like this again but last year after he threatened a shutdown he ran right into the arms of Chuck and Nancy. He has fooled all of you who voted for this.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Pompeo, Haspel and now Bolton. Apparently someone didn't tell Trump that "Trouble always comes in threes" is a figure of speech, not a Goddamn instruction.

:fuck

Save us, BASED Paul. You're our only hope.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/976555838306471936
:applause

I went from :lol to :lmao when I reached the last 2 on the list. Whole lot of truth on this list.


----------



## Reaper

Gee, I wonder why people like me want to completely live off the grid.


----------



## FriedTofu

Trump threw a hissy fit because the funding from the bill didn't allow for his wall prototype to be built (even though it made funding available for more fencing) and made Washington scramble for a few hours. :lmao

So anyone looking forward to the North Korean talks yet?


----------



## DesolationRow

Without a doubt this week represented the nadir of Donald Trump's presidency and, in all likelihood, the true beginning of the end of the "MAGA" project. At this critical juncture Trump's presidency is barely distinguishable from being the third term of George W. Bush aside from his personal longing to protect the ever-vanishing U.S. border with Mexico and general comparative reluctance to reach for the military option sidearm. In the political theater this was an astounding rout for Democrats, who are cheering on the signing of the $1.3 trillion omnibus bill, a mere $0.0016 trillion of which is allocated for funding for fortifying the U.S.-Mexican border, something resembling less than a tincture on behalf of the central component of Trump's candidacy. Full funding for Planned Parenthood, Obamacare, oodles of foreign aid and a host of other winning items for Democrats as Charles Schumer unabashedly celebrates, and for good reason. Trump's poor reading of the situation calls into question the point of his routing all of those Republican candidates for this is precisely what one would have expected from a Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio administration. Democrats and Republicans alike recognize that any threats of a veto are empty rhetoric. This was the most advantageous moment for such a spectacle on the part of Trump but instead he meekly surrendered while crying about it for a day. The 2,200-page omnibus bill is the defining lost battle of Trump's presidency to date, energizing Democrats who are already poised to crash into Congress this fall with the proverbial "blue wave." Markets have the Democrats' odds of retaking the House at nearly 70%, and what's more, though the Democrats are defending twenty-five of their Senate seats while Republicans are defending only eight of their own, their present odds for capturing the Senate are hovering at around 40%. And Trump's following of the agenda provided by Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and others, while staffing his national-security team with neocons directly responsible for pushing the Iraq War, and therefore as Trump tweeted five years ago, are unworthy of consideration, is serving as integral conduit toward this political destination.


----------



## Vic Capri

Its very frustrating because President Trump has the chance of a lifetime to repeat history by making peace in a couple of months (Not even Obama had that opportunity with the Koreas) and he's going to squander it because of Bolton. 

- Vic


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977078521930665984
Somebody should make a .gif of Bolton-and-Trump as Thelma-and-Louise flying off the edge of the cliff together.


----------



## Tater

Assange is going to war with Zuckerberg and I love every second of it. :mark:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977448815337734144

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977447495239319553

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977324471215378432
Fuck Facebook. I've made a lot of mistakes in my life but having a FB page is not one of them.


----------



## virus21

Orwell and Huxley are spinning in their graves right now.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

draykorinee said:


> What is that?





> “That DVD,” Avenatti said to CNN on Friday, “contains evidence substantiating the relationship. And the tweet is a warning shot. I want to be really clear about this. It is a warning shot. And it’s a warning shot to Michael Cohen and anyone else associated with President Trump that they’d better be very, very careful after Sunday night relating to what they say about my client and what spin or lies they attempt to tell the American people.”


Might have the first presidential sex tape, but probably not. Not that I care if he nailed her. It's Trump. He cheated on all his wives. Why would it be a surprise if he did it again?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/976555838306471936
> :applause
> 
> I went from :lol to :lmao when I reached the last 2 on the list. Whole lot of truth on this list.


BASED kids are one of the most promising signs of both a civilization and gene pool. :drose

Hopefully many of them don't have self-righteous, PC-whipped parents, because I know without question that it'll be sooner than later that kids cursed with those kinds of fucksticks will be given tender, loving medication in order to curb their spiciness. :armfold


----------



## Mra22

Well Trump is officially a sellout. Figures.....Cabt believe he’d crumble and sign that bill


----------



## Reaper

North Korea is a fucking dip on the radar. They can't even shoot straight. 

Making a big deal of those peace talks is nothing more than a horse and pony show and a last grasp at some sort of 'achievement' ... It is and it isn't. It's a who cares moment when all the important policy positions are completely and utterly fucking dead in the water. 

Trump is proving to be as limp dicked as all his predecessors when it comes to Hardline policies that got him elected.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977683298481856515
:lmao


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977683298481856515
> :lmao


This immediately came to mind after seeing that:






8*D


----------



## DesolationRow

@Tater @Lumpy McRighteous


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977167580963143680
Twice as much funding for Israeli "security assistance" as for U.S.-Mexican border fencing. :lmao :lmao


----------



## Tater

DesolationRow said:


> @Tater @Lumpy McRighteous
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977167580963143680
> Twice as much funding for Israeli "security assistance" as for U.S.-Mexican border fencing. :lmao :lmao


#AmericaFirst #MAGA


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

DesolationRow said:


> @Tater @Lumpy McRighteous
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977167580963143680
> Twice as much funding for Israeli "security assistance" as for U.S.-Mexican border fencing. :lmao :lmao


Bibi and Mossad be like:






:troll


----------



## virus21

DesolationRow said:


> @Tater @Lumpy McRighteous
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977167580963143680
> Twice as much funding for Israeli "security assistance" as for U.S.-Mexican border fencing. :lmao :lmao











Fuck that shit


----------



## Arkham258

Mra22 said:


> Well Trump is officially a sellout. Figures.....Cabt believe he’d crumble and sign that bill


You mean the bill that gave him a big boost to military funding? That he can also use to build the wall?

And as for sex tapes, I'd expect we'd sooner see one of Hillary raping a child than anything involving that lying cunt Stormy Daniels. 

Trump's still winning. You guys just don't see it.


----------



## Reaper




----------



## BruiserKC

Arkham258 said:


> You mean the bill that gave him a big boost to military funding? That he can also use to build the wall?
> 
> And as for sex tapes, I'd expect we'd sooner see one of Hillary raping a child than anything involving that lying cunt Stormy Daniels.
> 
> Trump's still winning. You guys just don't see it.


Let me make clear that my position never changed from day one. I wanted Trump to succeed but I didn't trust him. I had a feeling that one day his true colors would come out. Friday was that day. He completely rolled over and folded in an attempt to once again gain the love of the people who hate him. However, this time he not only didn't gain any new supporters, he has succeeded in alienating a large number of his base. 

He wanted $25 billion in funding for the wall...he got $1.6 billion. I know the story has been floating around that he was going to get the Army Corps of Engineers to build it (which is where you would say the military funding would come in to play), but that has been debunked. 

For those of you who actually believed Trump was pro-life...his signing of the bill continues to alleviate funds to Planned Parenthood through September. If you thought he was going to ax funding for organizations such as the National Endowment for the Arts, he just kept funding them...as well as our public broadcasting arms as well. In fact, this is the 2nd largest spending bill in the history of this country ever signed by the POTUS (right behind Obama's TARP). I am a fiscal conservative through and through...this thing is so full of pork WF could hold 20 luaus. He has just added on more debt that our children will have to pay off, all for a few extra bucks to our military (as a former vet I have no problem with making sure they are funded but they piss away some money also) and a few to give the impression he's getting his wall. 

You can lay blame on Congress, and believe me I do since they are so out of touch with what We The People want. However, this notion that Trump was forced to sign this is bullshit. He could have followed through on his threat to veto this bill and make Congress come back to put something together that was more to his satisfaction. Maybe he would get the blame for a government shutdown, but maybe he'd actually be respected for taking a stand for something he believes in and holding to his guns. 

He did this last year, remember? He told us, "The government needs a good shutdown in September". When September came, he ran to Schumer and Pelosi with open arms hoping to cut a deal and completely undercut his own party. Now, he has pissed off a good chunk of his own base and undercut the conservatives in Congress that have gone to bat with him all this time. Conservative sites like Breitbart, Newsmax, Daily Wire, the Federalist, and WorldNetDaily have commenters up in arms on what he did. They should...each one of his supporters should be howling mad today at what Trump did to undercut his own cause. He talks about being unpredictable, that was fine on the campaign trail but you can't run the country that way. Sticking your finger up to see which way the wind blows is not how to do things. 

Schwarzenegger did this when he was governator of California. Early on, he ran inexplicably across the aisle to cut deals with the Dems. Eventually, no one wanted to work with him because they couldn't trust him. By the time he left office, his approval ratings were 10 points lower then the previous governor (whom had his ass recalled by the voters). Trump is heading that way now...no wonder the GOP don't trust him and the Dems still hate him. 

As for the Stormy Daniels thing...there is no doubt a possibility that there are a few women that are making these accusations towards him are lying and looking for a sweet settlement. However, with as many that are coming forward that tells me there might be some truth to some of what he does. He admitted to coming up on women and kissing them because he could, it's on tape. No one put a gun to his head to make those statements. I believe some of these women, if not all, are telling the truth. That says something about character. 

I know what you're about to say..."He did it before he was President, while Bill Clinton was banging interns in the Oval Office." Trust me, I screamed about Clinton's infidelities as President and his complete disregard for his marriage vows. I'm not going to give Trump a pass for the same thing. It's well-known he cheated on wife number one with wife number two. Wife number three said he was putting the Mack on her while married to number two. Character counts for me...and I can't trust a man who would cheat on his significant other. Whose not to say that person wouldn't do the same on a business deal. If I was caught nailing a person that worked under me while on private time, I couldn't make the excuse it wasn't at work so it was OK. If Clinton was a scumbag, Trump is also. Whether their wives choose to stick it out is on them. 

But, it shows everyone here (or should) the testament of his character. I know during the campaign I hammered Trump for being a life-long Democrat and friend of the Clinton crime family. We now are seeing that Trump is maybe worse...he has no morals or values other then which benefit him and him alone. While I pounded Obama here as one of his harshest critics, I understood that at least he had a set of principles and his own moral compass to guide him. Granted, it wasn't what I agreed with, but he still had that about him and you never heard of him messing around on Michelle (even though I'm sure she wouldn't have tolerated it). This man will say whatever he wants to be loved. Now that he's getting spanked, he is bringing back out the transgender troop ban in an attempt to alleviate attention from the crap buffet he just signed. I hope none of you are fooled by it. 

I normally love proving people wrong, but in this case I didn't want to be. However, we have a case of what Roger Daltrey sang about, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."


----------



## virus21




----------



## Draykorinee

virus21 said:


>


That dude makes 3k a month from filming himself shirtless talking about political stuff? God Damn. Dude gets 70k views. Madness.


----------



## virus21

draykorinee said:


> That dude makes 3k a month from filming himself shirtless talking about political stuff? God Damn. Dude gets 70k views. Madness.


Thats nothing. You should see how much someone like Pew De Pie makes. And it isn't hard these days. Look at the state of mainstream entertainment and news.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

How many of the die-hard Trump supporters here are left then? A LOT on my social media friends lists have changed their minds now. That "red pill" hangover must be a bad one :lol


----------



## virus21

RavishingRickRules said:


> How many of the die-hard Trump supporters here are left then? A LOT on my social media friends lists have changed their minds now. That "red pill" hangover must be a bad one :lol


Not many since Trump proved that he is just another establishment dog.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

virus21 said:


> Not many since Trump proved that he is just another establishment dog.


A mainstream TV media star, privileged upper class real estate developer from a wealthy background who used to fund the Clintons and has a looong history of shady business deals is an establishment dog? Who could have POSSIBLY predicted that? :lmao


----------



## virus21

RavishingRickRules said:


> A mainstream TV media star, privileged upper class real estate developer from a wealthy background who used to fund the Clintons and has a looong history of shady business deals is an establishment dog? Who could have POSSIBLY predicted that? :lmao


Everyone was fooled. And speaking of the Clintons, wait until the riff raff start screaming "This would never happen if Hilary won!" Bullshit.


----------



## Draykorinee

virus21 said:


> Thats nothing. You should see how much someone like Pew De Pie makes. And it isn't hard these days. Look at the state of mainstream entertainment and news.


For sure, i have been watching some fortnite videos of a guy called ninja, makes up to 500k+ a month from playing a game.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

virus21 said:


> Everyone was fooled. And speaking of the Clintons, wait until the riff raff start screaming "This would never happen if Hilary won!" Bullshit.


Everybody wasn't fooled tbh, a lot of Americans were though. Most of everybody else predicted he'd be a piss-poor president. And yeah the Clintons are fucked up, but then the guy you all thought would be the saviour from them was best pals with them and donated a fuckton of money to them and you thought he was alright. I guess in politics, Americans easily become marks if the promos are good enough :lol


----------



## virus21

RavishingRickRules said:


> Everybody wasn't fooled tbh, a lot of Americans were though. Most of everybody else predicted he'd be a piss-poor president. And yeah the Clintons are fucked up, but then the guy you all thought would be the saviour from them was best pals with them and donated a fuckton of money to them and you thought he was alright. I guess in politics, Americans easily become marks if the promos are good enough :lol


Sadly yes. Not helped that Hillary is such an elitist snob, that even Trump looked better.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

draykorinee said:


> That dude makes 3k a month from filming himself shirtless talking about political stuff? God Damn. Dude gets 70k views. Madness.


Subbed to Styx several months ago and have enjoyed his content ever since. Still waiting on him to unveil purchasable plushies of himself, but I'm confident they'll be worth the wait.

That's about all. Peace out. :yoshi


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin was on Chris Wallace this morning.


----------



## FriedTofu

RavishingRickRules said:


> A mainstream TV media star, privileged upper class real estate developer from a wealthy background who used to fund the Clintons and has a looong history of shady business deals is an establishment dog? Who could have POSSIBLY predicted that? :lmao


Anti-establishment trick is easy to pull. Just be a novice in politics.

I am more amazed at how Trump managed to get people to buy into the nonsense that he can't be a corrupt politician because he donated to a.k.a bribed politicians. Or maybe his supporters don't mind corruption as long as it serves their interests. :shrug


----------



## yeahbaby!

virus21 said:


> Everyone was fooled. And speaking of the Clintons, wait until the riff raff start screaming "This would never happen if Hilary won!" Bullshit.


* Spits coffee out. 'Everyone was fooled'? 

Ahem, more like middle America was fooled, the rest of the world always knew he was a clown.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> How many of the die-hard Trump supporters here are left then? A LOT on my social media friends lists have changed their minds now. That "red pill" hangover must be a bad one :lol


He's not being abandoned for any of the reasons why most leftists claimed were bad about him originally - so the whole "told you so" movement that's coming out is based on total and utter misunderstanding - once again. Not surprised because people who were never Trumpers never bothered to exert their minds to understand his support in the first place. 

He's being abandoned because he isn't living up to his policy promises. 

Not because of his character (that he's racist, mysoginistic, a cheat etc etc), or the fact that his _promised_ policies are having a terrible impact like was the original criticism of him.

Hardly anyone in here outright came out and said he was lying. The most heavy handed criticism was that he's racist, mysoginistic etc etc. That he's Hitler reincarnated. Etc Etc. Ultimately, same crap all over again. It's ok to gloat, but at least these people gloating need to know what they're gloating about when in fact, they don't. They never understood Trumpism and from the looks of it, still don't.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> He's not being abandoned for any of the reasons why most leftists claimed were bad about him originally - so the whole "told you so" movement that's coming out is based on total and utter misunderstanding - once again. Not surprised because people who were never Trumpers never bothered to exert their minds to understand his support in the first place.
> 
> He's being abandoned because he isn't living up to his policy promises.
> 
> Not because of his character (that he's racist, mysoginistic, a cheat etc etc), or the fact that his _promised_ policies are having a terrible impact like was the original criticism of him.
> 
> Hardly anyone in here outright came out and said he was lying. The most heavy handed criticism was that he's racist, mysoginistic etc etc. That he's Hitler reincarnated. Etc Etc. Ultimately, same crap all over again. It's ok to gloat, but at least these people gloating need to know what they're gloating about when in fact, they don't. They never understood Trumpism and from the looks of it, still don't.


I was just wondering if his supporters here were still die-hards tbh, almost none of the ones on my social media lists are. The main thing I'm seeing from them is the realisation that there's no "4d chess" being played, there's no master of manipulation or negotiation, there's no saviour. There's just a fairly incompetent dude who's way out of his depth unable to achieve anything he promised and bowing to the will of the establishment. I never called him Hitler (in fact I flat out railed against anybody who did) either tbh, I tried to give him a fair shake (and have given him credit in this very thread when he did stuff I thought was good) despite thinking he's an utter buffoon. I'm not even gloating about it either, America doing well is a good thing for the UK and for me personally with so many friends and family out there. I just find it a little humorous that so many people a couple of months ago acted like he was some infallible genius and tried to act like those of us who thought the opposite were under some mass hysteria and just couldn't understand. It's nice to see some reality come back into the equation.


----------



## Reaper

I've always criticized his policies despite coming across as a hardcore supporter. 

I still think that at least 60-75% of anti-Trumpers are in a mass hysteria bubble (especially with the Russian and other conspiracy theories) ... But now at this point I'd say that a good chunk of his supporters (upwards of 50-60%) are also in a hysteria bubble. 

I'm still pragmatic and judging him from policy to policy as I always have. There's still good left in his administration, I can see it - BUT - it's closer to being shit now than it was a few months ago.

Ultimately, with each corrupt and incompetent administration that comes into power, eventually (hopefully) people will lose faith in the government entirely. Unfortunately, the way the retarded system is set up that even if only 2 people show up to vote, we will still have a federal government - and in that lies the ultimate and biggest flaw of "democratic" systems.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Oh believe me, most of the rest of the world has seen both hysteria bubbles since the election happened. It's been quite surreal watching a large portion of the American populace turn into armies of babbling lunatics with one side screaming "argh racism, argh sexist, argh wants to fuck his daughter" whilst the others scream "argh triggered, argh snowflakes, argh libtards." One side saw him as the devil, the other saw him as the messiah, I think most people I know outside of the US just think he's a bit of an idiot if I'm honest. My biggest issue with him has always been that I don't think he's remotely able to do his job. He's completely lacking in diplomacy and international relations, his skill set of dodgy dealing and shady business practices seem counter-intuitive to "no corruption," his "drain the swamp" always seemed laughable considering how big a Clinton donor he was, I just never saw it in him at all. For me he's always come across as a snake oil salesman more than some great leader, and I think he's been proving that to be the case. His political stance seems to basically be: "What do I need to say for people to like me?" Populism is all well and good, but if you're going to make up your politics as you go along it's probably better to do so in a Big Tent party rather than the varying degrees of right-wing politics in the US where people are so partisan I'm surprised they don't hold all the debates in sports stadiums with merchandise and memorabilia. Frankly, I think both the Democrats and Republicans are pretty shitty. The Democrats are the typical neocon bullshit we have in the UK with the Conservative Party and the Republicans seem to range from neocon to batshit crazy. I'm not sold on either ideal.


----------



## Reaper

America was built upon the foundations of a non-interventionalist minarchy. Trump's appeal was in that "Trumpism" was *in theory* the closest to that original ideal. There is no harm in trusting the person on what they say and I say that about Obama supporters as well. You don't knock people for putting their faith in someone who says the right things. You can't live in a social world with real consequences with the kind of cynicism that some people hold. You can only choose to be apathetic when the systems don't directly affect you - but in many cases, it's that perception alone that allows tyranny to take hold (like it continues to do world over. 

In all honesty, it wasn't until even 1900's that the IRS was formed to tax the population to fund the World War I effort. Despite being a tax-free society by and large, America was never behind the rest of the world in terms of its internal development. The idea that we need to be taxed in order to continue to develop and for people to be able to feed themselves is a mostly modern day myth. It's also a holdover from the monarchies where now we've basically replaced monarchs and put in just as many corrupt (if not more) elite nobility that also does the same. 

ALL tyrannical rulers have always claimed to "Give me money so I can protect you from outsiders", but also enacting laws that act like they're really nothing more than extortion schemes. 

*All *of the current problems with the American Federal Government (neoconism) can be traced back to how much of a shithole Europe was in the 1900's-1940's .. and then the Middle East since then. 

Fuck the world. America was supposed to blaze its own path.


----------



## yeahbaby!

RavishingRickRules said:


> I think most people I know outside of the US just think he's a bit of an idiot if I'm honest. My biggest issue with him has always been that I don't think he's remotely able to do his job. He's completely lacking in diplomacy and international relations, his skill set of dodgy dealing and shady business practices seem counter-intuitive to "no corruption," his "drain the swamp" always seemed laughable considering how big a Clinton donor he was, I just never saw it in him at all. For me he's always come across as a snake oil salesman more than some great leader, and I think he's been proving that to be the case.


Pretty much covers it perfectly.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

I think my only issue with the "no harm in trusting the person on what they say" is that in Trump's case, he's had a long track record of telling people things then fucking them over in his business career. If he offered me a chicken sandwich I'd get the meat tested. I wouldn't trust him on his word. Same as I wouldn't trust Hillary on hers or Tony Blair on his. It's easy to say the right things, but the guy's a known liar, manipulator and shady businessman, that's not somebody I'd get behind. I'm all for giving people a chance, but for me personally, you should judge a person based on their history and track record as much as their current stance on a subject. As an example: I don't particularly like Jeremy Corbyn, however, when he says he's have a non-intervention foreign policy and that would be a part of the plans to combat extremism alongside improved domestic security I'd have pretty good faith that he wouldn't turn around and bomb the shit out of everywhere. Why? He's voted for over 30 years AGAINST every foreign war we've had. That doesn't mean I'd give him my vote, but I'd have a good idea on his true thoughts on that subject. Now with Trump, he says all the right things about Hillary Clinton, and I agreed with a lot of what he said about her during the campaign. However, did anybody really expect he'd lock her up? I'm not even remotely convinced he believed most of what he said, it was just the right thing to say to "make the deal." If she was so bad, why support her and her husband for so long? If she's so morally bankrupt, why associate with a person like that? If the system her and her husband work with is so corrupt, why be a part of it as a donor? To me it feels like I'd need some of that hysteria bubble to even contemplate supporting the guy, because rationally that's a bet I wouldn't take.


----------



## FriedTofu

Isn't Trump's main message basically "give me power so I can protect you from outsiders"?


----------



## BruiserKC

FriedTofu said:


> Anti-establishment trick is easy to pull. Just be a novice in politics.
> 
> I am more amazed at how Trump managed to get people to buy into the nonsense that he can't be a corrupt politician because he donated to a.k.a bribed politicians. Or maybe his supporters don't mind corruption as long as it serves their interests. :shrug


For many, the anger was based on the fact that the leadership in Congress wasn't doing what it was paid to do and that was properly represent us and do what WE THE PEOPLE want done. I am one of those that was angry...it's why I originally left the Republican Party and have been a registered independent for nearly 10 years. I joined up with a Tea Party organization (which actually got it's start in the closing days of the George W. Bush administration) because I was tired of business as usual in Washington. For them, Trump was a "fuck you" to the establishment where they sent a message saying that if you can't get your house in order, we're sending someone that you have to work with. 

Others, it's the "Anyone but Hillary" crowd. Many political pundits like the Limbaughs, Levin, Hannity, etc...beat the drum that if HRC was elected then that was the end of America as we know it and that we would be permanently changed to a socialist state. In fact, there are still a number of people out there who still say Hillary would have been worse then Trump (overlooking the fact Trump was very good friends and a donor to the Clintons for many years). That's one reason I find his talking about investigating the Clintons hilarious...Trump's name appears in the ledger of the Clinton Foundation as a donor! 

A substantial number of Americans felt this was a horrible election with two equally shitty choices. That's why many of them stayed home. This was the quintessential South Park election where we were really stuck choosing between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. 



Reap said:


> He's not being abandoned for any of the reasons why most leftists claimed were bad about him originally - so the whole "told you so" movement that's coming out is based on total and utter misunderstanding - once again. Not surprised because people who were never Trumpers never bothered to exert their minds to understand his support in the first place.
> 
> He's being abandoned because he isn't living up to his policy promises.
> 
> Not because of his character (that he's racist, mysoginistic, a cheat etc etc), or the fact that his _promised_ policies are having a terrible impact like was the original criticism of him.
> 
> Hardly anyone in here outright came out and said he was lying. The most heavy handed criticism was that he's racist, mysoginistic etc etc. That he's Hitler reincarnated. Etc Etc. Ultimately, same crap all over again. It's ok to gloat, but at least these people gloating need to know what they're gloating about when in fact, they don't. They never understood Trumpism and from the looks of it, still don't.


I can speak on this from a unique position...as one who was NeverTrump (I prefer the term NeverLiberal) I am probably partly in "I told you so" mode. However, my criticism comes from the far right and knew that at some point his true colors would come out. 

I understood the appeal of Trump, people were sick and tired (myself included) of business as usual political bullshit in Washington. In Trump, they saw somebody that would shake-up Washington and send a message that if you aren't going to do what we want that we are going to send someone you have to deal with. For the most part, Washington is vastly out of touch with the common people. Trump is not a polished politician, he speaks his mind and people love that about him. They voted for him in the hopes Washington would get that message. 

I don't buy into the Deep State nonsense. If Trump had put his head down and gotten to work and actually did his best to be that hard-working businessman he had the reputation of being (regardless of his mulitiple bankruptcies, one can't say he didn't bust his ass to build up his empire), things would be different right now. There would still be his detractors, but there's nothing wrong with ignoring them and just doing your job. Instead, he used up political capital to rub it into the faces of those detractors...many of who would have probably been more then willing to work with him. Are there those in Washington who want him to fail...absolutely. However, his success or failure is strictly on him and him alone. 

People are now starting to wake up to this fact. I take no pleasure in being right, I wanted him to succeed in spite of the fact I was very hard on him on this forum and elsewhere. However, he has put himself in this position by going against his promises. This omnibus bill will further put our country into debt that we can't afford. The money for the wall will actually just shore up current fencing already there. He talked about people involved with Iraq had no business making decisions on where we went militarily...yet he has just named Bolton and his pornstache as NSA. He promised to not be like the politicians in Washington, but he is being exactly like them.


----------



## Tater

BruiserKC said:


> Many political pundits like the Limbaughs, Levin, Hannity, etc...beat the drum that if HRC was elected then that was the end of America as we know it and that we would be permanently changed to a socialist state.


I :lmao every time I see this ridiculous bullshit. The idea that center right wing authoritarian neolib/neocon Hillary Clinton would have turned the USA into a socialist state only proves how ridiculously fucking stupid Limbaugh, Levin and Hannity are. She's nearly as far right as they are in actual policy but these retards call her socialist because she uses socially liberal policies to sucker the liberal sheep into voting for far right wing politicians. Had she won, except for a few superficial differences, things would be more or less exactly the same as they are under Trump. The only reason there are so many in the Establishment who don't like Trump is because he's a braying jackass and he gets more people questioning the status quo than they are comfortable with. It's certainly not his policies they have a problem with because since he was elected, he has done everything within his power to be a good little Establishment lackey.


----------



## BruiserKC

Tater said:


> I :lmao every time I see this ridiculous bullshit. The idea that center right wing authoritarian neolib/neocon Hillary Clinton would have turned the USA into a socialist state only proves how ridiculously fucking stupid Limbaugh, Levin and Hannity are. She's nearly as far right as they are in actual policy but these retards call her socialist because she uses socially liberal policies to sucker the liberal sheep into voting for far right wing politicians. Had she won, except for a few superficial differences, things would be more or less exactly the same as they are under Trump. The only reason there are so many in the Establishment who don't like Trump is because he's a braying jackass and he gets more people questioning the status quo than they are comfortable with. It's certainly not his policies they have a problem with because since he was elected, he has done everything within his power to be a good little Establishment lackey.


Honestly if HRC had been elected with the GOP keeping both chambers of Congress, we would see very little get done. The GOP would be opposed to everything and the gridlock in DC would have really been tighter. You would still have eight justices on SCOTUS and investigations galore. Of course Trump would be long gone as he would have taken his ball and gone home. He would be out of the political game other then saying the election was rigged.


----------



## Miss Sally

I've talked with Tater and a few others at length about this whole situation.

There wasn't much of a choice, Hillary was going to speed up everything 10 fold, Bernie was already sabotaged and even if he won he'd be in the same position as Trump.

Considering Trump has a history of doing whatever the fuck he wants it was a safer bet that he'd at least stall the forthcoming consolidation of power.

That doesn't seem to be the case, he's put establishment puppets in positions of power, placated to the idiotic fringe of the Democrats and has legalized and kept the worst policies from the Obama Days alive. 

DACA is a mess and it's just going to be an issue every 10-20 years, both parties are a mess of money grubbing fuckwits and the voting masses have proved they'll fall in line no matter what. The DNC emails exposed the Democrats as sabotaging racist frauds and the Republican establishment pretty much showed their true colors when they refused to accept who the people voted for and instead wanted things *their* way. But nupe, MUH POLITICAL PARTY mentality took over.

At this point all of the US Politicians could get on stage holding hands in blackface, burn the constitution in front of everyone. Take away your free speech and civil liberties and enact a Police state where only the Cops can have weapons and it would be met by the applause from a sea of idiots who are bewitched by tyranny in the form of virtue signalling.


----------



## Reaper

Tater said:


> I :lmao every time I see this ridiculous bullshit. The idea that center right wing authoritarian neolib/neocon Hillary Clinton would have turned the USA into a socialist state only proves how ridiculously fucking stupid Limbaugh, Levin and Hannity are. She's nearly as far right as they are in actual policy but these retards call her socialist because she uses socially liberal policies to sucker the liberal sheep into voting for far right wing politicians. Had she won, except for a few superficial differences, things would be more or less exactly the same as they are under Trump. The only reason there are so many in the Establishment who don't like Trump is because he's a braying jackass and he gets more people questioning the status quo than they are comfortable with. It's certainly not his policies they have a problem with because since he was elected, he has done everything within his power to be a good little Establishment lackey.


Came in here to type this. 

Except I think that we would have 3 new wars open. Libya and Syria are both Clinton's wars and we can never forget that. 

At least we can say (for now) that we've gone a year and a half without opening up a new war ... Though with Bolton I'm afraid that's about to change.


----------



## Tater

BruiserKC said:


> Honestly if HRC had been elected with the GOP keeping both chambers of Congress, we would see very little get done. The GOP would be opposed to everything and the gridlock in DC would have really been tighter. You would still have eight justices on SCOTUS and investigations galore. Of course Trump would be long gone as he would have taken his ball and gone home. He would be out of the political game other then saying the election was rigged.


I can list off a few things that absolutely would've gotten done and none of them are good for us. The surveillance state would have continued to expand. Military spending would have continued to go up. The banks would have continued getting bigger. Wars of aggression would have continued unabated. Wall Street and the banks would have been further deregulated. Wealth inequality between the very top and everyone else would have continued expanding exponentially. These big picture issues would have been exactly the same under Hillary as they are under Trump.



Reap said:


> Came in here to type this.
> 
> Except I think that we would have 3 new wars open. Libya and Syria are both Clinton's wars and we can never forget that.
> 
> At least we can say (for now) that we've gone a year and a half without opening up a new war ... Though with Bolton I'm afraid that's about to change.


Niger was added to the list of countries we're bombing after Trump took office and drone strikes have gone up over 400%. Even though no new major conflicts have been started *yet*, you can be absolutely certain they have a major military action planned with Bolton being brought in. It's the only thing he does and he wouldn't have been hired if something wasn't already in the works. Neocons thoroughly control both major political parties in the USA. More war was inevitable regardless of who won the election.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/978256844677435392

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/978315928722198529
This has the smell of false-flag all over it and the stench grows with every passing day of retaliation against Russia based on zero proof they actually did it. They've got as much proof that Russia poisoned the Skripals as they do Russia hacked the DNC emails or that Assad gassed his own people. It's just so mind-numbingly stupid how easily the sheep believe these fact free Establishment propaganda narratives living in a post Iraq WMDs world. fpalm


----------



## Vic Capri

In some good news for a change, The Dow Jones went up 669 points!

- Vic


----------



## virus21

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/978256844677435392
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/978315928722198529
> This has the smell of false-flag all over it and the stench grows with every passing day of retaliation against Russia based on zero proof they actually did it. They've got as much proof that Russia poisoned the Skripals as they do Russia hacked the DNC emails or that Assad gassed his own people. It's just so mind-numbingly stupid how easily the sheep believe these fact free Establishment propaganda narratives living in a post Iraq WMDs world. fpalm


Where will you be when WW3 happens?


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> I can list off a few things that absolutely would've gotten done and none of them are good for us. The surveillance state would have continued to expand. Military spending would have continued to go up. The banks would have continued getting bigger. Wars of aggression would have continued unabated. Wall Street and the banks would have been further deregulated. Wealth inequality between the very top and everyone else would have continued expanding exponentially. These big picture issues would have been exactly the same under Hillary as they are under Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Niger was added to the list of countries we're bombing after Trump took office and drone strikes have gone up over 400%. Even though no new major conflicts have been started *yet*, you can be absolutely certain they have a major military action planned with Bolton being brought in. It's the only thing he does and he wouldn't have been hired if something wasn't already in the works. Neocons thoroughly control both major political parties in the USA. More war was inevitable regardless of who won the election.


That's another reason people wanted Trump was he was anti-intervention. Honestly I wouldn't care about Obamacare etc if he managed to steer the US clear of conflicts. Now with Bolton we'll be going on the war path.


----------



## Reaper

Today I got an email from the White House claiming America First in Space. Then I saw the news about expulsion of Russian diplomats. 

Unbelievable.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/978311836222312450
:dead2


----------



## FriedTofu

Miss Sally said:


> That's another reason people wanted Trump was he was anti-intervention. Honestly I wouldn't care about Obamacare etc if he managed to steer the US clear of conflicts. Now with Bolton we'll be going on the war path.


Few presidents can govern the way they campaigned because of the realities of the world. Bush and Obama both campaigned as anti-intervention but were forced into wars they didn't want. Obama was guilty of being too passive trying to adhere to his campaign rhetoric and probably allowed ISIS the opportunity to grab territories in Iraq and Syria for their propaganda as a result.

And Trump was never anti-intervention. He was pro-intervention until it was politically beneficial to keep claiming he wasn't. Just like every politician.

The guy whose beliefs is to punch first and punch harder being non-interventionist? Please.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/978311836222312450
> :dead2


Nearly as good a bodybag as the one Coulter received at Rob Lowe's roast :lol


----------



## Art Vandaley

I can't understand how any would even contemplate for a second that the Russians didn't do the Uk poisoning.


----------



## Tater

Alkomesh2 said:


> I can't understand how any would even contemplate for a second that the Russians didn't do the Uk poisoning.


I can't understand how any would even contemplate for a second that fact-free claims in a post Iraq WMD world should be believed without proof.

Nevermind, I take that back.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Tater said:


> I can't understand how any would even contemplate for a second that fact-free claims in a post Iraq WMD world should be believed without proof.
> 
> Nevermind, I take that back.


He was a former Russian spy who turned on the Russian state to collaborate with the west. 

Of course the west must have killed him.

The west massively benefit from people who turn on their home countries to collaborate with them being killed. 

Russia was of course massively disadvantaged by having someone who had turned on them, shared their state secrets and collaborated with the enemy being killed while on said enemies home soil. 

If the west wanted to manufacture an excuse for war with Russia they would have picked a way to do it that screws them over far less.

Just try and stop and think about who actually benefits from this.

It also heated up tensions between Russia and the West weeks prior to the Russian election which was looking to have terrible turn out which would have hurt Putins credibility as a leader and a large part of his popularity is based on him "standing up the west".

To believe the west did this you have to ignore every relevant piece of evidence.


----------



## Tater

Alkomesh2 said:


> He was a former Russian spy who turned on the Russian state to collaborate with the west.
> 
> Of course the west must have killed him.
> 
> The west massively benefit from people who turn on their home countries to collaborate with them being killed.
> 
> Russia was of course massively disadvantaged by having someone who had turned on them, shared their state secrets and collaborated with the enemy being killed while on said enemies home soil.
> 
> If the west wanted to manufacture an excuse for war with Russia they would have picked a way to do it that screws them over far less.
> 
> Just try and stop and think about who actually benefits from this.
> 
> It also heated up tensions between Russia and the West weeks prior to the Russian election which was looking to have terrible turn out which would have hurt Putins credibility as a leader and a large part of his popularity is based on him "standing up the west".
> 
> To believe the west did this you have to ignore every relevant piece of evidence.


Baa baa, little establishment puppet.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Tater said:


> Baa baa, little establishment puppet.


I wouldn't put it past them to fabricate stuff to push towards a war with Russia.

But why would they do something which hurts them so much and benefits Russia so much? 

What you believe happened simply doesn't make any sense. People don't act so strongly against their self interest.

Get past your conspiracy theory nonsense, open your eyes and actually consider what happened here.

I mean do you believe Alexander Litvinenko was a false flag operation too? 

Cause there was no war with Russia after that which would suggest it wasn't. And the fact scenario is incredibly similar to this case. 

The message of this and Litvinenko (also a collaborator with the west against the Russian state) is clear, if you collaborate we will kill you, and there is no where you can run to.

Your views on this go against all evidence, reason and logic and are based purely on an emotional reaction, you don't like "the establishment" so everything bad that happens in the world must have been done by them, even if it hurts them.


----------



## Tater

Alkomesh2 said:


> I wouldn't put it past them to fabricate stuff to push towards a war with Russia.
> 
> But why would they do something which hurts them so much and benefits Russia so much?
> 
> What you believe happened simply doesn't make any sense. People don't act so strongly against their self interest.
> 
> Get past your conspiracy theory nonsense, open your eyes and actually consider what happened here.
> 
> I mean do you believe Alexander Litvinenko was a false flag operation too?
> 
> Cause there was no war with Russia after that which would suggest it wasn't. And the fact scenario is incredibly similar to this case.
> 
> The message of this and Litvinenko (also a collaborator with the west against the Russian state) is clear, if you collaborate we will kill you, and there is no where you can run to.
> 
> Your views on this go against all evidence, reason and logic and are based purely on an emotional reaction, you don't like "the establishment" so everything bad that happens in the world must have been done by them, even if it hurts them.


Put down the CNN and slowly back away. 

Every single thing you listed off there is based on motive and your ideas what benefits who. You know what's completely lacking? *Any evidence whatsoever that Russia actually did this.* Your projection is showing. The thing you accuse me of is the exact thing you are doing.

Benefits Russia so much? Are you fucking high? Getting all their diplomats expelled from foreign countries and having even more sanctions leveled against them benefits them how exactly? For Putin's popularity at home? _Hey you guys, I got our entire country ostracized and hurt our economy in the global market and now there are even more weapons pointed at Mother Russia, don't you love me now?!_ That's about the dumbest shit I have heard in my life. Putin doesn't give a fuck about popularity. He rigs his elections anyways. 

Oh and this fucking horseshit about there is no where you can run to... they fucking had Skripal imprisoned for 6 years in Russia and let him go in a prisoner exchange. If the motivation is collaborate we will kill you, he never would have made it out of Russia alive after being convicted of high treason. They would have executed him right then and there. You'd have to believe Putin is either suicidal or the dumbest mother fucker on the planet to do this at the height of Russian hysteria and the ramping up of a new cold war. 

Funny how every other intelligence agency in the world assassinates someone and makes it look like an accident but when the FSB does it, they are a bunch of bumbling goofs who use a nerve agent that couldn't have possibly come from anywhere but Russia. How convenient.

The MSM still spews endlessly that Russia hacked the DNC and Assad gassed his own people and both of those things have been thoroughly debunked. Do I even need to explain how the government lied to you about Iraqi WMDs? We're talking about people who have a very long and proven history of lying to manufacture consent. You've got to be a gullible fucking sheep to ever believe anything they have to say without rock solid evidence.

If Russia did it, fine. Have an investigation and actually prove they did it. Then react accordingly. But what you should never be doing is accepting the establishment narrative unquestioningly. How many fucking times does our government have to lie us into war before you people stop fucking believing their bullshit? Do I need to go Gulf of Tonkin on you as well?


----------



## Art Vandaley

Tater said:


> *Any evidence whatsoever that Russia actually did this.*


- they used a material that the Russians invented and are the only country to have been known to stockpile any serious amounts of, tellingly they blamed Sweden, Sweden....
- they benefit from this, it scares people out of collaborating/sharing their state secrets in the future
- they've done this in the past, ie with Litvinenko

That is all evidence they did it, and there is literally not a shred to suggest it was the west. 



> Benefits Russia so much? Are you fucking high?Getting all their diplomats expelled from foreign countries and having even more sanctions leveled against them benefits them how exactly? For Putin's popularity at home? _Hey you guys, I got our entire country ostracized and hurt our economy in the global market and now there are even more weapons pointed at Mother Russia, don't you love me now?!_ That's about the dumbest shit I have heard in my life. Putin doesn't give a fuck about popularity. He rigs his elections anyways.


He cares about turnout and it was looking to have a dire level of turnout. And the expulsions and sanctions are temporary annoyances at best, nothing compared to the benefit of scaring people out of collaborating with the enemy and preventing the flow of information to them. 

Russian's favourite thing about Putin is him standing up against the west, the fact that something happened to inflame tensions between Russia and the West just prior to a Russian election is not a coincidence. 



> Oh and this fucking horseshit about there is no where you can run to... they fucking had Skripal imprisoned for 6 years in Russia and let him go in a prisoner exchange. If the motivation is collaborate we will kill you, he never would have made it out of Russia alive after being convicted of high treason. They would have executed him right then and there. You'd have to believe Putin is either suicidal or the dumbest mother fucker on the planet to do this at the height of Russian hysteria and the ramping up of a new cold war.


Yes they kept him alive while he was useful and could be used to exchange to get one of their own released, then killed him after he was no longer useful. 

Putin isn't a dumb motherfucker, nothing is going to come of this, beyond people being scared out of collaborating with the West and he knows it.

Any expulsions or sanctions will be minor, effectively meaningless and temporary at best. Same with Litvinenko. They got away with it then and they'll get away with it now. 

Also there is no free media in Russia so they can totally control the narrative. 



> Funny how every other intelligence agency in the world assassinates someone and makes it look like an accident but when the FSB does it, they are a bunch of bumbling goofs who use a nerve agent that couldn't have possibly come from anywhere but Russia. How convenient.


They wanted people to know it was them, it was about sending a message to potential collaborators. 

This is also why they chose a particularly public and painful way to die, again just like Litvinenko. 



> The MSM still spews endlessly that Russia hacked the DNC and Assad gassed his own people and both of those things have been thoroughly debunked. Do I even need to explain how the government lied to you about Iraqi WMDs? We're talking about people who have a very long and proven history of lying to manufacture consent. You've got to be a gullible fucking sheep to ever believe anything they have to say without rock solid evidence.


Lying about WMDs didn't disadvantage the west.

I'm totally happy to believe they would do things to manufacture consent, but they'd do it in a way that didn't disadvantage their own cause so significantly. 



> If Russia did it, fine. Have an investigation and actually prove they did it. Then react accordingly. But what you should never be doing is accepting the establishment narrative unquestioningly. How many fucking times does our government have to lie us into war before you people stop fucking believing their bullshit? Do I need to go Gulf of Tonkin on you as well?


Well there was an investigation you've decided to not believe, and totally fair enough on that point, I certainly wouldn't accept something they say as truth because they say it, but looking at this logically I can't see how you can escape it being an obvious conclusion that the Russians did it, because they're the ones who benefit out of it. 

If the west was going to manufacture consent against the Russians (and of course they would) they wouldn't have done so in a way that screws themselves over and benefits the Russians so much. 

Do you believe Litvinenko was also a false flag operation?
And if you do, why was it never followed by a war?
And if you don't why do you believe the Russians did that near identical action but didn't do this?

The Russians had the means, motive and opportunity, the West had means and opportunity but lack the motive, this person dying will make it much harder to get people to collaborate with them against Russia and get the intelligence info they need.


----------



## Tater

Alkomesh2 said:


> they used a material that the Russians invented and are the only country to have been known to stockpile any serious amounts of


The entire rest of your post is irrelevant bullshit. This is the entire case that has been built against Russia. There's no proof whatsoever that they actually did it, only that the nerve gas that they invented is what was used in the attack.

Maybe you should be asking yourself why you so willingly believe people who are proven liars. 



> *Worst. Putin Puppet. Ever.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what the BBC is unironically referring to as "a remarkable show of solidarity," the US and more than 20 other countries have participated in the largest collective expulsion of Russian diplomats ever in history. The US topped them all with no less than 60 diplomats expelled, far exceeding the 23 diplomats expelled by the UK, the location of the alleged "Novichok" poisoning which the expulsions are intended as a response to.
> 
> This is just the latest gratuitous cold war escalation against the Russian Federation by the Trump administration, which will still remain plagued by accusations of Kremlin collusion despite this latest act and all the others preceding it. Those previous escalations include Trump's capitulation to the longstanding neoconservative agenda to arm Ukraine against Russia, killing Russians in Syria as part of its regime change occupation of that country, adopting a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> with greatly increased aggression toward Russia and blurred lines between when nuclear strikes are and are not appropriate, sending war ships into the Black Sea "to counter Russia's increased presence there," forcing RT and Sputnik to register as foreign agents, expanding NATO with the addition of Montenegro, assigning Russia hawk Kurt Volker as special representative to Ukraine, shutting down a Russian consulate in San Francisco and throwing out more Russian diplomats in August of last year.
> 
> Isn't it weird how when you ignore the narratives being promoted by both sides and just look at the raw behavior, being a "Putin puppet" looks exactly the same as being a dangerously aggressive Russia hawk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we've discussed previously, this "Novichok" poisoning was suspiciously inflicted upon an ex-spy who had been strategically irrelevant for many years, in a way that both (A) failed to kill him and (B) looks really Russian. Other intelligence agencies take out key strategic assets and make it look like an accident, but the FSB fumbles its assassinations while implicating itself.
> 
> These facts alone make it very hard to believe such an assassination attempt just so happened to occur at a time when the US-centralized empire is facing post-primacy and desperately needs a major turn of events to secure its dominance, but if you need further evidence the excellent Moon of Alabama blog has been doing a great job of pointing out all the gaping plot holes in the establishment narrative about the Skripal case.
> 
> And yet here is the US-centralized empire, collaborating to deteriorate diplomatic relations with a nuclear superpower without having seen a shred of reliable evidence. The empire has an extensive history of using lies, propaganda and false flags to manufacture public support for insane escalations that the people would otherwise refuse to consent to in order to advance elite agendas of global domination, and there is certainly no reason to go believing them about this new case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it's working anyway. Democrats support each of these escalations because they suffer from the delusion that any attack on Russia is an attack on Donald "Literally Hitler" Drumpf, and Republicans consent to it because it's being done by their president and they believe it helps fight the collusion narrative, which they fear will hurt them in the midterms.
> 
> Well I got news for you, snowflakes: if we all get nuked, there ain't gonna be no midterms. Democrats won't get Joe Biden riding in to the throne room on a white horse in 2020 after a completely uncontested primary. Republicans won't get to see "Qanon" proven right as Trump delivers the final uppercut to the deep state and jails every Democrat and Never-Trumper in Washington for pedophilia. None of your weird political fantasies will ever come true if a world war erupts between nuclear superpowers, as it is looking increasingly likely.
> 
> Stop consenting to these escalations and insist on detente. Spread the word and fight the lies with truth. They wouldn't be working so hard to manufacture our consent if they didn't need it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So refuse to give it to them. Fight the disinformation with information. Attack the propaganda machine at its weakest points, and never stop throwing punches. Remain agile and willing to switch tactics on a dime. Refuse to fight the empire on its terms. Be unorthodox. Break the rules. Hide brass knuckles in your boxing gloves. Think outside the box, keep throwing gravel in the gears f the machine, and never give these bastards time to establish a dominant narrative.
> 
> If we are creative and relentless enough, we can disrupt the propaganda machine so much that the spell of believability falls away, and instead of being paced into consenting to world war for the preservation of imperial hegemony, we can shrug off the old mechanizations of manipulation and control and build a new world together.
> 
> Fight their lies. Be aggressive, be creative, and never, ever give up. If these pricks are going to drive our species into extinction, the least we can do is make it hard for them.
> 
> SOURCE
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/978434199488053248


----------



## Art Vandaley

If you think for a second the Russians care more about how many of their diplomats are allowed in other countries than whether their people have an incentive or not to turn on them and collaborate with their enemies you fundamentally misunderstand politics and international relations.


----------



## Draykorinee

The government lies a lot and sometimes it tells the truth, being sceptical is fine but constantly yelling false flag is nonsense. This both benefits Putin AND feeds in to current western anti-russian hysteria. Theres no reason to be so militant and calling people sheep. Quite frankly its actually just as 'sheepish' to follow the current anti-western government position driven by social media and pundits, this is not a niche position to take.

Put down CNN?

Put down your Caitlin Johnstone?

Both have their own agenda.



> Caitlin Johnstone
> Rogue journalist. Bogan socialist. Anarcho-psychonaut. Guerilla poet. Utopia prepper.


:ha


----------



## BruiserKC

draykorinee said:


> The government lies a lot and sometimes it tells the truth, being sceptical is fine but constantly yelling false flag is nonsense. This both benefits Putin AND feeds in to current western anti-russian hysteria. Theres no reason to be so militant and calling people sheep. Quite frankly its actually just as 'sheepish' to follow the current anti-western government position driven by social media and pundits, this is not a niche position to take.
> 
> Put down CNN?
> 
> Put down your Caitlin Johnstone?
> 
> Both have their own agenda
> 
> :ha


The Russians meddled in our election and probably reached out to both sides to play one against the other. Instead of preventing it from happening again we seem content to point fingers. 

Russia and Putin have never had our best interests. They are not our friends. And Putin is no doubt happily fapping away shirtless knowing he pulled one over on us. He is undermining our nation and we’re too stupid or stubborn to see it.


----------



## Reaper

At this point we have people who don't even know what evidence even is trying to claim that "there is evidence". Ruskophobia is and remains innately irrational. Apparently those of us who demand higher standards of evidence think that "russians are our friends" which is also another irrational claim.


----------



## Vic Capri

When in doubt, blame Russia!

*#LiberalPlaybook*

- Vic


----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> The government lies a lot and sometimes it tells the truth, being sceptical is fine but constantly yelling false flag is nonsense. This both benefits Putin AND feeds in to current western anti-russian hysteria. Theres no reason to be so militant and calling people sheep. Quite frankly its actually just as 'sheepish' to follow the current anti-western government position driven by social media and pundits, this is not a niche position to take.
> 
> Put down CNN?
> 
> Put down your Caitlin Johnstone?
> 
> Both have their own agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> :ha


Never forget this rule when talking to Americans: Conspiracy theories are always right, logic is dubious at best, if you start something with "the government is" they'll believe any old bullshit you throw at them. :lol


----------



## virus21

> The Trump administration's decision to ask people about their citizenship in the 2020 census set off worries among Democrats on Tuesday that immigrants will dodge the survey altogether, diluting political representation for states that tend to vote Democratic and robbing many communities of federal dollars.
> 
> Not since 1950 has the census collected citizenship data from the whole population, rather than just a population sample, says the Congressional Research Service. The decision to restore the question after decades prompted an immediate lawsuit from California — already tangling with Washington over immigration — and moves by other states with large immigrant populations to engage in a legal fight.
> 
> The population count, a massive effort taken every 10 years, is far more than an academic exercise. It's required by the Constitution and used to determine the number of seats each state has in the House as well as how federal money is distributed to local communities. Communities and businesses depend on it in deciding where to build schools, hospitals, grocery stores and more.
> 
> The political stakes of undercounting segments of the population are high.
> 
> Several states that have slowing population growth or high numbers of immigrants such as California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and Ohio are typically at risk of losing U.S. House seats when their congressional districts are redrawn every 10 years — depending on how fully their residents are counted.
> 
> California struck quickly, with Attorney General Xavier Becerra filing a federal lawsuit Tuesday that seeks to block Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross' decision to add a citizenship question in 2020. Officials from New York and New Jersey, also Democratic-led states, were also planning on leading or participating in lawsuits. Massachusetts signaled interest, too.
> 
> "The census constitutes the backbone for planning how and where our communities will invest taxpayer dollars," Becerra said. "California simply has too much to lose to allow the Trump Administration to botch this important decennial obligation.
> 
> The Justice Department said in a statement it "looks forward to defending the reinstatement of the citizenship question, which will allow the department to protect the right to vote and ensure free and fair elections for all Americans." The Commerce Department said the benefits of obtaining citizenship information "outweighed the limited potential adverse impacts."
> 
> Their argument in essence: Enforcing voting rights requires more data on the voting-age population of citizens than current surveys are providing.
> 
> Democratic lawmakers had been bracing for the decision. A bill sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. would block the addition of a citizenship question, or any major design change, unless it has undergone a certain level of research and testing, but it faces dim prospects with no Republicans signing on.
> 
> House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that adding such a question "will inject fear and distrust into vulnerable communities and cause traditionally undercounted communities to be even further under-represented, financially excluded and left behind."
> 
> Some Republican lawmakers hailed the decision on Tuesday. GOP Sens. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Ted Cruz of Texas had sent a letter to the Commerce Department asking Ross to add the question.
> 
> "It is imperative that the data gathered in the census is reliable, given the wide ranging impacts it will have on U.S. policy," Cruz said in a press release issued by the three lawmakers. "A question on citizenship is a reasonable, commonsense addition to the census."
> 
> The Census Bureau separately conducts an ongoing survey called the American Community Survey that provides citizenship data on a yearly basis. But it only samples a small portion of the population.
> 
> Before that, citizenship or related questions were asked of about 1 in 6 households on the census "long form," which has since been retired. The Congressional Research Service said it has been 1950 since all households were asked about citizenship.
> 
> Alabama Attorney General Steven Marshall said the American Community Survey is so small, with a correspondingly large margin of error, that it is an ineffective tool for understanding lightly populated rural areas of the country.
> 
> "It just makes sense that government has a more accurate record for the census and reinstates the practice of including a citizenship question in the next census," Marshall said.
> 
> A joint fundraising committee for Trump's re-election campaign and the Republican National Committee highlighted the addition of a citizenship question in a fundraising pitch last week. The pitch said Trump wants the 2020 Census to ask people whether or not they are citizens, and that in another era, this would be common sense.
> 
> "The President wants to know if you're on his side," the solicitation asks.
> 
> Census counts are taken by mail and by workers walking neighborhoods. The Census Bureau says the 2010 census drew a massive response, with about 74 percent of the households mailing in forms and remaining households counted by workers in neighborhoods.
> 
> Information is only released publicly in the aggregate, although the government has the details. In 2010, the Obama administration offered assurances that the census data would not be used for immigration enforcement.
> 
> The Census Bureau states on its website that personal information obtained through its surveys cannot be used against respondents by any government agency or court. And the disclosure by an employee of any information that would personally identify a respondent or family can lead to up to five years in prison or a fine of $250,000, or both.
> 
> Critics of the decision seemed far more focused Tuesday on the potential for intimidation and an inaccurate count than the prospect that the information could be used to target participants for deportation.
> 
> "I can only see one purpose for why this question is being added," said Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund, an organization that seeks to advance Latino political engagement. It's to "scare Latinos and others from participating in the 2020 Census."


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/2020-census-add-question-citizenship-status-54030706


----------



## Tater

draykorinee said:


> The government lies a lot and sometimes it tells the truth, being sceptical is fine but constantly yelling false flag is nonsense. This both benefits Putin AND feeds in to current western anti-russian hysteria. Theres no reason to be so militant and calling people sheep. Quite frankly its actually just as 'sheepish' to follow the current anti-western government position driven by social media and pundits, this is not a niche position to take.
> 
> Put down CNN?
> 
> Put down your Caitlin Johnstone?
> 
> Both have their own agenda.


One has an anti-war agenda. I shouldn't have to explain the agenda of the other. 

Sheep don't question narratives. Some of us demand proof. 



Reap said:


> At this point we have people who don't even know what evidence even is trying to claim that "there is evidence". Ruskophobia is and remains innately irrational. Apparently those of us who demand higher standards of evidence think that "russians are our friends" which is also another irrational claim.


Higher standards or any evidence at all would be nice.



RavishingRickRules said:


> Never forget this rule when talking to Americans: Conspiracy theories are always right, logic is dubious at best, if you start something with "the government is" they'll believe any old bullshit you throw at them. :lol


It's been fifteen years since the US government knowingly lied about Saddam having WMDs as a pretext to invade a country that did not attack us. Trillions of dollars wasted, a region still in chaos and hundreds of thousands of deaths later, people still unquestionably believe fact free claims from the government. Now they're gearing up to do it all over again with Iran. They've already been doing it in Syria.

This is not a conspiracy theory. It's happening right out in the open. Mattis has openly admitted that they don't have any evidence Assad gassed his own people.



> *US Finally Admits "No Evidence" Assad Used Sarin Gas*
> 
> _“I don’t have the evidence,” Mattis said. “What I am saying is that other groups on the ground – NGOs, fighters on the ground – have said that sarin has been used, so we are looking for evidence.”_


That hasn't stopped them from illegally invading and occupying a foreign country and bombing their government.

We're talking about people who lie all the fucking time to justify committing more war atrocities around the globe in their quest for global hegemony. They lie like shit stinks. It's what they do. They blow shit up and lie about why they are doing it. Anyone who ever believes anything they have to say about anything without demanding proof is a sheep, plain and simple.


----------



## Reaper

Within a matter of five posts on Twitter I have seen 

1. Stefan Molyneux making Cultish end times prophecies
2. Matt Walsh demand that the church needs to be more hateful (his context is not as bad as this sounds but not everyone understands context)
3. Conservatives demanding that people delete their FB

Ok. The third isn't as bad but y'all should watch Stefan ham it up. He looks even crazier than Alex Jones because he's trying so hard to be sincere that he's just coming across as someone going through a psychotic break from reality.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/978760638003544064
So fake :mj4


----------



## Vic Capri

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/27/north-koreas-kim-jong-un-visits-china-according-to-state-media.html

Is this for real?!!

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

Looks like Trump might be able to take a W at last, of course if he fails to get them to agree to denuclerisation it will backfire badly. We can thank the Chinese and South Koreans for getting us to this place, they've put in a ton of effort.


----------



## Reaper

You can't denuclearize something that doesn't have nukes. 

I still have a really hard time believing that NK's nukes are any more real than Saddam's WMD's.

When India and Pakistan both tested nukes there was quite literally no doubt at all because all of the world registered the sheer scale and massiveness of those detonations. There's records proving it. There's nothing of the sort with NK.

This is a very good, skeptical article: 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/does-north-korea-really-nuclear-140100457.html



> *Does North Korea Really Have a Nuclear Bomb?*
> 
> North Korea's Kim Jong-un has offered to bargain away his nuclear weapons program in exchange for lasting peace. Maybe that's because he doesn't have one.
> Does North Korea Really Have a Nuclear Bomb?
> 
> When India staged its first nuclear test in 1974, there were no doubts. It was a massive explosion estimated at eight kilotons (kt.) equivalent of TNT. Though it was conducted underground, it left a large crater on the surface. The test was celebrated in India, condemned in Pakistan and observed with caution in the rest of the world. After India's second series of tests in 1998, Pakistan responded with a five-device test set of its own two weeks later. Again, craters were made, congratulations offered, condemnations heard and medals given. India and Pakistan have been locked in a tense nuclear standoff ever since.
> 
> Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, and of course the United States also had unambiguously "successful" first nuclear tests—if success means blowing up a big chunk of desert while poisoning the atmosphere with tons of radioactive debris. Of course, all five countries had massive science-industrial complexes to support their research, as did India. Pakistan did not, but China is widely suspected of having provided both the technology and the materials for Pakistan's first nuclear devices.
> 
> North Korea's nuclear tests, as so much else about the country, have taken a road less traveled. Its first test in 2006 was either a masterpiece of minimization, or a total fizzle at less than one kt. The second test in 2009 was a more nuclear-like five kt., but apparently a masterpiece of environmental good practice: the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) estimated that the containment of radioactive exhaust gas from the explosion "was above 99.9 percent."
> 
> The CTBTO dismissed the possibility of a faked nuclear test under the theory "that such a massive logistical undertaking would have been virtually impossible under the prevailing circumstances and would not have escaped detection." The CTBTO scientists apparently had never seen The Great Escape. But North Korea's "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il was a great film buff, and any country capable of building a clandestine nuclear weapons program would presumably also be capable of sneaking high explosives into a remote mountain fortress under cover of darkness.
> 
> Rocket Man Goes Nuclear
> 
> After 2009, North Korea's nuclear testing program went back to sleep until the Dear Leader's son, "Supreme Leader" Kim Jong-un, needed to prove himself with a test of his own. It came in February, 2013. This test was at least a nuclear-sized twelve kt., unlike the previous two, though once again North Korea claimed a great technological leap forward, claiming it had tested a miniaturized warhead suitable for missile deployment.
> 
> Building a nuclear device is hard enough. Building one that can be deployed on an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), launched into space, delivered to its target and then detonated is something else entirely. That was Kim Jong-un's threat.
> 
> But was the 2009 explosion even nuclear? The United States has conducted conventional explosion tests of nearly four kt. using chemicals packed into an forty-four-foot radius fiberglass hemisphere. Do the math, and a ten kt. explosion could be engineered in an underground chamber of roughly ninety feet (twenty-seven meters) cubed. That's not a lot of rock to be shifted to make room for a fake nuclear test.
> 
> The United States and Japan scrambled spy planes to sniff out the tell-tale radioactive xenon from North Korea's 2013 test, to no avail. But then, two months later, ground-based stations in Japan mysteriously detected the suspect chemical trail. It is possible that it took sixty days for the gases to waft the 600 miles from the test site. It seems just as likely that the Kim regime, coming to understand that the failure of international observers to detect radioactive gases cast doubt on its nuclear credentials, belatedly released gases to prove its test had been real.
> 
> Then there was a three year pause before the three big explosions of January 2016, September 2017 and the granddaddy of them all in September 2017. The first two were repeats of the 2013 performance, though North Korea again claimed major technical advances—this time to a weaponized thermonuclear device. Yet both explosions were estimated at around ten kt., far too small to be H-bombs. Though experts did not believe North Korea's claims of a thermonuclear device, they continued to take it as given that North Korea was exploding fission bombs.
> 
> Finally, on September 3, 2017, North Korea staged what seemed to be its first unambiguous, unfakeable nuclear test, a 108 kt. explosion accompanied by a burst of xenon gas. That would seem to have settled the issue. But once again, strange facts clouded the picture. Yield estimates are based on the size of the seismic shocks created by the explosion, and the 2017 detonation was grossly irregular. "Seismologists stumped by mystery shock after North Korean nuclear test" was the headline in Nature magazine.
> 
> The leading theories were that the secondary shock was caused either by a cave-in or a landslide, not a second bomb or secondary explosion. A week later, a second series of collapses under North Korea's nuclear mountain reportedly killed more than 200 workers on the site. Nothing like this has ever happened in association with any other country's nuclear tests. Whatever is going on at North Korea's Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site, it is unlike anything that has ever gone on anywhere else in the world. And apparently the North Koreans are still digging in a big way, though why they would need huge tunnels to test warhead-sized nuclear bombs is anyone's guess.
> 
> A Nuclear Potemkin Village?
> 
> Last month, Stanford University Professor Siegfried Hecker, the former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and America's leading expert on North Korea's nuclear program, told the story of how he was allowed to see North Korea's uranium centrifuges in 2010. He was taken to the roof of a building where he was allowed to look down through "big glass observation windows" at two centrifuge halls below, where he saw "2000 centrifuges." North Korea has reportedly since doubled its centrifuge capacity—by erecting a second building next door. That's 4000 centrifuges, conveniently on display under glass roofs.
> 
> Until the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, Iran's more than 20,000 centrifuges were mostly underground, many of them in reinforced bunkers. Iran spent at least twenty years striving to develop a nuclear device. Despite ever-tightening international sanctions, it had multiple open land borders, huge oil revenues, cadres of engineers studying overseas and myriad other advantages over the Kim’s Hermit Kingdom. Yet Iran never succeeded in building a bomb.
> 
> North Korea may in fact possess an arsenal of 30–60 nuclear bombs that have been successfully miniaturized to fit inside a nuclear warhead of an ICBM. Or Kim Jong-un may be sitting on top of a collapsed nuclear Potemkin village that he accidentally destroyed in a final hubristic attempt to prove to the world just how powerful he really is. His "sudden willingness" to use his nuclear empire as a bargaining chip can be interpreted either way.
> 
> The only certain thing in the North Korean nuclear story is that everyone involved in it—the North Koreans, the Western experts, the political analysts, the news media and the U.S. government—has a vested interest in believing it. The truth lies buried somewhere under North Korea's tortured Mount Mantap. If Kim has his way, it just might stay there.
> 
> Salvatore Babones is an associate professor of Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Sydney.
> 
> Image: Reuters


North Korea does not have nukes any more than it has food to feed its people. 

You want North Korea to do better, adopt capitalism (or some form of it) and eventually fight for a better life. Let them have whatever system of government they want and still trade with them. The fact of the matter is that widespread sanctions are essentially just as bad as the terrible regime. You want those people to value freedom, then show them mercy instead of holding them hostage just to drive out a system of government. With food in their bellies and muscle on their bones, they will eventually have the strength to fight it off themselves.


----------



## DOPA

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...opped-worrying-about-spending/article/2650440



> Explain something to me, cousins. This federal deficit of yours — why have you all suddenly gone so quiet about it?
> 
> For the better part of the past decade, the fact that the Washington was spending a lot more than it raised was, quite rightly, the top issue in American politics. Defense chiefs spoke of the national debt as the single biggest threat to U.S. security, and they had a point. The interest payments to China were funding the bulk of that country’s military budget. Concerned citizens took to the streets in an extraordinary manifestation of America’s individualist tradition, the Tea Party. They demanded tax and spending cuts, a lowering of entitlements, a return to fiscal sanity.
> 
> How have things developed since then? On any measure, the fiscal situation has deteriorated badly. President Trump inherited an annual deficit that stood at $587 billion deficit. Next year, it will touch $1.2 trillion, and, within a decade, it will have reached an eye-watering $2 trillion. The national debt has now topped $20 trillion, more than the yearly output of the entire U.S. economy — a figure that previous generations of Americans would have regarded as utterly impossible.
> 
> So, where are the demonstrations? Where are the hard-faced Republican Congressmen who would rather cut off funding than allow the debt to rise further? Where, in short, is the Tea Party?
> 
> The answer is that it has disappeared at the very moment when it is most needed. I don’t just mean that the network of local initiatives and campaigns has largely shut down, nor that the number of people identifying themselves as Tea Party sympathizers has plummeted — though both these things are true. I mean that the cause which animated Tea Partiers — the belief that governments, like individuals, should live within their means — has faded.
> 
> What makes this development especially bizarre is that this fiscal incontinence is taking place at a time of strong growth and low unemployment. Supporters of Obama’s splurge could at least argue that he was engaged in pump-priming during a downturn. I never found that a convincing argument, but plenty of Keynesians sincerely believe in it.
> 
> Today, though, even that flimsy justification has been ripped away. There is no argument, whatever school of economics you follow, for emptying your nation’s coffers and exhausting its credit during a boom. Sure, the cuts in corporation tax will, over time, yield higher revenues. But in the meantime, where are the spending reductions? Why are conservatives going along with — no, scratch that, why are conservatives enthusiastically cheering — measures that they would recently have condemned as a betrayal of the national interest?
> 
> The only answer I can come up with is that, in a tribal and polarized country, people applaud measures from their guy that they would have howled down had they been proposed by the other guy. Never mind that Trump came late and indifferently to the GOP. Many Republicans are now taking what we might call the FDR line: “He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he’s our son-of-a-bitch.”
> 
> And, to some extent, I get their reasoning. As long as the president is cutting taxes, deregulating, and appointing judges who believe in the Constitution, I can just about see why conservatives might be prepared to give him a pass on other issues.
> 
> To be honest, I find it slightly surprising that evangelical conservatives seem not to mind about his fibs, his philandering, or his profanity. I find it odd that all those Straussians who used to define conservatism as being about character, decency, courtesy, restraint, civility, and the defense of high culture have suddenly gone quiet — with a few exceptions, such as Jay Nordlinger in the National Review.
> 
> But, as I say, I get the reasoning. The president is, in the final analysis, an employee of the American people. If they hired him to do a specific job — in this case, to tame the unelected agencies that run the country and return power to the electorate — I can see why they might overlook his ill-mannered tweets and other personal eccentricities.
> 
> But the ballooning deficit is surely in a different category. Sensible economic stewardship is not an incidental extra for Republicans, an optional add-on. It is their core mission. If they can’t deliver it, they won’t be reelected. And if they are no longer even seriously attempting to deliver it, they won’t deserve to be reelected.


Great article by Daniel Hannan detailing the Republicans abandonment of fiscal responsibility.


----------



## Vic Capri

Would President Pence be an improvement or even worse? At least he would act Presidential.

- Vic


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

He would escalate military involvement overseas,reignite homophobic culture war stuff and possibly bar women from cabinet positions,but at least he wouldn't act immature and UnPresidential on twitter. I can see why so many pearl clutcher lefties want Impeachment


----------



## virus21

Go to 2:09. WTF!


----------



## Draykorinee

virus21 said:


> Go to 2:09. WTF!


I stomached about a minute of that guy, fucking irritating voice. Basically Obama paid took crack cocaine through a pipe then got a blowie off the weirdest looking dude. Then liberals suck ad infinitum


----------



## yeahbaby!

draykorinee said:


> I stomached about a minute of that guy, fucking irritating voice. Basically Obama paid took crack cocaine through a pipe then got a blowie off the weirdest looking dude. Then liberals suck ad infinitum


If you can't handle well made unbiased sources just say so.


----------



## Draykorinee

yeahbaby! said:


> If you can't handle well made unbiased sources just say so.


Because me saying I didn't listen because I disliked his voice implies anything to do with his bias or lack of. :confused


----------



## Reaper

Trump is really starting to annoy the fuck out of me. The dude just posted a tweet with pictures stating that new construction is taking place at the border --- when in fact, it's pictures from older renovation projects that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with his promised wall. Some of the pictures he posted are up to 8 years old. 

fpalm

Mark Dice was good for a while during the time when the liberals were going through severe manic panic around the election days and what not, but no one should be taking him seriously this late in the game. 

He's always been a conspiracy theorist and eventually he'll return to it. Most of the right seems to be returning to their old habits and it just sucks. We had a good one or two year run, but now it seems like it's all scrambling once again.

This was bound to happen because one of the most integral ideas behind conservatism is .. well .. conservatism (personal, fiscal responsibility and non-interventionalism). Once it was made clear recently that the administration had no interest in any of these it would take a lot to convince anyone to stay on board.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979326715272065024
^

Also, this is something Bernie would have tweeted. Amazon pays the USPS for shipping just like everyone else. What the fuck is this tweet?


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

I disagree with him about the shipping thing,but Amazon for the longest time had an absolutely unfair unlawful legup on non online retailers. Just off the bat if you have a store front business the cost of sale of your item would be about 8% higher due to sales tax which Amazon spent the longest time avoiding have to pay in most states. Not to mention their entire business model was not to make money but to just eat loss,gain market share and drive competition out of business. It's a 24 year old company which is just now breaking even year to year.


----------



## Cabanarama

Trump is trying to go after Amazon for the sole reason that their CEO also owns the Washington Post.... that is a pretty psychotic form of vindictiveness


----------



## Draykorinee

Oh dear Donald, tweeting pictures from an Obama inspired fence repair.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979326715272065024
Well yeah, they deliver stuff. That's literally their purpose. Amazon shipping with them has increased their business which was on the decline. Also, I pay sales tax on my Amazon orders so i don't know where he's getting that from. Wal Mart puts other retailers out of business, but i don't see him talking about them.


----------



## Reaper

Trump's attacks on Amazon are moronic at best. Completely.

His today's tweet is pretty much socialist in nature.


----------



## Cabanarama

2 Ton 21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979326715272065024
> Well yeah, they deliver stuff. That's literally their purpose. Amazon shipping with them has increased their business which was on the decline. Also, I pay sales tax on my Amazon orders so i don't know where he's getting that from. Wal Mart puts other retailers out of business, but i don't see him talking about them.


That's because the CEO of Wal Mart doesn't own a major newspaper that has a deep history of uncovering the truth about presidential scandals and corruption
I'm kinda curious as to what Trump thinks the purpose of the postal system is if not to be "delivery boys"


----------



## Reaper

The establishment has been trying to bring online retailers into their double/tripe/quadruple tax net for a couple of decades now. 

The way taxation works on Amazon and online retailing is that you have to have a registered business to be an online retailer anyways. You pay income taxes as a propreitorship, LLC or corporation anyways. 

Amazon does not evade taxes simply by selling online because they pay taxes on their income like everyone else. 

It's not about single taxation, it's about adding extra layers of taxation on what's already being taxed ... About fooling people into thinking that online mega corporations don't pay taxes. 

Amazon hasn't just made money for itself, it has saved normal people a TON of fucking money and that is exactly how capitalism is actually supposed to work. By bringing the prices of certain goods down by giving consumer more choice and bringing competition into the market. 

Amazon isn't also JUST a retailer itself, it is also a medium for small businesses to sell their wares ... small business owners who are also paying taxes on their individual incomes. This entire move against online retailing reeks and it is one of the scummiest acts the government wants to get involved in. 

They don't give a fuck about small businesses because small businesses are ALREADY SELLING ON AMAZON YOU FUCKING ******* ! (talking about government here, not individuals lol)There are 10's of thousands of individuals globally now that are making money from Amazon because it's cheaper for them to do so. And it's doing FAR more for small businesses than any fucking brick and mortar mom and pop shop BS has ever done. There are smaller overheads, fewer expenses, no need to have expensive shops, decor, warehouses. 

The government just wants the biggest chunk out of what is essentially the closest to a free market economy we've achieved (through the internet) and the sheep follow them to their own fucking doom ... Every. Single. Time.


----------



## Tater

*Amazon earned $5.6B in 2017, but paid no federal taxes*

Source: _Fox Business_

The richest man in the world who is also a CIA contractor, sits on a Pentagon board and owns a major propaganda outlet is creating monopolistic control over the economy. If you don't see a problem with that, you're not paying attention.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Tater said:


> *Amazon earned $5.6B in 2017, but paid no federal taxes*
> 
> Source: _Fox Business_
> 
> The richest man in the world who is also a CIA contractor, sits on a Pentagon board and owns a major propaganda outlet is creating monopolistic control over the economy. If you don't see a problem with that, you're not paying attention.


Hilariously if you read the article they're paying no tax as a direct result of Trump's tax law.


----------



## Vic Capri

Trump's approval rating is going up. Looks like his gamble with the Tax Reform Bill paid off.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

Tater said:


> *Amazon earned $5.6B in 2017, but paid no federal taxes*
> 
> Source: _Fox Business_
> 
> The richest man in the world who is also a CIA contractor, sits on a Pentagon board and owns a major propaganda outlet is creating monopolistic control over the economy. If you don't see a problem with that, you're not paying attention.


Amazon is not a monopoly.

You can buy everything you buy from Amazon from anywhere else. That is the very opposite of what a monopoly is. 

The reason why Amazon is making more money than retailers is because they have the better business model. They don't even have the cheapest goods because I can find anything I buy on Amazon somewhere else. I order from Amazon because it's convenient. 

That in and of itself does not make it a monopoly.


----------



## Tater

Reap said:


> Amazon is not a monopoly.
> 
> You can buy everything you buy from Amazon from anywhere else. That is the very opposite of what a monopoly is.
> 
> The reason why Amazon is making more money than retailers is because they have the better business model. They don't even have the cheapest goods because I can find anything I buy on Amazon somewhere else. I order from Amazon because it's convenient.
> 
> That in and of itself does not make it a monopoly.


I wasn't just talking about Amazon. Bezos has already reached dangerous levels of power and it's only growing by the day. 

Also, what you call "a better business model", I call putting ambulances outside of warehouses to take workers to the hospital when they pass out from heat exhaustion because it's cheaper than installing air conditioning. You should study up a little more on how Amazon employees are treated.


----------



## Reaper

Tater said:


> I wasn't just talking about Amazon. Bezos has already reached dangerous levels of power and it's only growing by the day.
> 
> Also, what you call "a better business model", I call putting ambulances outside of warehouses to take workers to the hospital when they pass out from heat exhaustion because it's cheaper than installing air conditioning. You should study up a little more on how Amazon employees are treated.


Unfortunately, it's still voluntary. The way I see it is that if these companies really, really have terrible work environments that impact efficiency they wouldn't last long. 

I was quite literally thinking that at the moment it seems like Amazon is just having its day in the sun --- just like other retailers had in the past. 

But have any of them really survived long enough to truly devastate standards of living, or as a net result have they consistently allowed western civilization to make slower increments towards better lifestyles. 

Amazon will probably go the way of Kmart (and other retailers that eventually shut down) once it's replaced by something even better. But by the time it does while it has shady business practices all in all it's making a lot of people's lives easier as well.

Unfortunately, workers will voluntarily choose to work in the shittiest conditions. This is why coal mining as manual labor still exists. There's nothing anyone can do when you have people who are willing to risk their lives for their work.


----------



## Reaper

Meanwhile, Rand Paul going BALLS DEEP into Bolton :wow


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979710166512951306


----------



## skypod

Reap said:


> Unfortunately, workers will voluntarily choose to work in the shittiest conditions. This is why coal mining as manual labor still exists. There's nothing anyone can do when you have people who are willing to risk their lives for their work.



Really don't see the problem with regulations, ensuring the rights of employees' health, safety and wellbeing. It's amazing how people placate to businesses and have no respect for the poor. Any company worth its salt will adapt to change. A human being can't adapt physically to being treated in inhumane ways. 

I'm not even in a good job and I have 31 paid holiday days per year, cannot work more than 3 hours without a break (though I believe the rule is 4.5 hours), can't work in a temperature below 16degrees (60 fahrenheit) etc. Just basic things to treat human beings how they should be treated.


----------



## Reaper

skypod said:


> Really don't see the problem with regulations, ensuring the rights of employees' health, safety and wellbeing. It's amazing how people placate to businesses and have no respect for the poor. Any company worth its salt will adapt to change. A human being can't adapt physically to being treated in inhumane ways.
> 
> I'm not even in a good job and I have 31 paid holiday days per year, cannot work more than 3 hours without a break (though I believe the rule is 4.5 hours), can't work in a temperature below 16degrees (60 fahrenheit) etc. Just basic things to treat human beings how they should be treated.


Regulations exist. They only make product and companies inefficient (eventually causing even more job losses) circa the American auto industry which was overrun by regulations eventually leading to its demise as manufacturing moved abroad in less regulated environments. Everyone cannot have the same regulations because every country has different levels of population and what something costs to make in one country costs more or less in another country simply because of several factors like ease of access to raw material, land and natural resources etc etc. 

Look, the same guy that is working for $6/hour can't afford to buy a good meal therefore in order to feed him a good meal, another company has to find ways to produce a $2 meal which requires them to produce cheaply. The same guy who's making 15 million a year feeds far more people than the person who makes 10k a year. But in order for someone to make 15 mill a year he needs to be able to sell to the person who makes 10k a year, but in order for the person to afford anything at that salary level, things have to be produced cheaply therefore labor can't be paid beyond a certain level acceptable to the market of that product. These mechanisms are not human created, but they are one can argue naturally ordained based on their interdependence. They cannot be improved or interfered with because you always end up with people facing unintended consequences of policy decisions. 

There is no solution to this problem of cheap labor and poverty and never will be. Taxes are definitely not the solution.


----------



## Tater

Reap said:


> Unfortunately, it's still voluntary.


Your definition of "voluntary" is the choice between being treated like shit at a job that pays slave wages and being homeless. You might think it's fine to have a society structured that way but some of us know we can do better.



Reap said:


> There is no solution to this problem of cheap labor and poverty and never will be. Taxes are definitely not the solution.


Well, you're half right, assuming you mean taxing the rich to feed the poor is not the solution, then we agree. We tried that already. It was called the New Deal. And sure, it might have worked well for a few decades but now we're right back in the same situation that we were in during the 1920s.

The problem with a New Deal type solution is that it leaves the basic structure of capitalism in place with the same concentrated wealth and power in the hands of the same elite few. Everything that was gained after the Great Depression has been slowly taken back by them ever since. Now capitalism is on the verge of another collapse.

The problem is concentrated power. It doesn't matter if that power is concentrated in the hands of a right wing authoritarian fascist government or a left wing authoritarian communist government, as long as there is unaccountable concentrated power making all the decisions that affect everyone in society, that power will be abused for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many.

Over the next couple of decades, anywhere from a quarter to half or even more of all jobs in the USA will be automated out of existence. Capitalism does not have an answer to that problem because capitalism requires human labor to function. You don't work, you don't get paid, you don't have money to spend, the economy collapses. It's not difficult to see where this is headed if you are being honest about the situation.

The economy was already going to collapse because of the extreme wealth inequality and the rampant bank and Wall Street deregulation going on. Now with the rise of AI and automation, there won't be any jobs to put capitalism back together again. It's a Humpty Dumpty situation and the old way of doing things is about to fall off that proverbial wall.

No matter how hard they try, all the king's horses and all the king's men will not be able to put capitalism back together again. Oh but they will try. They will try then try some more. And they will continue to fail because quite simply, there won't be enough jobs to go around anymore. All those millions of truck drivers who will be put out of work thanks to driverless trucks won't all of a sudden be smart enough to program computers and build robots. 5 techs in a shop producing robots will replace the work of thousands.

Or, as the old joke goes, factories of the future will have 2 employees; a man and a dog. The man is there to feed the dog and the dog is there to make sure the man doesn't touch anything.

At it's fundamental core, the point of doing work is because work needs to be done. We grow crops because we need food to eat and we build houses because we need places to live. The fact is, we're not going to need people anymore to get that work done. When the majority of human labor becomes obsolete, we're going to have to find a different way of structuring society, because the system of selling your time and labor for pay is quickly becoming unsustainable.

People fear and resist change and those in power now won't give up that power willingly. There are dark days ahead, my friend.

Or, John fucking Bolton could create a nuclear holocaust and then we won't have to worry about it anymore because we'll all be dead. It could go either way.


----------



## DOPA

:HA :lmao.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979440663925272577

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979418370176151558

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979460190205603840


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979889765637083136
:lol :mj2


----------



## Pratchett

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979440663925272577
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979418370176151558
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979460190205603840







:mj


----------



## Miss Sally

skypod said:


> Really don't see the problem with regulations, ensuring the rights of employees' health, safety and wellbeing. It's amazing how people placate to businesses and have no respect for the poor. Any company worth its salt will adapt to change. A human being can't adapt physically to being treated in inhumane ways.
> 
> I'm not even in a good job and I have 31 paid holiday days per year, cannot work more than 3 hours without a break (though I believe the rule is 4.5 hours), can't work in a temperature below 16degrees (60 fahrenheit) etc. Just basic things to treat human beings how they should be treated.


I think it's more amazing that people talk about how businesses need to be regulated and the poor need to be looked out for. Yet those same said businesses don't hire poor American workers and bypass Federal regulations we have now by using illegal labor because you can use them as slave labor. 

I'm sure Amazon would do this if they could and nobody would care as long as they get stuff for cheap. Really Amazon isn't really different from previous businesses as I state they just mistreat American workers. Just like Walmart and every other major business does. 

But hey! Pretending to care is just the same as caring.


----------



## skypod

Miss Sally said:


> I think it's more amazing that people talk about how businesses need to be regulated and the poor need to be looked out for. Yet those same said businesses don't hire poor American workers and bypass Federal regulations we have now by using illegal labor because you can use them as slave labor.
> 
> I'm sure Amazon would do this if they could and nobody would care as long as they get stuff for cheap. Really Amazon isn't really different from previous businesses as I state they just mistreat American workers. Just like Walmart and every other major business does.
> 
> But hey! Pretending to care is just the same as caring.



I don't agree with any scenario though of using illegal workers or treating legal poor ones like shit? Just regulate so workers have rights? Maybe crack down on hiring people who get paid cash in hand and aren't on a payroll. Do Americans not have social security numbers and whatnot to track this stuff? 


If Amazon can't afford giving employees rights then another business comes along that has figured out this "impossible" puzzle of not treating workers like shit and turning a profit. Is that not how this free market thing works. The only thing stopping businesses doing this is greed.


----------



## Miss Sally

skypod said:


> I don't agree with any scenario though of using illegal workers or treating legal poor ones like shit? Just regulate so workers have rights? Maybe crack down on hiring people who get paid cash in hand and aren't on a payroll. Do Americans not have social security numbers and whatnot to track this stuff?
> 
> 
> If Amazon can't afford giving employees rights then another business comes along that has figured out this "impossible" puzzle of not treating workers like shit and turning a profit. Is that not how this free market thing works. The only thing stopping businesses doing this is greed.


I never said you did, just saying that many people ignore bad business ethics because they want cheap products. So their talk of regulation is nothing more than virtue signaling.

The problem isn't just businesses but the fact Politicians and Federal oversight have completely fucked things up. For instance Tyson Chicken has loads of illegals in not so great conditions and nobody does anything about it.

If the Federal Government and Politicians did their jobs we'd have better run companies and Americans with better jobs. Thing is they don't so you have this chaotic almost slave labor like conditions in a First World country. It's pretty crazy!


----------



## Tater

If the employees and the employers were the same people, you wouldn't need government regulation to stop employers from treating employees like shit. If regulating capitalism worked, we wouldn't be repeating the Roaring 20s. Let's just hope people learn their lesson this time around and don't try to fix things with the same old failed solutions.


----------



## virus21




----------



## virus21

> SAN FRANCISCO — Two days after Donald J. Trump won the 2016 election, executives at Google consoled their employees in an all-staff meeting broadcast around the world.
> 
> “There is a lot of fear within Google,” said Sundar Pichai, the company’s chief executive, according to a video of the meeting viewed by The New York Times. When asked by an employee if there was any silver lining to Mr. Trump’s election, the Google co-founder Sergey Brin said, “Boy, that’s a really tough one right now.” Ruth Porat, the finance chief, said Mr. Trump’s victory felt “like a ton of bricks dropped on my chest.” Then she instructed members of the audience to hug the person next to them.
> 
> Sixteen months later, Google’s parent company, Alphabet, has most likely saved billions of dollars in taxes on its overseas cash under a new tax law signed by Mr. Trump. Alphabet also stands to benefit from the Trump administration’s looser regulations for self-driving cars and delivery drones, as well as from proposed changes to the trade pact with Mexico and Canada that would limit Google’s liability for user content on its sites.
> 
> Once one of Mr. Trump’s most vocal opponents, Silicon Valley’s technology industry has increasingly found common ground with the White House. When Mr. Trump was elected, tech executives were largely up in arms over a leader who espoused policies on immigration and other issues that were antithetical to their companies’ values. Now, many of the industry’s executives are growing more comfortable with the president and how his economic agenda furthers their business interests, even as many of their employees continue to disagree with Mr. Trump on social issues.
> 
> The relationship remains bumpy. Mr. Trump lashed out at Amazon on Twitter on Thursday, accusing the e-commerce giant of evading taxes. (Amazon said it had saved $789 million under the tax law Mr. Trump signed.) The president is also expected to sign legislation, passed by the Senate last week, that would strengthen policing of sex trafficking online — a bill that internet companies once opposed because they worried it would make them liable for content posted by their users.
> Continue reading the main story
> Related Coverage
> 
> Apple, Capitalizing on New Tax Law, Plans to Bring Billions in Cash Back to U.S. JAN. 17, 2018
> Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans JAN. 27, 2017
> STATE OF THE ART
> Silicon Valley Reels After Trump’s Election NOV. 9, 2016
> 
> Recent Comments
> Jonathan Ben-Asher 11 hours ago
> 
> As always, follow the money. Here it leads from the new tax code to the tech giants' increased profits.
> Leslie Duval 13 hours ago
> 
> These giant American corporations...Apple Google, Microsoft, Amazon...must react to a presidency that is undermining vital pathways to...
> Bos 16 hours ago
> 
> Money talks
> 
> See All Comments
> 
> Yet quietly, the tech industry has warmed to the White House, especially as companies including Alphabet, Apple and Intel have benefited from the Trump administration’s policies.
> 
> Those include lowering corporate taxes, encouraging development of new wireless technology like 5G and, so far, ignoring calls to break up the tech giants. Mr. Trump’s tougher stance on China may also help ward off industry rivals, with the president squashing a hostile bid to acquire the chip maker Qualcomm this month. And Mr. Trump let die an Obama-era rule that required many tech start-ups to give some workers more overtime pay.
> 
> Mr. Trump “has been great for business and really, really good for tech,” said Gary Shapiro, who leads the Consumer Technology Association, the largest American tech trade group, with more than 2,200 members including Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook.
> 
> Mr. Shapiro said that he had voted for Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump’s opponent, in 2016, but that he and many tech executives had come around on Mr. Trump. While they disagree with him on immigration and the environment, they have found areas where their interests align, like deregulation and investment in internet infrastructure.
> Photo
> Mr. Trump has praised Apple for saying it would build new plants in the United States. But the company, whose new Silicon Valley headquarters are shown here, has no such plans. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times
> 
> “This isn’t Hitler or Mussolini here,” Mr. Shapiro said. And even though the president’s new tariffs on steel and aluminum could hurt American businesses and consumers, “disagreement in one area does not mean we cannot work together in others,” Mr. Shapiro said. “Everyone who is married knows that.”
> 
> Mr. Trump himself has taken to naming tech companies he says are on his side.
> 
> After Apple took advantage of the new tax law in January to bring back most of the $252 billion cash hoard that it had parked overseas, the company said it would make a $350 billion “contribution to the U.S. economy” over the next five years. That prompted Mr. Trump to suggest he had made good on a campaign pledge to get Apple to bring jobs back to the United States.
> 
> “You know, for $350 million, you could build a beautiful plant. But for $350 billion, they’re going to build a lot of plants,” the president told members of Congress last month. Mr. Trump said he had called Timothy D. Cook, Apple’s chief executive, to personally thank him.
> 
> In fact, Apple has no plans to build a plant in the United States. The company is uneasy with Mr. Trump’s invoking it to signify how his policies are working, according to a person close to Apple who was not authorized to speak publicly. Apple has not, however, publicly corrected the president.
> 
> Mr. Trump has also stayed quiet on the controversy engulfing Facebook over user privacy, while other politicians have called for more regulations after revelations that the British political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica improperly harvested the information of 50 million Facebook users. Cambridge Analytica used that data to aid Mr. Trump’s campaign.
> 
> Michael Kratsios, the White House’s deputy chief technology officer, said in an interview that while Mr. Trump and Silicon Valley had their differences, “in places where we do see eye to eye, I think we’re achieving extraordinary success.”
> 
> Dean Garfield, head of the Information Technology Industry Council, a 102-year-old advocacy group that represents the biggest tech firms, said his members walked a tightrope, supporting and opposing the president on different issues. Lately, he said, “we have reached balance in the tightrope.”
> 
> The equilibrium marks a turnabout from what had been a testy relationship between Mr. Trump and the tech sector. On the campaign trail in 2016, Mr. Trump was so critical of tech companies that Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive, once joked he might send Mr. Trump to space in a rocket.
> 
> Some tech executives have since disagreed with Mr. Trump on social issues. Mr. Cook emailed staff last June to say he had unsuccessfully lobbied the president to remain in the Paris climate accords. In November, Microsoft sued the administration to protect a law that blocks deportation of young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers. More than 100 companies, including Google, Facebook and Uber, filed a brief supporting California’s lawsuit on that issue.
> 
> Even so, tech executives worked to build a relationship with the president, with some meeting him at Trump Tower before his inauguration and again at the White House in June. While in Washington for the second meeting, Mr. Cook and Satya Nadella, Microsoft’s chief executive, also dined with Jared Kushner, the president’s senior adviser and son-in-law, and Ivanka Trump at the couple’s Washington home, according to a person briefed on the meeting who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly about it. This month, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin visited Apple’s headquarters.
> 
> Silicon Valley has found plenty to like about the Trump presidency. In September, tech giants including Facebook and Microsoft teamed up with the administration to pledge $500 million to computer science education. Amazon, Microsoft and Google are also eyeing the administration as a potential customer as Mr. Trump pushes to modernize the government’s digital infrastructure.
> Photo
> Mr. Cook, right, and the venture capitalist Peter Thiel met with Mr. Trump in December 2016. “In places where we do see eye to eye, I think we’re achieving extraordinary success,” said Michael Kratsios, the White House’s deputy chief technology officer. Credit Shannon Stapleton/Reuters
> 
> But Silicon Valley’s favorite thing about Mr. Trump is almost certainly his new tax code. Many tech companies lobbied for corporate tax reform for years before Mr. Trump signed the new tax bill.
> 
> Tech giants immediately reaped the benefits. Under the new rules, Apple saved $43.7 billion in taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a nonpartisan research group. Apple then announced the $350 billion “contribution” to the economy over five years.
> 
> Most of the tally was previously planned spending with American suppliers and a $38 billion tax payment on its overseas cash. But Apple also said it planned to hire 20,000 new workers, invest in new data centers and another domestic campus, and increase a fund for innovative American manufacturers to $5 billion from $1 billion. It also gave employees $2,500 bonuses.
> 
> The president was quick to tweet the news.
> 
> The shifting relationship between Silicon Valley and Mr. Trump appears to have upset some tech employees. A Facebook page called “Angry Googler,” with nearly 1,000 followers, has been dedicated to criticizing Google for any sign it was cooperating with the president.
> 
> “Not happy about Google pulling a 180 and jumping into bed with Trump? Same here,” said the “About” section of the page, which suggests it is run by a Google employee. This month, the page posted an article about Google helping the Defense Department analyze drone footage. “We’ve gone from organizing the world’s information to … optimizing weapons of war,” the page said.
> 
> Messages to the account were not returned. Google declined to comment.
> 
> Some tech firms remain discomfited about appearing as the president’s allies. Last month, Rob Goldman, Facebook’s vice president of advertising, played down Russia’s impact on the 2016 election after the Justice Department charged 13 Russians with trying to subvert its outcome, including by using Facebook. Mr. Trump retweeted Mr. Goldman approvingly.
> 
> Facebook was uncomfortable with that association with the president, said a person close to the company who was not authorized to speak publicly.
> 
> Two days later, Facebook’s policy chief, Joel Kaplan, distanced the company from Mr. Goldman’s comments.
> 
> “The special counsel has issued its indictments, and nothing we found contradicts their conclusions,” he said in a statement. “Any suggestion otherwise is wrong.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/30/technology/silicon-valley-trump.html


----------



## Pratchett

Posted because this is the kind of thing people should be taking note of. This video will take a minute and a half of your time. If you are already aware that this is going on, please be patient for the ones who haven't been introduced to this practice yet.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Pratchett said:


> Posted because this is the kind of thing people should be taking note of. This video will take a minute and a half of your time. If you are already aware that this is going on, please be patient for the ones who haven't been introduced to this practice yet.


It's almost surreal, and incredibly ironic with the whole "extremely dangerous to your democracy" part. 

And this is where it becomes an issue for ALL of us too, with how Sinclair Broadcast Group has a conservative slant to their programming. It just shows that both sides have their share of media bias (although liberal media does have a greater hold) Makes me wonder just how many big telecommunications companies own the majority of news stations we watch.


----------



## Vic Capri

Wow, that is fucking terrifying!

- Vic


----------



## virus21

Pratchett said:


> Posted because this is the kind of thing people should be taking note of. This video will take a minute and a half of your time. If you are already aware that this is going on, please be patient for the ones who haven't been introduced to this practice yet.


That reminded me of this


----------



## Draykorinee

Another thing we can thank Ahjit Pai for. Comes in and removes the restrictions on monopolies.


----------



## BruiserKC

Pratchett said:


> Posted because this is the kind of thing people should be taking note of. This video will take a minute and a half of your time. If you are already aware that this is going on, please be patient for the ones who haven't been introduced to this practice yet.





Dr. Middy said:


> It's almost surreal, and incredibly ironic with the whole "extremely dangerous to your democracy" part.
> 
> And this is where it becomes an issue for ALL of us too, with how Sinclair Broadcast Group has a conservative slant to their programming. It just shows that both sides have their share of media bias (although liberal media does have a greater hold) Makes me wonder just how many big telecommunications companies own the majority of news stations we watch.


As a conservative, I know I have railed on the bias in the liberal media forever. Yet, now we are starting to see a lack of objectivity on my side. Voices of reason are being shut down or neutered if they dare to speak out. People accuse Colonel Ralph Peters of being a liberal apologist yet a few years ago was suspended for a profane tirade against Obama. We can still agree with some of what Trump does but the moment we go off the reservation we are evil 

This sets a dangerous precedent, where one day there will be no objective news and the monopoly by Sinclair may be replaced by a liberal outlet. It’s just insane


----------



## 2 Ton 21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979465218559565826


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china/china-hammers-us-goods-with-tariffs-as-sparks-of-trade-war-fly-idUSKCN1H81J3



> *China hammers U.S. goods with tariffs as 'sparks' of trade war fly*
> 
> BEIJING (Reuters) - China has increased tariffs by up to 25 percent on 128 U.S. products, from frozen pork and wine to certain fruits and nuts, escalating a dispute between the world’s biggest economies in response to U.S. duties on imports of aluminum and steel.
> 
> The tariffs, to take effect on Monday, were announced late on Sunday by China’s finance ministry and matched a list of possible tariffs on up to $3 billion in U.S. goods published by China on March 23.
> 
> Soon after the announcement, an editorial in the widely read Global Times newspaper warned that if the United States had thought China would not retaliate or would only take symbolic counter-measures, it could “say goodbye to that delusion”.
> 
> “Even though China and the U.S. have not publicly said they are in a trade war, the sparks of such a war have already started to fly,” the newspaper said.
> 
> The Ministry of Commerce said it was suspending its obligations to the World Trade Organization (WTO) to reduce tariffs on 120 U.S. goods, including fruit and ethanol. The tariffs on those products will be raised by an extra 15 percent.
> 
> Eight other products, including pork and scrap aluminum, would now be subject to additional tariffs of 25 percent, it said, with the measures effective from April 2.
> 
> “China’s suspension of its tariff concessions is a legitimate action adopted under WTO rules to safeguard China’s interests,” the finance ministry said.
> 
> China is moving swiftly with retaliatory action amid escalating trade tension with the United States, which has rocked global financial markets in the past week as investors fear a full-blown trade dispute between them will damage world growth.


----------



## Draykorinee

I'm not sure if Trump saw this playing out differently, I can't think he would, this was a formality of the trade 'war' Trump started.


----------



## Reaper

In a trade war America loses, because the Chinese have no quips about starving and killing their own people to prove a point and that's the only way they win this "war". The fact that they include food in price hikes goes to show you the level of barbarism western civilization is up against when it comes to their dealings with the eastern world. 

You can't win against governments that think that threatening genocide of their own people is a simple trade "tactic". You can't plan for countries to start hurting their own people. 

(Yes, if they raise the prices of imports for their own people, they're also raising prices of local goods so good luck to the poor Chinese who only just recently started coming out of massive poverty).


----------



## Tater

Ho. Lee. Chit. 

Kyle actually made an appearance on Fox News?! :sodone


----------



## Stephen90

Tater said:


> Ho. Lee. Chit.
> 
> Kyle actually made an appearance on Fox News?! :sodone


Kyle needs to get away from The Young Turks.


----------



## Tater

Pratchett said:


> :mj





Stephen90 said:


> Kyle needs to get away from The Young Turks.


It's not like they have any editorial control over him. He runs his own show autonomously. Same goes for Jimmy Dore. I don't care for TYT either but they do have a rather large platform and it's good for their audience to hear the views of Kyle and Jimmy instead of only hearing the hacks that run the main show at TYT. Say what you will about Cenk but he at least he doesn't try to control what others say.


----------



## virus21

Some good news



> OPEKA, Kan. — Kansas lawmakers have approved tougher penalties for making false calls to police three months after an officer fatally shot a Wichita man during a deadly hoax emergency call.
> 
> The Wichita Eagle reports the bill makes fake calls that result in death a felony comparable to second-degree murder. Any false call for emergency help would be at least a misdemeanor, becoming a felony if the caller uses a fake identity or electronically masks their identity.
> 
> The practice is known as “swatting,” and occurs when someone makes a call to police with a false story of an ongoing crime in an attempt to draw a large number of police officers to a particular address.
> 
> Andrew Finch
> 
> The bill is named the Andrew Finch Act, after the man killed by Wichita police as they responded to a hoax emergency call in December that they thought was a hostage situation. The legislation was championed by his mother, Lisa Finch.
> 
> “Perhaps passing this bill will give her a little bit of peace,” Sen. Lynn Rogers, D-Wichita, said.
> 
> The bill is headed to Gov. Jeff Colyer after the Legislature passed it on Tuesday. The Senate approved House Bill 2581 on a 40-0 vote. The House approved it unanimously in February. The governor has 10 days after receiving legislation to sign or veto it.
> 
> Rogers read a statement from Lisa Finch on the Senate floor: “He loved his children the most and he was dedicated to making sure his family and the others he let into his life were comfortable and felt safe. He was everyone’s protector.”
> 
> Tyler Barriss, 25, of Los Angeles, has been charged with manslaughter in Finch’s death for allegedly making the bogus call.


http://fox4kc.com/2018/03/27/kansas-lawmakers-pass-swatting-bill-sparked-by-deadly-hoax-in-wichita/


----------



## 2 Ton 21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/980800783313702918
Bullshit


----------



## RavishingRickRules

2 Ton 21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/980800783313702918
> Bullshit


Sounds like the typical old boys we get in pubs here in the UK complaining about the internet without REALLY understanding how those models work in all honesty. :lol


----------



## Pratchett

draykorinee said:


> Another thing we can thank Ahjit Pai for. Comes in and removes the restrictions on monopolies.








:kermit


----------



## El Grappleador

I will be brief on two themes:
Number one,Central Americans would rather work in Mexico.
Number two, I got the suspect about Trump jealeouses Jeff Bezos for the simple fact of beign Earth's richest men. I suspect it, but really IDK.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Pratchett said:


> Posted because this is the kind of thing people should be taking note of. This video will take a minute and a half of your time. If you are already aware that this is going on, please be patient for the ones who haven't been introduced to this practice yet.


There's only one logical explanation for such widespread mind control:













On a serious note, I'm so glad I dropped watching cable news a year ago in favor of getting my news from certain YouTubers. :squirtle


----------



## Draykorinee

2 Ton 21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/980800783313702918
> Bullshit


Shipping packages are the ONLY growing income for the postal office, but it's Amazon's fault...this fucking guy.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> Ho. Lee. Chit.
> 
> Kyle actually made an appearance on Fox News?! :sodone


That was so cringey and exactly what you would expect from Fox News. :lol


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> That was so cringey and exactly what you would expect from Fox News. :lol


Yeah, FOX, just the same as CNN or MSNBC, don't take too kindly to people who don't stick with the standard establishment talking points.


----------



## CamillePunk

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-military-to-protect-u-s-border-idUSKCN1HA1KP


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981228341754646528
Been saying he should do this for a while.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981169472156311558


----------



## RavishingRickRules

2 Ton 21 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981169472156311558


He's REALLY starting to come across like a doddering old fool with shit like that tweet tbh. Reminds me of a lot of Brexit voters :lmao


----------



## 2 Ton 21

RavishingRickRules said:


> He's REALLY starting to come across like a doddering old fool with shit like that tweet tbh. Reminds me of a lot of Brexit voters :lmao


Reminds me of a couple of older relatives. You hear them say something incorrect, like the name of an actor in a movie or where a restaurant is. You give them the correct info. Then you hear them say the same wrong thing to their neighbor the next day. They're not senile or anything, they just have an absolute belief they're right not matter the evidence. I think part of it is a self esteem thing. They feel like if they are wrong everyone will think they are getting too old and are losing their faculties, not understanding that everyone is wrong sometimes.


----------



## Reaper

I'm so done with him now. One of the most ridiculous men I have ever put my support behind. 

Burned once. Won't happen again. 

Fuck it. 

I'd rather just go the way of continuing to argue against all forms of government which is my actual stance. It was always a little naive to think that a guy who ran on an authoritarian ticket for one of the largest governments in the world to actually understand that "authoritarianism for me, not for thee" is essentially the ENTIRE republican platform. 

Too complex of a concept for most people.


----------



## skypod

Question about the Sinclair thing. So CBS etc. have local stations, and they followed a script by Sinclair. But the main CBS channel is reporting on this story as if it's out of their control and Sinclairs fault. Do CBS not own and control their own local content? I'm confused as to what power Sinclair has over multiple news stations locally?


----------



## stevefox1200

Sounds like some people are tired of winning


----------



## alejbr4

skypod said:


> Question about the Sinclair thing. So CBS etc. have local stations, and they followed a script by Sinclair. But the main CBS channel is reporting on this story as if it's out of their control and Sinclairs fault. Do CBS not own and control their own local content? I'm confused as to what power Sinclair has over multiple news stations locally?


from what i gathered its like franchising where theres a head and smaller companies and a parent company. so there are multiple bosses...its weird i had to look through tons of info.


----------



## BruiserKC

Reap said:


> I'm so done with him now. One of the most ridiculous men I have ever put my support behind.
> 
> Burned once. Won't happen again.
> 
> Fuck it.
> 
> I'd rather just go the way of continuing to argue against all forms of government which is my actual stance. It was always a little naive to think that a guy who ran on an authoritarian ticket for one of the largest governments in the world to actually understand that "authoritarianism for me, not for thee" is essentially the ENTIRE republican platform.
> 
> Too complex of a concept for most people.


I knew it was a matter of time before Trump showed his true colors. Besides, when an avowed socialist like Bernie Sanders is in TOTAL agreement with Trump regarding his stance and attacks against Amazon (a privately owned company), that should tell you all you need to know. 

And for others reading this...spare me the "Deep State" and "He's playing 75th Intergenerational Superdimensional Knick-Knack Paddywack Old Maid." schtick. Trump is doing this to himself. All he had to do was put his head down and get to work. I believe the people (myself included) might have been on board. If this administration goes down in flames, it's his fault. Period. 



skypod said:


> Question about the Sinclair thing. So CBS etc. have local stations, and they followed a script by Sinclair. But the main CBS channel is reporting on this story as if it's out of their control and Sinclairs fault. Do CBS not own and control their own local content? I'm confused as to what power Sinclair has over multiple news stations locally?


CBS has some O&O (owned and operated) stations, mostly in larger markets. With those stations, the network itself runs the station and its day-to-day operations. In most cases, however...other TV stations are affiliates of the networks. They are owned by other companies but have contractual agreements to run network programming. The companies are not related to the network itself. For example, my local CBS affiliate is owned by Hearst. They run all the CBS news, sports, and entertainment programming as they have a contractual agreement with CBS to do so. 

The concern here is in the case of most companies they pretty much have a hands-off approach to the local news programming. Usually they are allowed to do their own thing. However, Sinclair has become very hands-on with the stations they own and micro-manage every little detail. They are told to run segments and monitor those stations to make sure they don't get buried somewhere where few people would be watching.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reap said:


> I'm so done with him now. One of the most ridiculous men I have ever put my support behind.
> 
> Burned once. Won't happen again.
> 
> Fuck it.
> 
> I'd rather just go the way of continuing to argue against all forms of government which is my actual stance. It was always a little naive to think that a guy who ran on an authoritarian ticket for one of the largest governments in the world to actually understand that "authoritarianism for me, not for thee" is essentially the ENTIRE republican platform.
> 
> Too complex of a concept for most people.


Hey!

You're not the only one. Frankly he seemed like the best choice on paper to avoid war, bring back jobs, jump start people focusing on doing what's best for America and bringing to heel some of the retarded states that are fucking things up with their chronic altruism and virtue signaling. 

He turned out not to be what he said he was, go figure he's a Politician. Could be worse, could have voted for Hillary and be at war with everyone. Well with Bolton maybe that will still happen. 

I'm here for you and at least you're not a NeoCon. :x


----------



## DaRealNugget

"trade wars are good, and easy to win"

*China announces new tariffs on 106 US products, including soy, cars and chemicals*



> China announced additional tariffs on 106 U.S. products on Wednesday, in a move likely to heighten global concerns of a tit-for-tat trade war between the world's biggest economies.
> 
> The effective start date for the new charges was not announced, though China's Ministry of Commerce said the tariffs are designed to target up to $50 billion of U.S. products annually.
> 
> The 25 percent levy on U.S. imports includes products such as soybeans, cars and whiskey, Beijing said.
> 
> The move comes less than 24 hours after President Donald Trump unveiled a list of Chinese imports that he aims to target as part of a crackdown on what he deems as unfair trade practices.


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/04/china-new-us-tariffs-including-soy-cars-and-chemicals.html

China throwing shade,



> The Chinese Embassy in Washington was also quick to condemn this latest move - saying:
> 
> “*As the Chinese saying goes, it is only polite to reciprocate.* The Chinese side will resort to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism and take corresponding measures of equal scale and strength against US products in accordance with Chinese law.”


:lmao


----------



## Art Vandaley




----------



## RavishingRickRules

Alkomesh2 said:


>


:lmao that is BRILLIANT!


----------



## FriedTofu

DaRealNugget said:


> "trade wars are good, and easy to win"
> 
> *China announces new tariffs on 106 US products, including soy, cars and chemicals*
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/04/china-new-us-tariffs-including-soy-cars-and-chemicals.html
> 
> China throwing shade,
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao


Dude has at most 6 more years in office. Xi JinPing has a lifetime mandate to antagonise anyone he likes. What makes Trump think he can outlast the pain of a trade war?

We have the Trump-wing and Bernie-wing of American politics to thank for tanking the TPP when our new Chinese overlord decides what's best for global politics.


----------



## El Grappleador

Brief opinion from a psychologic perspective: I accept the reality. He will role as a protector father or as a controller father or a spoiled brat. Never as an adult, though.
If He wanna play these roles based on psychologic games... He is under his decision! But in the end, I'm not gonna hope for watch him begging if ends frustrated and self-Sympathized. 

Resuming: Land of the free... No longer. 

It's adult time.


----------



## Miss Sally

FriedTofu said:


> Dude has at most 6 more years in office. Xi JinPing has a lifetime mandate to antagonise anyone he likes. What makes Trump think he can outlast the pain of a trade war?
> 
> We have the Trump-wing and Bernie-wing of American politics to thank for tanking the TPP when our new Chinese overlord decides what's best for global politics.


The biggest consumer of Chinese goods is America, not like they can just write America off. Besides Bernie isn't wrong, America gets hosed on trade deals because we're operating at pre Red Scare era levels. We never adjusted how we do things once the Soviets dissolved and it's biting us on the ass now.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43664243



> *Trump threatens further $100bn in tariffs against China*
> 
> US President Donald Trump has instructed officials to consider a further $100bn (£71.3bn) of tariffs against China, in an escalation of a tense trade stand-off.
> 
> These would be in addition to the $50bn worth of US tariffs already proposed on hundreds of Chinese imports.
> 
> The proposal comes after China retaliated to that by threatening tariffs on 106 key US products.
> 
> The tit-for-tat moves have unsettled global markets in recent weeks.
> 
> Analysts have said a full blown trade war between the US and China would not be good for the global economy or markets - and that ongoing behind-the-scenes negotiations between the two giants are crucial.
> 
> However, market reaction in early Asia trade on Friday suggested investors were not as troubled, and that trade war fears were somewhat exaggerated.
> 
> In China, Hong Kong's Hang Seng was in positive territory, up 1.5%. Japan's benchmark Nikkei 225 was trading higher after the morning session.
> 
> *Tit-for-tat tariffs*
> 
> Last week Washington set out about 1,300 Chinese products it intended to hit with tariffs set at 25%. That followed an announcement earlier this year that the US would impose import taxes on aluminium and steel, which would include China.
> 
> The White House said its latest tariffs were a response to unfair Chinese intellectual property practices, such as those that pressure US companies to share technology with Chinese firms.
> 
> China responded swiftly and robustly by proposing tariffs on 106 key US products, including soybeans, aircraft parts and orange juice, narrowly aimed at politically important sectors in the US, such as agriculture.
> 
> But in a statement on Thursday Mr Trump branded Beijing's retaliation as "unfair".
> 
> "Rather than remedy its misconduct, China has chosen to harm our farmers and manufacturers
> 
> "In light of China's unfair retaliation, I have instructed the USTR (United States Trade Representative) to consider whether $100bn of additional tariffs would be appropriate under section 301 and, if so, to identify the products upon which to impose such tariffs," Mr Trump said.
> 
> He said he had also instructed agricultural officials to implement a plan to protect US farmers and agricultural interests.
> 
> Meanwhile, China has initiated a complaint with the World Trade Organisation over the US tariffs, in what analysts say could be a sign that this will be a protracted process.
> 
> The WTO circulated the request for consultation to members on Thursday, launching a discussion period before the complaint heads to formal dispute settlement process.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Reap said:


> I'm so done with him now. One of the most ridiculous men I have ever put my support behind.
> 
> Burned once. Won't happen again.
> 
> Fuck it.
> 
> I'd rather just go the way of continuing to argue against all forms of government which is my actual stance. It was always a little naive to think that a guy who ran on an authoritarian ticket for one of the largest governments in the world to actually understand that "authoritarianism for me, not for thee" is essentially the ENTIRE republican platform.
> 
> Too complex of a concept for most people.


Still sorely disappointed with Pompeo, Hasel and Bolton moving on up, but I must confess...I still enjoy his non-PC shenanigans and how Tillerson helped him move toward actual talks with NK regarding denuclearization. I still have cautious optimism over where he goes from here, but if he keeps shitting the bed instead of shitposting, I can't guarantee that I'll remain on the Trump Train.

However, I do have one question to throw at you, brah: Team Rand when? :hmmm


----------



## MrMister

skypod said:


> Question about the Sinclair thing. So CBS etc. have local stations, and they followed a script by Sinclair. But the main CBS channel is reporting on this story as if it's out of their control and Sinclairs fault. Do CBS not own and control their own local content? I'm confused as to what power Sinclair has over multiple news stations locally?


Sinclair owns a bunch of stations. These stations are not owned nor controlled by CBS. CBS and the other major networks have a deal with all the stations they don't actually own outright in the United States to allow their content to be broadcast by these stations. CBS also could own a lot of stations too, but they don't own the Sinclair stations, so they have little to no say in what Sinclair does locally with each Sinclair owned station.


----------



## Tater

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Still sorely disappointed with Pompeo, Hasel and Bolton moving on up, but I must confess...I still enjoy his non-PC shenanigans and how Tillerson helped him move toward actual talks with NK regarding denuclearization. I still have cautious optimism over where he goes from here, but if he keeps shitting the bed instead of shitposting, I can't guarantee that I'll remain on the Trump Train.
> 
> However, I do have one question to throw at you, brah: Team Rand when? :hmmm


Had it been a choice between Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton, even though Rand regularly pisses me off on many issues, I'd still stand with Rand because at least he is the real deal when it comes to being anti-war and he's pretty strong on civil liberties too. Point being, it's kinda difficult to argue over economic issues if the neocons end all life on the planet.


----------



## DOPA




----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Tater said:


> Had it been a choice between Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton, even though Rand regularly pisses me off on many issues, I'd still stand with Rand because at least he is the real deal when it comes to being anti-war and he's pretty strong on civil liberties too. Point being, it's kinda difficult to argue over economic issues if the neocons end all life on the planet.


Paul is such a cocktease toward libertarianism that it borders on infuriating. And yet like you said, he nevertheless shows actual semblance of spine and common sense more often than not compared to his fellow Congressmen and women. I'd call him a problematic fave, but I don't like Tumblr enough to do so in spite of its commendable contribution regarding sexy gifs.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> Had it been a choice between Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton, even though Rand regularly pisses me off on many issues, I'd still stand with Rand because at least he is the real deal when it comes to being anti-war and he's pretty strong on civil liberties too. Point being, it's kinda difficult to argue over economic issues if the neocons end all life on the planet.


I think that's an acceptable way to go though even if a lot of the politics aren't ideal. I don't like Jeremy Corbyn at all, but the man has voted against every single war for 40 years of unbroken public service. He might not have a lot of other politics I agree with but if he says "I want to stop bombing the shit out of everywhere" I'm inclined to believe him based on his track record, so I voted for him at the general election. He's the least "crony capitalist" of a lot of our politicians which helped a little too. Now I wouldn't vote for him again but based on the choice at the time it seemed like the better option. I'm anti-war in general, but especially when it's wars we don't need to be making destabilising areas and helping evil fuck wits convince stupid fuck wits that we all need to pay for their greed. I'll go with whoever I think will cause the least amount of really bad shit because they're all going to do a lot of regular bad shit regardless.


----------



## virus21

> WASHINGTON — In the spring of 2014, a friend tried to nudge Judge Stephen Reinhardt, then an 83-year-old liberal stalwart on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, into stepping aside from full-time duties so President Barack Obama could nominate a successor.
> The friend, Erwin Chemerinsky, now the dean at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, said he had gently suggested to Judge Reinhardt that he and another longtime liberal figure on the San Francisco-based court make way while Democrats still had the power to assure that jurists with a similar philosophy would take their place. Judge Reinhardt swiftly rejected that notion and stayed on.
> Now Judge Reinhardt, who died this past week at age 87, could very well be replaced by a nominee chosen by President Trump. The president suddenly has a chance to seat a judge with a markedly different judicial outlook, giving conservatives a greater voice on the liberal-leaning court, which has been a particular thorn in Mr. Trump’s side.
> The president’s opening does not end there.
> The vacancy is one of eight on the appeals court, which has 29 active judges — a vivid illustration of the larger opportunity for Mr. Trump to put an enduring stamp on the makeup of the federal judiciary nationwide by installing candidates of a more conservative bent.
> “With a Republican Senate and no possibility of a filibuster, he can have whoever he wants on the circuit court,” Mr. Chemerinsky said. “It will dramatically change the Ninth Circuit.”
> Continue reading the main story
> Advertisement
> Continue reading the main story
> Currently, there are almost 150 federal district and appeals court vacancies around the country, a number that has risen from just over 100 when Mr. Trump took office, despite his notable success at filling openings. Democrats’ weakening of the filibuster against nominees in 2013 and a recent Republican decision to limit the veto power of home-state senators over judicial candidates have left few avenues to impede Mr. Trump and his Senate allies in their determination to fill judicial openings.
> Last month, the president promised an intense push. “We’re going all out,” Mr. Trump told a cheering audience in Ohio, declaring that his ability to fill scores of open slots was a “gift from heaven,” as well as “world-changing, country-changing, U.S.A.-changing.”
> Mr. Trump chastised the Ninth Circuit last year for its ruling against his travel ban, and for a district court judge’s move to block enforcement of a threat by his administration to withhold federal aid from so-called sanctuary cities. “Ridiculous rulings,” he railed on Twitter. “See you in the Supreme Court!”
> Though analysts say it has become more moderate in recent years, the Ninth Circuit has long been the bane of conservatives, partly because of the influence of Judge Reinhardt and another Jimmy Carter-era appointee, Harry Pregerson, who died in 2017 after taking senior status in 2015.
> It is the nation’s largest appeals court, covering nine Western states and dealing with a staggering set of topics from social questions like same-sex marriage to border issues to land resource matters. Because of its size, experts say that Mr. Trump would be unable to reverse its ideological makeup even if he were able to fill all eight vacancies. Some of those nominees would replace judges who had been appointed by other Republican presidents.
> 
> 
> But there is no dispute that Mr. Trump has the chance to push it to the right. The dynamics of the court could change in many subtle ways — producing, for example, more sharp dissents that catch the attention of the Supreme Court, said Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society.
> Plus, it is hard to measure the effect of the loss of Judge Reinhardt, who was seen as a major influence on the liberal wing of the court and a talented and articulate legal protector of liberal views. “The death of Judge Reinhardt means more than the loss of a liberal vote,” said Arthur Hellman, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh and a leading expert on the appeals court.
> The mounting vacancies throw the future of the Ninth Circuit into the continuing Senate clash over the federal judiciary, one area where Mr. Trump has had success, with the enthusiastic assistance of Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and majority leader. Since Mr. Trump took office, the Senate has confirmed not only Justice Neil M. Gorsuch of the Supreme Court, but also a record 14 appeals court judges and 14 district court judges.
> Many more are in the pipeline. “I believe that’s the most important thing we are doing,” Mr. McConnell told a newspaper editorial board last week in Kentucky.
> The Trump administration has already put forward two nominees for Ninth Circuit openings. One, Mark Bennett, the former attorney general of Hawaii, has the support of the state’s two Democratic senators.
> But the other, Ryan Bounds, a federal prosecutor in Oregon, faces objections from the state’s two Democratic senators, setting up a showdown over that choice.
> After Judge Reinhardt’s death created another California vacancy on the court, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Californian who is also the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said she would resist efforts to remake a court that has been willing to defy the president.
> “It’s no secret that President Trump and Republicans want to reshape the Ninth Circuit, and we will not accept unwarranted, partisan attacks on our courts,” she said in a statement. “I am fully committed to ensuring that Ninth Circuit nominees reflect our state’s communities and values and are well regarded by their local bench and bar.”
> But she may find it hard to deliver on that guarantee. Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, will probably proceed carefully, given his need to work cooperatively with Ms. Feinstein. But Mr. Grassley — with Mr. McConnell’s eager backing — has decreed that he will not allow home-state senators to use the so-called blue slip process to block appeals court nominees, as they have in the past.
> The changes to the Ninth Circuit and the rest of the federal bench are now playing out with several questions looming, including how quickly the White House will act and how driven Senate Republicans will be to confirm judges before a November election that could change control of the Senate.
> Some Republicans have threatened more rules changes if Democrats continue to slow-walk nominees.
> One thing is certain, though — any Ninth Circuit nominee chosen by Mr. Trump will bear little resemblance to Judge Reinhardt.


http://archive.is/DdiKF#selection-1677.0-1850.3


----------



## BruiserKC

Regarding Syria...pivoting back and forth between bringing the troops home and leaving them there is not sound foreign policy. Mr. President, pick one or the other and stick with it. Personally I don’t care either way but we need a firm commitment.


----------



## DesolationRow

Call this number if you would like to remind the Trump White House that the sitting president was voted in to "make America great again," not start a foolish all-out war with the Syrian regime: 202-456-1111.

Line was busy for approximately ten minutes so it would appear that a fair number of citizens are calling in.


----------



## Draykorinee

Another gas attack against a defeated populace.

hstopit


----------



## 2 Ton 21

> “When we do a deal with China – which probably we will, if we don’t they’ll have to pay pretty high taxes to do business with our country. That’s a possibility. But if we do a deal with China, if during the course of a negotiation they want to hit the farmers, because they think that hits me, I wouldn’t say that’s nice, but I tell you, our farmers are great patriots. These are great patriots. They understand that they’re doing this for the country. And we’ll make it up to them. In the end they’re going to be much stronger than they are right now.”


"They're suckers, they'll happily take the hit for my dumb ass policy."


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/983513779014057984

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/983385849835302912 :lol


----------



## 2 Ton 21

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43706309



> *US annual budget deficit forecast to hit $1 trillion*
> 
> The US is heading for an annual budget deficit of more than $1 trillion (£707bn) by 2020 following tax cuts and higher public spending, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
> 
> It said that while the measures will temporarily boost the US economy, they will exacerbate its long-term debt.
> 
> The agency said US debt could rise to a level comparable to World War II and the financial crisis.
> 
> It warned that it would have "serious negative consequences" for the US.
> 
> The CBO's report has been revised to incorporate the effects of a new $1.3 trillion government spending bill and the $1.5 trillion in Republican-led tax cuts approved last year.
> 
> It lifted its economic growth forecast for this year and next to 3.3% and 2.4% respectively.
> 
> However, the non-partisan CBO said the deficit - the difference between what the government spends and what it receives through tax receipts - is expected to rise to $804bn in 2018 from $665bn in the previous year.
> 
> The budget deficit is then expected to grow to $1 trillion by 2020.
> 
> *Rising debt
> *
> The agency said it now expects America's cumulative deficit over the next decade to grow to $11.7 trillion compared to a previous forecast of $10.1 trillion.
> 
> It added that debt would hit $28 trillion, or about 96% of GDP, by 2028.
> 
> The figure would be even larger if the tax cuts for individuals and families do not expire as scheduled.
> 
> The CBO said that "such high and rising debt would have serious negative consequences for the budget and the nation," which would include limiting the government's flexibility to introduce new policies and making it vulnerable to fiscal shock.
> 
> The report is expected to fuel concerns that China could use its position as America's largest foreign creditor to its advantage during the current trade dispute.
> 
> Democrats seized on the report to criticise Republicans, who have previously championed fiscal responsibility.
> 
> Senator Chuck Schumer of New York said the report "exposes the scam behind the rosy rhetoric from Republicans that their tax bill would pay for itself" and warned that Republicans will now use the rising debt to call for cuts to welfare programmes such as Social Security.


----------



## Draykorinee

Ah, remember when Republicans were the fiscal party. Thanks Trump for killing that myth for good.


----------



## Vic Capri

The FBI was told a 19 year psychopath was going to murder children at school, they did nothing. A porn star said she had sex with Donald Trump, they raid his attorney's office.

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/983513779014057984
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/983385849835302912 :lol


Doesn't sound suspect at all, got to have those fact checkers! 

Clearly nothing could go wrong.


----------



## yeahbaby!

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/983385849835302912 :lol


I think a fair few Californian uh, adult sites will have trouble proving all their pool repair guys with 9'' cocks are legit.


----------



## Tater

2 Ton 21 said:


> http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43706309


While I find it utterly fucking hilarious to see the myth of Republican fiscal responsibility get kersploded... :lmao

I know a lot of people call me crazy when I say this. And that's fine. I am crazy about all kinds of shit but this ain't one of them. This is what people need to know.

Government. Debt. Don't. Matter.

Say it again if you didn't understand it the first time. National debt doesn't matter and neither does trillions in budget deficits.

_Oh but think of the grandchildren! OMG they'll be saddled with all that debt!_ -says the dumbass mother fucker who knows jack shit about the situation we're in.

That debt ain't never getting paid. And if you're stupid enough to believe that a government *that can print it's own fucking money can go broke, *then you are about the dumbest artard on the planet.

Modern money is a fictional made up tool to keep the vast majority of power and wealth in the hands of the tiny few people who control the levers of society. Modern money is fiat. We've long been off the gold standard. Money now only has the value that we use our imagination to give to it.

When capitalism collapses, *and it will *when human labor is no longer required to produce the things society needs to survive, all those greenbacks and imaginary debt numbers in a computer database somewhere ain't gonna mean jack shit. You can eat a hamburger made of quarters and you can't live in a house made of bearer bonds.

What people need to understand is that money itself is what is holding back society so much. As soon as people come to the realization that actual, physical resources are more important than fictional money, humanity will be taking a large step into the future. In the USA, we throw away 40% of the food we produce while people go hungry and there are more than 6 empty houses for every homeless person. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that's the fault of capitalism.

I'm a libertarian leftist because I believe in direct democracy and a society that is owned and operated by the population but I am also a fiscal conservative in a sense as well. When I say fiscal conservative, I'm not talking about fiat money. I'm talking about resources. Instead of endless fighting over how that fictional dollar bill should be allocated, what we should be doing is figuring out how to most efficiently use the resources that we have available to us. We have the resources we need for everyone to have a decent standard of living. The thing that is holding us back from creating that kind of society is the money to "buy" those resources.

There ain't no good fucking reason to have hungry and homeless people when we have the capability to build homes for everyone and grow enough food for everyone. The sooner everyone figures that out, the better off we'll all be.


----------



## CamillePunk

Direct democracy is AIDS. Life is confusing and people are insane.


----------



## Draykorinee

So Trump tweets



> Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!


Trump voters who thought he was going to be any good ointandlaugh


----------



## Irish Jet

Just launch the nukes. Fuck this species' development and let's get back to square one.

This is basically gonna be Cuba 1962 with Trump and Bolton instead of the Kennedy bros. What a time to be alive, for however long it lasts. All over a war without a cause worth fighting for. Serving the interests of those who done 9/11 - This War on Terror has been amazing.


----------



## DesolationRow

Upon the _Canon de 24 de Vallière_ Louis XIV had the Latin phrase "_Ultima Ratio Regum_," or "The Last Argument of Kings" inscribed.

Perhaps Donald Trump should, upon these "smart" bombs evidently earmarked for Syria in spite of Russia's protestations over same, _Ivanka lacrimis haec tibi_, or, roughly, "Ivanka's Tears Brought This Upon You."


Should the Assad regime be toppled ala Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, the catastrophic bloodletting of civilians killed through mortars, gunfire, beheading and myriad methods employed by vicious jihadi fighters and Islamic State terrorists will at least avoid death via dubiously efficacious chemical weapons.


----------



## Draykorinee

DesolationRow said:


> Upon the _Canon de 24 de Vallière_ Louis XIV had the Latin phrase "_Ultima Ratio Regum_," or "The Last Argument of Kings" inscribed.
> 
> Perhaps Donald Trump should, upon these "smart" bombs evidently earmarked for Syria in spite of Russia's protestations over same, _Ivanka lacrimis haec tibi_, or, roughly, "Ivanka's Tears Brought This Upon You."
> 
> 
> Should the Assad regime be toppled ala Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, the catastrophic bloodletting of civilians killed through mortars, gunfire, beheading and myriad methods employed by vicious jihadi fighters and Islamic State terrorists will at least avoid death via dubiously efficacious chemical weapons.


:shockedpunk

I think I agree with you though.


----------



## Reaper

This guy sounds like that psychotic boyfriend that points a fist at you, threatens to kill you and then says it's because he loves you and wants to take care of you. 










What the fuck is this nonsense?


----------



## GothicBohemian

Reap said:


> What the fuck is this nonsense?


It's Trump being Trump, you just didn't notice when you were caught up in the hype of him being an outsider bringing change. 

Reap, I took you off ignore because I was curious to see how you were reacting to Trump now that it's obvious to anyone watching that he's not fit to lead anything, let alone a country with nuclear weapons. You're not dumb, so I'm surprised it took you this long to realize that he is. Better late than never, I suppose. Unfortunately, this man is now the US president and while the other candidates both the Democrats and the Republicans offered up were nothing special, and the US system doesn't allow much hope for viable third party options, at least a different choice than Trump likely wouldn't have led to the rise of Bolton or idiotic taunting of powerful economic and military quasi-allies.

Look, I know a lot of folks itt enjoy the circus around MAGA - the tweets, the porn star, the revolving door of ineptitude at the White House - but along with all that reality show entertainment came divisive internal policy, economic stupidity and clueless international relations. Some people may not think any of that matters but it does. I'm not a nihilist; I don't want to see the world burn for shits and giggles. And reality check - destroying the US government from within would not make life better. Chaos is not pretty, and a government-free US would be chaos. Food production, electricity, road maintenance, schools, etc...in fantasyland, this stuff gets taken care of without any organizing power. In reality, you get collapse. People are selfish. Transitioning to communal ownership and responsibility takes years of slow shifting in public perception. Otherwise, it's just sudden descent into anarchy. 

You, and others, have me misread as a Trudeau loyalist SJW liberal when, really, I'm closer to a Tater with a bit more realism and a lot less conspiracy theorizing. However, I'm also a strategic voter who weighs her options and gives her vote to the candidates least likely to dismantle what I like, least likely to upend international cooperation and least likely to interfere with my private life and the private lives of citizens of other countries. In the US, I would have had to vote Hilary since the only other options were throw away my vote on third party or as a protest, which would only help Trump, or vote for the dangerous moron. I'd have done it too, voted Hilldog, because I knew what Trump was from the moment he opened his mouth.


----------



## Reaper

I'm going to respond to you too Gothic, I was never a pro-Trumper in the sense of blindly following all his policy positions so I have no idea why I'm consistently pigeon-holed into being one. I have a basic political ideology of my own that I compare Trump's policy actions with and if they don't align I have always criticized them. Long ago myself and many others always made these claims that you vote for policy. I have as many posts in these threads saying that I'm not a Trump supporter than I have saying that I am. 

It's ridiculous that you people consistently apply your assumptions on to me despite my continued criticisms of his policy positions since day one. In reality that makes me way more apolitical than a Trump loyalist. 

It hasn't taken me long to change my mind. I used to play up the support because it was fun and I enjoyed poking fun at the mass hysteria bubble that existed at the time (and I still think that a good majority of anti-Trumpers are still in that bubble). A lot of their concerns at the time were not obvious and there was no reason other than bias to actually accept them, and were based on hysterical exaggerations - _at the time_. Just because certain terrible policy positions and changes came to pass in recent months does not mean that things were always going to head in that direction. 

People criticized him for certain things back then does not mean that in those things that he's wrong now makes them any more justified back then in hindsight. The criticism then were based on assuming that he would be a sellout or that he was lying - therefore had he actually not been lying and not become a sellout then those criticisms would right now be invalid. Hysterical assumptions without evidence are just that. They can either come true, or be false. In retrospect they don't change what they were. 

In any case. It's obvious we always misread each other to an extent so it's fine to have that sort of mentality be put back into the past.



> In the US, I would have had to vote Hilary since the only other options were throw away my vote on third party or as a protest, which would only help Trump, or vote for the dangerous moron. I'd have done it too, voted Hilldog, because I knew what Trump was from the moment he opened his mouth.


You need to stop believing this because Hillary was 100% behind continuation of the Iraq War, destablization of the Arab Spring, destruction of Libya and escalation of the conflict and American involvement in Syria. Libya and Syria are Hillary's war, so your vote would still have been for a dangerous moron --- in fact, I'd say she isn't a moron, but a calculated war-hawk.


----------



## GothicBohemian

While you may not have considered yourself a pro-Trumper in the blind follower sense, you knew your over-the-top support of all things Trump painted you into that corner. As you say, you did it to stir things up. Well, you got the reaction you sought and the reputation to match. 

I don't agree that the likelihood of Trump delivering what he has wasn't clear early on. It was. A lot of people saw this coming. Maybe you didn't, but I think that might well be because you didn't want to. Some of his message was what you wanted to hear and that made it easy to ignore the questionable bits. You weren't the only one. If I felt passionately about any of Trump's promises I might have looked past the uglier aspects too. Well, no, actually I wouldn't have but I could have thrown my support behind Bernie Saunders and he certainly has his faults.

As for Hilary - she's a war-hawk, no question about it and I'm not a fan of hers, but she's not an irresponsible idiot. If I have to choose, I'll take the hawk who might act over the inconsistent, petty man who governs based on his whims and the words of the power players surrounding him.


----------



## Reaper

GothicBohemian said:


> While you may not have considered yourself a pro-Trumper in the blind follower sense, you knew your over-the-top support of all things Trump painted you into that corner.* As you say, you did it to stir things up. Well, you got the reaction you sought and the reputation to match. *


I admire your stubborness, but that's all it is. 

You could have also just as easily paid attention to all the times I was serious and criticized him and even many of his policy positions. So pigeon-holing me is on you - 

It's not fair when _you _essentially cherry-pick certain things, pigeon-hole me and now make it somehow to be my fault that you did this :mj


----------



## Draykorinee

As if antitrumpers like myself weren't looking to stir shut up, that's not an actual negative in my opinion, unless you're doing it using lies or fallacies.


----------



## Genking48

Reap said:


> This guy sounds like that psychotic boyfriend that points a fist at you, threatens to kill you and then says it's because he loves you and wants to take care of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck is this nonsense?


I love the "Our relationship with Russia is shit.....there's no reason for this." Like it came out of nowhere


----------



## CamillePunk

I suspect this will end up much like the North Korea situation where everyone is freaking out and then we have unthinkably good developments - much to the chagrin of the Democrats and neocons. Trump doesn't want war with Russia, Russia doesn't want war with the US, it's not going to happen.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> I suspect this will end up much like the North Korea situation where everyone is freaking out and then we have unthinkably good developments - much to the chagrin of the Democrats and neocons. Trump doesn't want war with Russia, Russia doesn't want war with the US, it's not going to happen.


Not sure they can rely on the South Koreans and Chinese to fix all the mess he makes this time.(Trump is just grandstanding mind, I doubt he'll odo anything he said on twitter)


----------



## Reaper

I'm not worried about a war. 

I'm worried about the fact that his current entire administration is GW Bush / Obama-lite.


----------



## DOPA

This latest chemical attack in Syria and the reaction to it is exactly the same shit that has been going on for the past 2 and a half years, with more continued calls for more intervention in Syria fixing all of the blame to Assad without any investigation to see what exactly is going on. It has happened so many times that you wonder when are some politicians are going to call bullshit on this. Remember, the first chemical attack that happened in Syria after further investigation months later was found that it wasn't Assad who did the attack.

Let's use some rationality and logic for a second: ISIS are all but crushed now in Syria and Assad is in a better position politically than he was before Trump came into office. Knowing this, it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to launch a chemical attack on his own people knowing that he risks facing the full might of the US and NATO. Assad is a brutal dictator but he isn't stupid. He's not a complete mad man without a brain. If the Neo-Con's think people are stupid then they are in way over their head. Nobody is going to believe the story fed through the media without solid proof. I certainly don't believe it, they are looking for any excuse to escalate in Syria, particularly with Pompeo and Bolton now in the higher offices of the President's administration.

Those tweets by Trump honestly were him posturing, looking tough for the international scene. It's akin to an international dick measuring contest, much like with his infamous "button" tweet towards Kim Jong Un though this is noticeably less funny and more serious. Having said that, behind the scenes with the Neo-Con's that are riddled within his adminstration and Trump proving he is no non-interventionist, it is certainly a scary time to be watching this unfold.

The most amusing part of all of this is the sanest response to this whole ordeal has come from Theresa May who essentially said the UK would not get involved without concrete proof that this was indeed Assad's doing. I'd much prefer we didn't get involved full stop as every time we intervene in the middle east we make thinks much worse but it's at least more sane than looking to launch strikes straight away when we don't have the proof yet. Why this is so amusing is the utter hypocrisy of May when it comes to foreign policy decisions. She, the Tory government and right wing papers like the Mail and Express reacted in horror and called Corbyn a traitor for simply suggesting we should wait for evidence on whether or not it was the Russian government behind the attacks on the double agent that was in the UK. This idiot May wanted to and has to a certain extent taken action against Russia without any investigation whatsoever. But now when it comes to a situation where we may have to commit troops, she wants caution. Well I should be happy and guess I am to certain extent but the lack of consistency is hilarious. Will the Mail and Express now start calling May a traitor and a coward for not wanting to take action Syria straight away? Of course not, because they are partisan hacks.

I hate even having to defend Corbyn as his ideas are awful and he's not even the "different and honest" politician that his supporters claim he is but bullshit has to be called when I see it.


----------



## Miss Sally

We should take the Syrian gas attack very seriously, just because Assad would gain nothing from it and would ensure US intervention doesn't mean he'd not do it, right?!

Now we just got to wait for those evil, evil Russians to make a move.. maybe use a poison that can be easily traced to them which a drop can kill ten elephants but magically leave it's victims alive!


----------



## virus21




----------



## Hehe Hoho

Why is Trump butt hurt over Syrian stuff.What about Yemen genocide by Saudi and attacks on Palestine by Jews?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Mike Pompeo just got sonned by Rand Paul during his confirmation hearing.


----------



## DOPA

Pompeo is a fucking weasel. Claims he wants to get out of Afghanistan whilst supporting an increase of troops in the region and escalating the conflict which he calls humble. Can't even answer whether or not the Iraq war was a mistake because he supported it and still supports it to this day. Tries to invoke the past times that Obama ignored the constitution getting authority from Congress to declare war in order to justify going to war in Syria.

It's so clear he wants to escalate further in the middle east yet cannot be open about it when challenged by Rand. And this is who the US now has as secretary of state.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Makise Kurisu said:


> Pompeo is a fucking weasel. Claims he wants to get out of Afghanistan whilst supporting an increase of troops in the region and escalating the conflict which he calls humble. Can't even answer whether or not the Iraq war was a mistake because he supported it and still supports it to this day. Tries to invoke the past times that Obama ignored the constitution getting authority from Congress to declare war in order to justify going to war in Syria.
> 
> It's so clear he wants to escalate further in the middle east yet cannot be open about it when challenged by Rand. And this is who the US now has as secretary of state.


And let's not forget, if the US starts warring, we'll be close behind. Because of the Brexit fiasco there's no way we can do anything but back the USA in shit like this, we'll be reliant on them to keep us in somewhat presentable shape once we leave the EU and shit gets real. Wouldn't it be nice just once to have politicians in charge who aren't complete numpties who like blowing shit up? (I'm talking on both sides of the pond here too.)


----------



## DOPA

RavishingRickRules said:


> And let's not forget, if the US starts warring, we'll be close behind. *Because of the Brexit fiasco* there's no way we can do anything but back the USA in shit like this, we'll be reliant on them to keep us in somewhat presentable shape once we leave the EU and shit gets real. Wouldn't it be nice just once to have politicians in charge who aren't complete numpties who like blowing shit up? (I'm talking on both sides of the pond here too.)


Even if Brexit didn't happen, the government would still want to follow the US into war in Syria. Cameron wanted to intervene in Syria and pushed heavily for us to get involved in the civil war. Thankfully unlike the US, we had a vote on it and parliament narrowly voted for us to not get involved (we still got a few of the RAF involved through a loophole concerning international intervention but still...).

Theresa May would still consider pushing for intervention regardless of our relationship with EU. Don't be fooled, a great amount of the Tories and Labour are warhawks and believe in the "humanitarian interventionist" philosophy that Blair started pushing ever since the Kosovo war.






I expected Tucker Carlson to speak out against Syria but you know the Democrats are pathetic when even Tomi Lahren has broken with Trump on this issue whilst they continue to back Trump up. So much for resistance.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Makise Kurisu said:


> Even if Brexit didn't happen, the government would still want to follow the US into war in Syria. Cameron wanted to intervene in Syria and pushed heavily for us to get involved in the civil war. Thankfully unlike the US, we had a vote on it and parliament narrowly voted for us to not get involved (we still got a few of the RAF involved through a loophole concerning international intervention but still...).
> 
> Theresa May would still consider pushing for intervention regardless of our relationship with EU. Don't be fooled, a great amount of the Tories and Labour are warhawks and believe in the "humanitarian interventionist" philosophy that Blair started pushing ever since the Kosovo war.


Oh I'm not fooled, I'm just saying with the US as our only remote fall-back plan even a vote would certainly lead to us going to war. Sadly that whole neocon movement is rife on both sides of the Atlantic, I'm very sick of paying taxes to fund wars tbh, you could literally support 2 homeless families on my taxes alone.


----------



## virus21

RavishingRickRules said:


> Oh I'm not fooled, I'm just saying with the US as our only remote fall-back plan even a vote would certainly lead to us going to war. Sadly that whole neocon movement is rife on both sides of the Atlantic, I'm very sick of paying taxes to fund wars tbh, you could literally support 2 homeless families on my taxes alone.


Generally, the thirst for expansionist wars and overextended military is one of the signs of a civilization's decline. Just look at the Roman Empire for an example.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

CamillePunk said:


> *I suspect this will end up much like the North Korea situation where everyone is freaking out and then we have unthinkably good developments - much to the chagrin of the Democrats and neocons.* Trump doesn't want war with Russia, Russia doesn't want war with the US, it's not going to happen.


Between reading his seemingly bipolar arms race tweet, as well as the journalist tweets mentioning the U.S. and Russia supposedly working behind the scenes to de-escalate the Syria situation, I'm leaning more and more toward the bolded part being true.

Still irked about Bolton being too close to Trump for my liking. However, after reading about Bolton being rumored to be joining two military councils together as a means of streamlining, maybe Donald is aiming to squeeze out one more smidge of utility out of that muppet before sacking him immediately thereafter? :hmmm


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer

Hehe Hoho said:


> Why is Trump butt hurt over Syrian stuff.What about Yemen genocide by Saudi and attacks on Palestine by Jews?


_*Because they are babies and innocent woman dying at the hands of their all mighty power mad man in Saudi. *_


----------



## Art Vandaley

Looks like TPP is back from the grave, ended up getting done by the non US participants and now apparently Trump wants to join.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

virus21 said:


> Generally, the thirst for expansionist wars and overextended military is one of the signs of a civilization's decline. Just look at the Roman Empire for an example.


Lol, what? Do they not teach history in the USA or something? First there's people claiming to be Anglo-Saxons now they've taught you that the Roman Empire ended quickly after expansion? They were expanding rapidly before they were even an "Empire." The Romans conquered Britain in 43AD (though Ceasar had fucked us up once before over 100 years previously) and held it until the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 410AD. You realise that's longer than America's existed right? I'm not sure you were really on point with that statement at all.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/984531604201598976


----------



## FriedTofu

Alkomesh2 said:


> Looks like TPP is back from the grave, ended up getting done by the non Us participants and now apparently Trump wants to join.


I am not reading too much into it. Trump is just mentioning TPP to entice allies to back him in his trade war with China. I believe most would be cautious in backing him again. Especially Abe who threw his lot for Trump after the elections, but got screwed time and again by Trump's rhetoric and policies.

Also, mentioning TPP is to placate and pander to his supporters in farm-states who rely on exports and are worried about China's tariffs in Trump's trade war. Trump is not going to change his protectionist stance overnight.


----------



## Vic Capri

The AP said:


> Trump reconsidering joining TPP trade pact.


fpalm

- Vic


----------



## BruiserKC

Trump should have thought about this before pulling the United States out of TPP. If he was really serious about negotiating it to make our standing better, it would have been more beneficial to stay in it so that there was some leverage. As it stands, why would the remaining members want to work with someone who cut and run? 

As for Syria...all this talk is just that...talk. Obama did the same thing, talk about action and then did nothing. Trump does the same thing...tougher talk then Obama to be sure but in the end no action. Plus, it doesn't seem like there's a plan there at all and he just threw something together to make us look tough. Going from pulling out one day to all in the next is not a sound foreign policy. 

Either we're going to commit to this, let the troops do their jobs, or get the hell out.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

BruiserKC said:


> Either we're going to commit to this, let the troops do their jobs, or get the hell out.


I think that's a problem all politicians have in both the UK and the US (and probably other western countries tbh.) They can never decide whether they're coming or going, so you get situations like Iraq where we do half a job and leave a bunch of armed and impressionable people waiting to be recruited by sick cunt extremists. We either need to walk the fuck away (my preference) or just go all the way and get it done. The half-arsed bullshit we pull just isn't working.


----------



## Reaper




----------



## Vic Capri

Inspector General Report said:


> - Andrew McCabe lied to FBI Director.
> - He lied to FBI agents (under oath).
> - He lied to Dept of Justice IG twice (under oath).
> - He leaked info to media to advance his own interests.
> - He basically confirmed Hillary investigation.


- Vic


----------



## Cabanarama

So basically, what McCabe did was leak information to the media about the FBI investigated the Clinton foundation (while saying nothing about Trump also being under investigation), and then misled Comey about who the leaks claim from by trying to shift the blame onto others..
So here's where we're at: During the election, McCabe leaked information that benefited Trump and hurt Hillary, and then lied to Comey about it. Can someone explain how this vindicates Trump, or shows some conspiracy against him? Or how this discredits anything Comey has said about Trump? Or how this has anything to do with the Mueller investigation or RUssia?


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

We are bombing Damascus as I type this. Not too fond of this, but you could see this coming a mile away.


----------



## Cliffy

Fucking idiot 

Trump has taken the bait hook line and sinker


----------



## Vic

US just struck Syria with missiles, congrads to everyone who voted this piece of shit in office.


----------



## the_hound

well somebody is going to


----------



## Arya Dark

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/984967549304672256


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Is anybody truly surprised though? Even those tweets don't surprise me, Trump being a hypocrite is the least shocking thing I've heard all day. That's why you don't trust people with a long history of scamming people, you're just inviting them to scam you too. :shrug


----------



## Natecore

fpalm

The only hope I had for him being different than Hillary is now gone.

America bombs the world. Nothing new.


----------



## deepelemblues

Rub Russia's nose in its impotency and degrade the Syrian government's capability to win the war a little bit. 

This is some prime geopolitical strategy. It is manifestly in the interest of the United States to demonstrate the disparity in power between herself and Russia (considering the insane fantasies of many that Russia would actually be capable of winning a conventional war against the United States, and not only win but win in swift and decisive fashion :heyman6), and to keep bad Muslims killing bad Muslims as long as possible. 

The titans of 19th century European diplomacy would be proud.


----------



## Vic

"Trump isn't a politician, he is different and new"-Hipsters circa 2016.


----------



## Tater

*sigh*


----------



## Vic Capri

*IF* Assad was behind the chemical attack this time, President Trump is justified by taking action. He still should've gotten Congressional approval though.

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

Vic Capri said:


> *IF* Assad was behind the chemical attack this time, President Trump is justified by taking action. He still should've gotten Congressional approval though.
> 
> - Vic


The president doesn't need congressional approval to go to war. The War Powers Act is blatantly unconstitutional, as would be any new legislation restricting the president's authority as commander-in-chief

What the president _does_ need is congressional approval to _pay_ for a war

If congress doesn't want the president going off to war, then refuse to pay for it

Congress is full of pussies though so that would never happen, they'd be lambasted for being against the troops or whatever and it would be cast as a horrible thing to do even though it would be 100% appropriate if going to war was against the will of a majority of congress

Congress willingly gives up powers to the executive by refusing to use said powers then complains about it, hey Rand Paul shut the fuck up and exercise the powers you do have instead of grandstanding for powers you don't have and wanting more powers that the constitution doesn't say you have. A single senator can gum up the working of the government pretty good for a limited amount of time, a group of senators can do it almost indefinitely. Surely you can corral a group of senators and gum up the government pretty good for doing what you don't like? The power of the purse that the House controls is the most powerful thing in the government. But these fucking crybabies cry instead of doing anything difficult

Would congress reasserting its powers be a difficult thing to do? Sure. But congress could do it... if it wanted to

It doesn't. Not even Rand Paul. They all want everything to be easy for them and cry when it isn't

https://twitter.com/JessicaTaylor/status/984984360465174529

Russia likes to talk big but then bitches out, they've been exposed yet again

Exposing the emptiness of Russian rhetoric was a major consideration here. Realpolitik 4 lyfe


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

A limited strike like last time. :armfold

I've heard of daddy's little girl, but daughter's little bitch sounds like an apt title for Trump right now. :tripsscust

What's especially annoying about this is that Mattis gave the greenlight on this, even though he recently flat-out admitted that the previous strike was done despite the utter lack of concrete proof or even an investigation.

:eyeroll


----------



## Vic

Jesus Christ the amount of cancer in the post above Lumpty would make cancer organizations feel like they're fighting a losing battle.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/984990755939741696


----------



## deepelemblues

Lord Frieza-Sama said:


> Jesus Christ the amount of cancer in the post above Lumpty would make cancer organizations feel like they're fighting a losing battle.


I'm sorry that the world of :fact instead of the world of your emotional opinions gets you so :triggered

Simple :fact is that congress could exert control over the use of military force by changing the way it funds the military. It has the legitimacy and the power to do so do, if its membership so wished

Its membership does not so wish. It would rather pass a single appropriations bill containing hundreds of billions of dollars for the military, including money for future military action, which hands 100% of the power over war to the president. Then bitch and moan when the president uses that power

Congress could pass military funding bills with restrictions on what the money can be used for, "none of this money can be used for new military operations" or whatever. Pass it over a presidential veto if necessary if the issue is so important to the members of congress (it isn't)

Then if the president wished to engage in new military operations, a new bill would have to be passed funding them. If the congress stands firm on any issue where the government spends money, there is very little if anything the president can do

But again the simple :fact is that congress doesn't care to do that, not even Rand Paul. These allegedly anti-war politicians are all show. They aren't willing to make the sacrifices to restore their power over policy, THE POWER OF THE PURSE

Their lack of sincerity and principle is exposed once again. Not just on war, congresscritters love to relinquish their powers to the executive then cry about it later on. Congress controls the money. That is (on paper) the most powerful position in Western government. The holder of the purse strings. Unless you just open the purse up any time the executive wants you to and don't take the opportunity to say no or at least extract concessions and compromises from the executive. Then it's nothing

Knowing the history of the English parliament in particular, the way it ferociously fought to protect its power of the purse and use that power to change the policy of the Crown, then looking at modern Western legislatures and the way they just line up to provide the money for the policy whims of the executive, over and over and over again, is a source of great disappointment


----------



## Pratchett

SelinaKyle said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/984967549304672256


All the things that the MSM badger Trump on day after day, and yet here they have blatant flip-flopping that they can hammer him mercilessly on ... and they do nothing with it. Oh wait, that's right. He is doing what the establishment wants him to do now. Makes sense.


----------



## El Grappleador

Ladies and gentlemen: MR. Predgydent loses the head.

I hope anything doesn't happen on Mexico.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Vic

deepelemblues said:


> I'm sorry that the world of :fact instead of the world of your emotional opinions gets you so :triggered
> 
> Simple :fact is that congress could exert control over the use of military force by changing the way it funds the military. It has the legitimacy and the power to do so do, if its membership so wished
> 
> Its membership does not so wish. It would rather pass a single appropriations bill containing hundreds of billions of dollars for the military, including money for future military action, which hands 100% of the power over war to the president. Then bitch and moan when the president uses that power
> 
> Congress could pass military funding bills with restrictions on what the money can be used for, "none of this money can be used for new military operations" or whatever. Pass it over a presidential veto if necessary if the issue is so important to the members of congress (it isn't)
> 
> Then if the president wished to engage in new military operations, a new bill would have to be passed funding them. If the congress stands firm on any issue where the government spends money, there is very little if anything the president can do
> 
> But again the simple :fact is that congress doesn't care to do that, not even Rand Paul. These allegedly anti-war politicians are all show. They aren't willing to make the sacrifices to restore their power over policy, THE POWER OF THE PURSE
> 
> Their lack of sincerity and principle is exposed once again. Not just on war, congresscritters love to relinquish their powers to the executive then cry about it later on. Congress controls the money. That is (on paper) the most powerful position in Western government. The holder of the purse strings. Unless you just open the purse up any time the executive wants you to and don't take the opportunity to say no or at least extract concessions and compromises from the executive. Then it's nothing
> 
> Knowing the history of the English parliament in particular, the way it ferociously fought to protect its power of the purse and use that power to change the policy of the Crown, then looking at modern Western legislatures and the way they just line up to provide the money for the policy whims of the executive, over and over and over again, is a source of great disappointment


Use triggered then go on a bullshit essay long post about people being "exposed" like a typical tumblr try hard. This is politics now.

Edit: Breaking News: Russia's U.S. ambassador warns of consequences for Syria strikes: 'We are being threatened' :lmao "HERP DERP RUSSIA ARE EXPOSED PUSSIES HERP DERP".


----------



## deepelemblues

http://www.newser.com/article/999ab...-russian-official-likens-trump-to-hitler.html

The president has:

-Demonstrated the emptiness of Russian rhetoric when it comes to defending its allies. Multiple Russian threats over the last week have been shown to be completely hollow
-Demonstrated the vast disparity in power between the United States and Russia, just in case anyone was wondering which side is the stronger
-Provided more examples and given Russia the opportunity to provide more examples, which Russia has kindly obliged to provide, that he is neither a puppet of Russia nor particularly friendly to Russia, undercutting the domestic political narrative that has been levied against him for 2 years
-Demonstrated to the Syrian government both its inability to protect itself and the inability of its allies to protect it against large-scale military operations

Hopefully the operations are on a wide enough scale that the Assad government realizes it cannot use chemical weapons

As a slight digression, the idea that dictators are rational and would never gas their own people because then the West would bomb them and they are too smart to invite such destruction upon themselves is straight :heston

If Assad were so smart and rational he wouldn't be fighting the 7th year of a civil war. If Assad were so smart and rational he wouldn't have had to turn his country into a de facto Russian protectorate to maintain his government's existence. If Assad were so smart and rational there never would have been a civil war in the first place

Russia has complained that these attacks could "destroy evidence" of the chemical weapons attack. But just yesterday Russia was saying there was no proof that there even was a chemical weapons attack. :hmmm so is Russia lying or is Russia lying? 

Eagerly awaiting the frothy condemnations of Russian imperialism for indiscriminately bombing rebel-held areas of Syrian cities once it entered the war, thus saving Assad's bacon by obliterating the rebels closest to breaking the back of his army, and for lying. Okay not eagerly because we all know the double standard is in full operation here, Russia gets crickets while the US gets an ocean of angst



Lord Frieza-Sama said:


> Use triggered then go on a bullshit essay long post about people being "exposed" like a typical tumblr try hard. This is politics now.


If you weren't going full tryhard on the baiting you'd realize that I just laid out in detail precisely the ONLY way to prevent future such bombings. You're just :triggered that I am correct in saying that the political courage does not exist to achieve that end

Well you guys can do the angry spluttering all you like, you've failed literally every time with that approach but it is your choice to keep trying it. Far be it from me to point out it has not worked even once and perhaps a new approach is in order :draper2


----------



## Robbyfude

As soon as McCain's brain tumor hopefully gets bad and Bolton's old ass dies of a heart attack, we will take a small stop of getting rid of neocons.


----------



## Tater

virus21 said:


>


I was just coming in here to post that. PJW is who he is on other topics but this vid is great. When it comes to opposing neocons, I don't give a shit how crazy you may be on other topics, I'll ally with you every time.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/984587687142162433


----------



## Vic

deepelemblues said:


> If you weren't going full tryhard on the baiting you'd realize that I just laid out in detail precisely the ONLY way to prevent future such bombings. You're just :triggered that I am correct in saying that the political courage does not exist to achieve that end
> 
> Well you guys can do the angry spluttering all you like, you've failed literally every time with that approach but it is your choice to keep trying it. Far be it from me to point out it has not worked even once :draper2




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/84967549304672256
"The man I stand for". Even though he said the same thing he just did shouldn't be done, but "the man I stand for, is the man I stand for". #facts, #fakenews, #nonsensicalbullshitiwanttobelieve.


----------



## Cabanarama

Well, this was a classic wagging the dog (which, quite frankly, I am surprised it has taken him this long to do it), and Trump has successfully achieved his purpose. We're talking about this instead of the latest news on Michael Cohen and the revelations included in James Comey's book, and everything else involved in his myriad of scandals


----------



## deepelemblues

"Possible world war in Syria" :heyman6

"Insane" :heyman6

"This is phenomenal" :heyman6

"#MAGA leadership" :heyman6 (Paul Joseph Watson is not, never has been, and never will be "#MAGA leadership." He is an internet crackpot. Figure it out already)

He sounds like a globul warmunist dialing the intensity right up to 11 

This is the kind of completely untethered from reality, totally un-self-aware hysteria that undermines the credibility of the anti-war movement and effectively neuters it. Just look at PJW there. *He looks like he's unwell.* The eyes. The facial expressions. The tone of voice. They are all the characteristics of a man who is either unhinged, or shortly about to be unhinged

Only the already converted listen to such a man 

Would it kill the anti-war movement to, considering the seriousness of the issue, and their evident desire to be taken seriously, to actually _be_ serious? The whole way serious? These people are *not serious.* They think they are... but they're not. They're also not actually anti-war, they're anti-the people they hate waging war and pro-war if such a war would target the people they hate ("neocons," "George Soros," etc.)

It's unfortunate that there is not an honestly pro-peace movement in the West, only a rather disingenuous anti-war movement



Lord Frieza-Sama said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/84967549304672256
> "The man I stand for". Even though he said the same thing he just did shouldn't be done, but "the man I stand for, is the man I stand for". #facts, #fakenews, #nonsensicalbullshitiwanttobelieve.


I disagreed with :trump's opinion in 2013.


----------



## Vic

Cabanarama said:


> Well, this was a classic wagging the dog (which, quite frankly, I am surprised it has taken him this long to do it), and Trump has successfully achieved his purpose. We're talking about this instead of the latest news on Michael Cohen and the revelations included in James Comey's book, and everything else involved in his myriad of scandals


It was basically a bullshit filibuster with World War implications.



deepelemblues said:


> I disagreed with :trump's opinion in 2013.


I sincerely doubt you gave a single fuck about Trump in 2013 :lmao (like most of the world).


----------



## Vic

Double post.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Firing a couple of missiles isn't a war, I didn't call it that when Obama did it and I have no intention of applying a double standard to Trump. 

Short of a physical invasion who cares.

Bush would have physically invaded, things were actually much worse from 2000-2008.


----------



## deepelemblues

Lord Frieza-Sama said:


> I sincerely doubt you gave a single fuck about Trump in 2013 :lmao.


I remember seeing it and disagreeing with it. His political tweets got some news coverage even back then. 

Did I think there was much consequence to his opinion or my disagreement with it? No, because in 2013 I did not think he was going to seriously run for president or become president then



Lord Frieza-Sama said:


> It was basically a bullshit filibuster with World War implications.


Russia is not going to go to war with the United States over Syria. The United States is not going to go to war with Russia over Syria. The idea is patently absurd on its face. The United States and Russia have both gone to great pains to each play their own little game in Syria without impinging on the other. Those pains-takings continue to this day and will continue. Neither side is interested in directly fighting the other in Syria or anywhere else

It's a show people, a show and a game. Some Russian general or member of the Duma or nationalist figure makes some threatening ominous statement. The West responds with some bland fluff that basically says 'we don't give a fuck if you don't like what we're doing.' The West complains about Russia. Russia responds with some not-bland fluff that basically says 'we don't give a fuck if you don't like what we're doing.' At no point in this little song and dance routine is war even considered a possibility by either side. This has been a recurring feature of Western-Russia relations for nearly all the time since Putin first won the presidency of Russia. War is no closer today than it was then

But the seriousness with which this non-danger is believed to be a real danger does, I guess, serve a purpose to the neocons in denying credibility to the anti-war movement. They are quite happy to see Paul Joseph Watson off his rocker on Youtube looking like he needs a hot meal, a hot shower and a few weeks of rest and relaxation. They know then they have little to fear


----------



## FriedTofu

Trump does something I support. Trump is his own man!
Trump does something I disagree with. Trump is being lied to by the deep state/establishment/lizard people!

When Hilary bombs Syria, it will start a nuclear war with Russia.
Trump bombs Syria, it is justified because reasons.

Sounds about right.


----------



## Genesis 1.0




----------



## American_Nightmare

My question: what’s is the use of the US striking Syria? How would that put an end to the Syrian crisis? Solving the problem with more killing and more striking is NOT practical or effective at all.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Genesis 1.0 said:


>


For him to be Shang Tsung it'd require some level of ability and duplicity. I think he's just an idiot making it up as he goes along to be honest. :shrug


----------



## Tater

Alkomesh2 said:


> Firing a couple of missiles isn't a war


What's a few thousand dead civilians amongst friends, am I right? War schmar. It's just death raining down from the sky. It doesn't count if people aren't on the ground shooting at you.


----------



## Cabanarama

American_Nightmare said:


> My question: what’s is the use of the US striking Syria? How would that put an end to the Syrian crisis? Solving the problem with more killing and more striking is NOT practical or effective at all.


It has nothing to do with the problem in Syria. He's wagging the dog, to deflect from his growing myriad of scandals, with the mounting evidence in the Mueller investigation, his attorney facing criminal charges and the raid of his office, the details Comey book coming out, etc. etc....



RavishingRickRules said:


> For him to be Shang Tsung it'd require some level of ability and duplicity. I think he's just an idiot making it up as he goes along to be honest. :shrug


It's pretty obvious that that's been the case from day one


----------



## Art Vandaley

Tater said:


> What's a few thousand dead civilians amongst friends, am I right? War schmar. It's just death raining down from the sky. It doesn't count if people aren't on the ground shooting at you.


I highly doubt 1000s of civilians will die from a couple of missiles. A physical invasion means 100,000s of deaths. Its a matter of degrees.


----------



## Tater

Alkomesh2 said:


> I highly doubt 1000s of civilians will die from a couple of missiles. A physical invasion means 100,000s of deaths. Its a matter of degrees.


Shit, my bad. You only meant it's not war if only a few dozen or a hundred die tonight. Silly me for thinking we were talking about all the thousands of dead people our missiles have produced over the decades. I totally get what you mean now. It's totally not war if you only kill 20 or 30 at a time with missiles and spread it out over the months and years. You know what else isn't war? Funding jihadists to destabilize governments you want to topple. I mean, it's not like we're using our own troops or anything when we do that. We're just giving weapons to terrorists to do our dirty work for us. Yep, your logic is totally spot on. Nothing "war" about that at all. And boy oh boy there sure is fuck is no blood on our hands for only providing Saudis with weapons to commit genocide in Yemen. It's totally not war when we refuel their planes that we sold them and use our computers to provide them with targets so they can drop bombs we sold them on weddings and schools for the blind. Nossirreebob, not no nothing nada war about that. 

Goddamn, I nearly forgot about Israel and Palestine. It most definitely isn't war when we provide Bibi with the necessary tools for a bombfest in Gaza. Fuck A right, ain't no fucking war about it.











Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr............ over here in the land of reality, the USA has been waging war for decades in the Middle East and has the blood of millions on their hands, all in an effort for global hegemony. They sometimes use missiles and sometimes they arm terrorists and sometimes they use false flag attacks to make up a reason for another bombing and sometimes they give weapons to Israel and Saudi Arabia so they can then go out and kill thousands of innocent Yemenis and Palestinians. Just because they aren't invading with ground troops doesn't mean they aren't committing acts of war. The USA led military industrial complex uses all kinds of dirty tricks to carry out their atrocities around the globe. You know what they never do? A goddamned thing for humanitarian reasons. This is now what it has always been about. Power and control of the world and it's resources. It's imperialism, plain and simple. Funny thing... you never see the USA bombing a country for humanitarian reasons if they don't have any fucking oil.

Maybe if there weren't so many fucking sheep going baa baa while watching MSM propaganda, more people would know that.


----------



## Draykorinee

I can't honestly compute that people think chucking bombs at a country is not a war.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Tater said:


> Shit, my bad. You only meant it's not war if only a few dozen or a hundred die tonight. Silly me for thinking we were talking about all the thousands of dead people our missiles have produced over the decades. I totally get what you mean now. It's totally not war if you only kill 20 or 30 at a time with missiles and spread it out over the months and years. You know what else isn't war? Funding jihadists to destabilize governments you want to topple. I mean, it's not like we're using our own troops or anything when we do that. We're just giving weapons to terrorists to do our dirty work for us. Yep, your logic is totally spot on. Nothing "war" about that at all.


Yup those are a series of international incidents, not wars. 



> And boy oh boy there sure is fuck is no blood on our hands for only providing Saudis with weapons to commit genocide in Yemen. It's totally not war when we refuel their planes that we sold them and use our computers to provide them with targets so they can drop bombs we sold them on weddings and schools for the blind. Nossirreebob, not no nothing nada war about that.


Agreed.

Yemen's a war, and its a disgrace doesn't get talked about anywhere near as much as it should. And the West holds a lot of moral culpability for it through arms sales etc. 



> Goddamn, I nearly forgot about Israel and Palestine. It most definitely isn't war when we provide Bibi with the necessary tools for a bombfest in Gaza. Fuck A right, ain't no fucking war about it.


Gaza and Israel are occasionally at war, they tend to be named, there have been 3 major ones I believe and they're called the first gaza war, the second gaza war and the third gaza war. Right now there isn't a war going on. There was an international incident recently with the protests and shooting, and it threatens to escalate into a fourth war at some point. 



> Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr............ over here in the land of reality, the USA has been waging war for decades in the Middle East and has the blood of millions on their hands, all in an effort for global hegemony. They sometimes use missiles and sometimes they arm terrorists and sometimes they use false flag attacks to make up a reason for another bombing and sometimes they give weapons to Israel and Saudi Arabia so they can then go out and kill thousands of innocent Yemenis and Palestinians. Just because they aren't invading with ground troops doesn't mean they aren't committing acts of war. The USA led military industrial complex uses all kinds of dirty tricks to carry out their atrocities around the globe. You know what they never do? A goddamned thing for humanitarian reasons. This is now what it has always been about. Power and control of the world and it's resources. It's imperialism, plain and simple. Funny thing... you never see the USA bombing a country for humanitarian reasons if they don't have any fucking oil.
> 
> Maybe if there weren't so many fucking sheep going baa baa while watching MSM propaganda, more people would know that.


Just because it isn't a war doesn't mean it isn't bad. 

Raping someone isn't killing them, but its still bad. 

Anyway, a couple of missiles isn't a war its an empty political gesture, a stunt or a statement.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Alkomesh2 said:


> Just because it isn't a war doesn't mean it isn't bad.
> 
> Raping someone isn't killing them, but its still bad.
> 
> Anyway, a couple of missiles isn't a war its an empty political gesture, a stunt or a statement.


What are you smoking dude? If you fire missiles into a country it's an act of war, plain and simple.


----------



## Art Vandaley

RavishingRickRules said:


> What are you smoking dude? If you fire missiles into a country it's an act of war, plain and simple.


Its too small in scale and too one sided to be considered a war. 

If you call it war it was a war that lasted what 15 minutes and resulted in a couple of buildings being destroyed. 

To consider that a war renders the word meaningless.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Alkomesh2 said:


> Its too small in scale and too one sided to be considered a war.
> 
> If you call it war it was a war that lasted what 15 minutes and resulted in a couple of buildings being destroyed.
> 
> To consider that a war renders the word meaningless.


kay


----------



## Art Vandaley

RavishingRickRules said:


> kay


Eloquent argument.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Alkomesh2 said:


> Eloquent argument.


It amuses me that you think anything you said was remotely worthy of an argument. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

Genesis 1.0 said:


>


Looks really well done!

Firing missiles into a country and without a proper investigation into if the people you're firing on are responsible for a "Chemical Attack" is an act of war.

If you destabilize a country so that country falls apart and eats itself it is an act of war.

If you fund terrorists with weapons and training in order to bring down a Government this is an act of war.




El Grappleador said:


> Ladies and gentlemen: MR. Predgydent loses the head.
> 
> I hope anything doesn't happen on Mexico.


Mexico's corrupt Government and the Cartels have done more damage than what a few US missiles would. So not to worry, Mexico doesn't need help in making bad things happen.


----------



## Art Vandaley

RavishingRickRules said:


> It amuses me that you think anything you said was remotely worthy of an argument. :lol


You've effectively been fooled by a Trump political stunt here, he's done nothing and you've built it up as something.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Alkomesh2 said:


> You've effectively been fooled by a Trump political stunt here, he's done nothing and you've built it up as something.


Bombing another country counts as nothing?

Nice to see where your head's at in all of this.


----------



## Art Vandaley

AlternateDemise said:


> Bombing another country counts as nothing?
> 
> Nice to see where your head's at in all of this.


Once in an isolated incident? In geopolitical terms, yes. 

Its virtue signalling, to borrow a phrase.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/984789066569998338
:lmao


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/984999142110920706

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/984979692334845952
Alex Jones going on batshit crazy rants is nothing new but now even he is saying fuck Trump, which is glorious to behold.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/985005958127603712
Coulter had already turned on Trump some time ago. Now Molyneux too. The great big orangetard is losing the loudest of his support base and presumably many of the so called deplorables as well.

There's a part of this that's kinda funny, in a way. Most of the USA already hated Trump and the only reason he won is because of how disgusting Hillary is. The ones who did really support Trump though really really supported him. It is somewhat amusing to see some of those hardcore MAGA folks come to the realization that their hero is just another puppet like Obama and Bush before him. Trump wanting back in the TPP now is just the cherry on top of that shit pie.


----------



## Dr. Middy

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/985130802668294144
Haven't we seen this before...


----------



## BruiserKC

Dr. Middy said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/985130802668294144
> Haven't we seen this before...


I think more of “Wag The Dog, Part Deux.” Trump is being hammered at home so now he distracts with this. Like when Clinton hit an aspirin factory in the Sudan when he was getting pounded for his indiscretions. 

Seriously is there a clear cut strategy moving forward? Never thought I would agree with Pelosi but we need a plan here for Syria and it’s fut. Fine, Trump took off his belt and took Assad over his knee behind the woodshed. Now what? Was that his warning and we’re done? Assad needs to be done with his chemical weapons program? Regime change? What is the endgame and do we have a plan? If not there was no point to this.


----------



## Tater

BruiserKC said:


> Assad needs to be done with his chemical weapons program?


It's going to be mighty difficult for Assad to stop doing something he hasn't been doing.

Just for fun, watch how quickly the MSM propaganda machine shut this guy down when he started telling the truth about what's going on in Syria.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/985107880171929600
The look on that woman's face at the end was priceless. I can only imagine what her producer must have been screaming into her earpiece. OMGZ HE IS TELLING THE TRUTH, GO TO FUCKING COMMERCIAL!!!!!!!!


----------



## Crasp

Tater said:


> It's going to be mighty difficult for Assad to stop doing something he hasn't been doing.
> 
> Just for fun, watch how quickly the MSM propaganda machine shut this guy down when he started telling the truth about what's going on in Syria.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/985107880171929600
> The look on that woman's face at the end was priceless. I can only imagine what her producer must have been screaming into her earpiece. OMGZ HE IS TELLING THE TRUTH, GO TO FUCKING COMMERCIAL!!!!!!!!


TBH that just looks like an honest time mismanagement issue, as the point he was raising is not one that's been "shut down" or curtailed on TV here at all. Indeed the very same questions were, and continue to be asked throughout coverage on most news outlets in the UK. All in all, it's a very straw-clutchy perspective taken by "_Meda Lens_".


----------



## Pratchett

Tater said:


> It's going to be mighty difficult for Assad to stop doing something he hasn't been doing.
> 
> Just for fun, watch how quickly the MSM propaganda machine shut this guy down when he started telling the truth about what's going on in Syria.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/985107880171929600
> The look on that woman's face at the end was priceless. I can only imagine what her producer must have been screaming into her earpiece. OMGZ HE IS TELLING THE TRUTH, GO TO FUCKING COMMERCIAL!!!!!!!!







My apologies if this video has already been posted. Worth posting as many times as necessary though.


----------



## Tater

Crasp said:


> TBH that just looks like an honest time mismanagement issue, as the point he was raising is not one that's been "shut down" or curtailed on TV here at all. Indeed the very same questions were, and continue to be asked throughout coverage on most news outlets in the UK. All in all, it's a very straw-clutchy perspective taken by "_Meda Lens_".


I don't watch enough MSM to know if "time mismanagement issue" is a valid excuse. To believe that, one also has to believe that the people who are paid millions of dollars to run a professional news organization are so incompetent that they had this guest on and didn't schedule enough time for him to respond to the question and that it was also a complete coincidence that when he got cut off, it was right around the time he was saying things that go against the MSM narrative about what's going on in Syria.

Hey, maybe they really were that incompetent. I am open to that possibility. You have to admit though that the timing of it does look pretty suspect.


----------



## Crasp

It might look suspect if his points hadn't been raised countless times over the last few days by him and many others on various news outlets, including sky, without anyone being cut off.

Plus even at the start of the video the presenter appologises for having kept the guy waiting, so it's pretty clear that they were pushed for time.

It's a live rolling news show. One guest on a prior segment going too long or any issues with a live link and this stuff happens. There's plenty of things I'll get my foil hat out for, but this just isn't one of them.


----------



## MrMister

I don't know how advertising works in the UK, but almost all channels in the United States make money from advertising. Corporations pay these channels tons of money for air time. So stations that don't make their money from subscriptions have commercials. They have to devote X number of hours to commercials. Again, it's how they make money. 

So if Sky news also exists to make money off of advertisements, then it's likely they were up against a commercial break. But again, UK might not operate exactly like the US.


----------



## GothicBohemian

Crasp said:


> It might look suspect if his points hadn't been raised countless times over the last few days by him and many others on various news outlets, including sky, without anyone being cut off.
> 
> Plus even at the start of the video the presenter appologises for having kept the guy waiting, so it's pretty clear that they were pushed for time.
> 
> It's a live rolling news show. One guest on a prior segment going too long or any issues with a live link and this stuff happens. There's plenty of things I'll get my foil hat out for, but this just isn't one of them.


This is true. 

I used to work with smaller scale tv stations - doing screen graphics, other production stuff (like camera and audio) and set up/tear down, mostly for live events - and put in some volunteer time stepping in as an occasional on-air presenter for a local news show. Overruns and time issues are very, very common and sometimes guests/live reports have to be cut off. 

And this is one of biggest reasons why:



MrMister said:


> I don't know how advertising works in the UK, but almost all channels in the United States make money from advertising. Corporations pay these channels tons of money for air time. So stations that don't make their money from subscriptions have commercials. They have to devote X number of hours to commercials. Again, it's how they make money.
> 
> So if Sky news also exists to make money off of advertisements, then it's likely they were up against a commercial break. But again, UK might not operate exactly like the US.


Now there are also times when an interviewee or reporter goes rouge and those are cut off moments too. Looking at the provided video I can see why someone might jump to the conclusion that control was lost, resulting in a scramble to ditch the report; that was a poorly executed wrap up with the journalist coming across rude. Still, I'm not getting the feeling the interviewee was talking off script (by which I mean deviating from talking points he shared prior to going to air), especially where nothing really controversial, or not already out in there in public discourse, was said.

I guess I just don't do conspiracy theory very well. Crazy at it seems, this nutter girl who talks to fairies and carries worms safely away from foot traffic tends to look at most aspects of life from a _The simplest explanation is usually the correct one_ perspective.


----------



## Tater

Crasp said:


> It might look suspect if his points hadn't been raised countless times over the last few days by him and many others on various news outlets, including sky, without anyone being cut off.
> 
> Plus even at the start of the video the presenter appologises for having kept the guy waiting, so it's pretty clear that they were pushed for time.
> 
> It's a live rolling news show. One guest on a prior segment going too long or any issues with a live link and this stuff happens. There's plenty of things I'll get my foil hat out for, but this just isn't one of them.


*shrugs* Fair enough. Maybe they allow that kind of talk regularly in other countries. Here in the USA, they generally don't invite people on who might say things TPTB don't want the masses hearing. It might happen on the rare occasion but for the most part, everyone who works for and is invited onto MSM shows are ones who stay within with establishment narrative.


----------



## Cabanarama

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/984999142110920706
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/984979692334845952
> Alex Jones going on batshit crazy rants is nothing new but now even he is saying fuck Trump, which is glorious to behold.


The fact that tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist nutjobs like Alex Jones and Jimmy Dore are having massive hysterical meltdowns over this makes whatever comes of the Syria situation worth it...


----------



## BruiserKC

Cabanarama said:


> The fact that tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist nutjobs like Alex Jones and Jimmy Dore are having massive hysterical meltdowns over this makes whatever comes of the Syria situation worth it...


Not everything is a conspiracy or Deep State nonsense. There are eyewitnesses as well as an unexplored barrel bomb that was found in Douma. 

Personally I find funny Jones and Dore want to abandon Trump now, Sorry, gentlemen, you own this. ?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> *shrugs* Fair enough. Maybe they allow that kind of talk regularly in other countries. Here in the USA, they generally don't invite people on who might say things TPTB don't want the masses hearing. It might happen on the rare occasion but for the most part, everyone who works for and is invited onto MSM shows are ones who stay within with establishment narrative.


Totally different here in the UK dude, we have journalists/presenters on TV grilling our Prime Minister face to face and plenty of mainstream newscasters who openly oppose things the government do.


----------



## FriedTofu

Tater said:


> *shrugs* Fair enough. Maybe they allow that kind of talk regularly in other countries. Here in the USA, they generally don't invite people on who might say things TPTB don't want the masses hearing. It might happen on the rare occasion but for the most part, everyone who works for and is invited onto MSM shows are ones who stay within with establishment narrative.


Well no shit people invite people that don't bash them all the time on their shows. Non-MSM media rely on bashing MSM for their revenue, and make that their narrative and invite people that stay within that narrative too. Its a sick cross-dependence relationship. Much like how Trump bashing the MSM has spurred the first MSM growth in a decade. The subject that these people claim is bad for everyone, is good for their own pockets.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/985153917213396992
The Pentagon is informing the American people that there has been a 2,000% increase in Russian trolls over the last 24 hours.

:banderas :sodone :lmao

Wish we had a Stanley Kubrick for these times. The present reality demands icy satire, not seriousness.


----------



## Tater

Cabanarama said:


> The fact that tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist nutjobs like Alex Jones and Jimmy Dore are having massive hysterical meltdowns over this makes whatever comes of the Syria situation worth it...


:finger



BruiserKC said:


> Not everything is a conspiracy or Deep State nonsense. There are eyewitnesses as well as an unexplored barrel bomb that was found in Douma.
> 
> Personally I find funny Jones and Dore want to abandon Trump now, Sorry, gentlemen, you own this. ?


I expect better from you though. You've either never watched a Jimmy Dore video in your life or this is the most retarded thing you've ever said.

I do, however, agree with you about it being funny that Jones now wants to abandon Trump. He and his ilk most definitely own this. I myself was laughing about it earlier in this thread. It's definitely funny seeing the hardcore Trumpers like Jones and Coulter turn on him but to lump Dore into that category either means your ignorant of his views or just straight up delusional. 

I know some people struggle to understand this but like I said, I expect better from you. Being anti-Hillary does not equal being pro-Trump and vice versa. Partisan hacks use that logic all the time. If you don't vote for my shitty candidate, you are by default supporting the other shitty candidate, even if you did not vote for them. It's that kind of lesser evil bullshit that got us in this mess to begin with. 



RavishingRickRules said:


> Totally different here in the UK dude, we have journalists/presenters on TV grilling our Prime Minister face to face and plenty of mainstream newscasters who openly oppose things the government do.


Shit, must be nice. I wish we had that in the USA. 



FriedTofu said:


> Well no shit people invite people that don't bash them all the time on their shows. Non-MSM media rely on bashing MSM for their revenue, and make that their narrative and invite people that stay within that narrative too. Its a sick cross-dependence relationship. Much like how Trump bashing the MSM has spurred the first MSM growth in a decade. The subject that these people claim is bad for everyone, is good for their own pockets.


Your point is spot on. The incentive structure is completely fucked. I think it was one of the CBS head honchos who said something about Trump being really bad for the country but great for their ratings. It's not news anymore. It's infotainment and it's meant to make a profit. The people who own the news organizations are the same ones who own the politicians. Hiring people or inviting guests on who talk about things that would hurt their wallet is not good for business. It's also not very good for the USA as well. 



DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/985153917213396992
> The Pentagon is informing the American people that there has been a 2,000% increase in Russian trolls over the last 24 hours.
> 
> :banderas :sodone :lmao
> 
> Wish we had a Stanley Kubrick for these times. The present reality demands icy satire, not seriousness.


If the goal is to defeat ISIS, maybe they should stop acting as their air force.

And we always need a Stanley Kubrick for all times.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/984956747889692673


----------



## Mr.Monkey

Pretty much sums up if texas turns blue.


----------



## Pratchett

Cabanarama said:


> The fact that tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist nutjobs like Alex Jones and Jimmy Dore are having massive hysterical meltdowns over this makes whatever comes of the Syria situation worth it...





> tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist nutjobs like... *Jimmy Dore*


I applaud you for abandoning all pretense of being reasonable though. And I'm the one who is supposed to have the gimmick. Keep on keeping on... :mj4


----------



## BruiserKC

Tater said:


> I expect better from you though. You've either never watched a Jimmy Dore video in your life or this is the most retarded thing you've ever said.
> 
> I do, however, agree with you about it being funny that Jones now wants to abandon Trump. He and his ilk most definitely own this. I myself was laughing about it earlier in this thread. It's definitely funny seeing the hardcore Trumpers like Jones and Coulter turn on him but to lump Dore into that category either means your ignorant of his views or just straight up delusional.
> 
> I know some people struggle to understand this but like I said, I expect better from you. Being anti-Hillary does not equal being pro-Trump and vice versa. Partisan hacks use that logic all the time. If you don't vote for my shitty candidate, you are by default supporting the other shitty candidate, even if you did not vote for them. It's that kind of lesser evil bullshit that got us in this mess to begin with.


And Dore, throughout the campaign, hammered basically on the lesser of two evils actually being Trump. 

Let's be honest, you and I both know that this was an election of the two worst candidates in history. Trump has proven to be just as corrupt a person as anyone before. I certainly don't have to mention what the Clinton crime family has done. Dore chose to ignore the fact that Trump was her friend and donor for many years. Sorry, this is every bit on him as well as it is folks like Rush, Hannity, and Tucker who abandoned ANY pretense they had left of being conservative and going down the road of sensationalism. I also put this on the mainstream media who just loved Trump enough to help him get the GOP nomination. Hell, Joe Scarborough has no room to criticize when he and Mika turned their show into a Trump SuperPAC. 

I would have loved having a "None of the Above" option this past election. A sweeter-smelling pile of shit is still a pile of shit.


----------



## Tater

BruiserKC said:


> And Dore, throughout the campaign, hammered basically on the lesser of two evils actually being Trump.


Bullshit. Dore has consistently maintained that voting for the lesser of two evils is what got us a Trump/Clinton election in the first place and it will only keep getting worse if we keep voting for the lesser of two evils. Democrats always say, you gotta vote for our shitty candidate this time because this particular Republican is especially evil and if you do vote for us this time, we promise to do better next time. Which we all know is bullshit. That's what Dore's position has been all along. He didn't say Trump was the lesser of two evils. He said as long as we keep voting for the lesser of two evils, we'll keep getting worse Trumps. There's a difference between saying Trump is a lesser evil than Clinton and saying electing Clinton will bring an even greater evil in 2020.



BruiserKC said:


> Let's be honest, you and I both know that this was an election of the two worst candidates in history. Trump has proven to be just as corrupt a person as anyone before. I certainly don't have to mention what the Clinton crime family has done.


There is nothing in this segment to "let's be honest" about. This shit falls into the common knowledge category.



BruiserKC said:


> Dore chose to ignore the fact that Trump was her friend and donor for many years.


Also bullshit. If I go digging through the archives, I can find multiple instances of Dore showing the picture of the Clintons and the Trumps smiling and laughing together at the wedding and Dore quoting Carlin's "big club" bit. I get that you don't watch his show all the time. If you did, you would have a more clear view of his positions.



BruiserKC said:


> Sorry, this is every bit on him as well as it is folks like Rush, Hannity, and Tucker who abandoned ANY pretense they had left of being conservative and going down the road of sensationalism. I also put this on the mainstream media who just loved Trump enough to help him get the GOP nomination. Hell, Joe Scarborough has no room to criticize when he and Mika turned their show into a Trump SuperPAC.


Putting the blame for any of this on Dore and people like Dore because they refused for vote for a lying neoliberal war monger is complete and utter horseshit. Dore is 100% correct when he points out that as long as the DNC is run by neo/neo corporatists, shit like Trump is going to continue to happen. A decade ago, the country was so disgusted with Republicans that they elected a black man with a muslim sounding name as president and gave Democrats control of Congress. They then promptly fucked over their base by bailing out Wall Street while millions got screwed out of their homes and passed a right wing healthcare reform. That's why they're completely wiped out now. It's not because the country wants what the Republicans are doing. It's because when they elect Democrats, the Democrats don't do what they want them to either.

So back and forth we go between one shit pile and another. Republicans get elected, everyone hates what they do. Democrats replace them, everyone hates what they do. Then it's the Republicans turn. Then it's the Democrats turn. It's a tag team gang bang on the country without lube. They take turns fucking everyone over. So when Jimmy Dore accurately points out that this back and forth shit fuck will never end until we stop voting for the lesser of two evils, he is unequivocally 100% correct.

You're not wrong for the rest of the blame laid out in this paragraph but even more blame goes to the DNC for stealing the primary election from Sanders. I'm not even his biggest fan but he would have wiped the floor with Trump in the general. It would have been the biggest landslide since Reagan/Mondale. Of course, not much would have changed. The entire DNC/GOP establishment would have fought everything he wanted to do. Regardless of how you personally feel about Bernie's platform, it consistently polls well with the American people. Maybe had the DNC Clinton cronies not rigged the primary for her, Sanders would have gotten elected and it would have spurred enough of the country to vote all the rest of those corporate lackeys out of office.



BruiserKC said:


> I would have loved having a "None of the Above" option this past election. A sweeter-smelling pile of shit is still a pile of shit.


That'd be pretty fucking funny. If they had an election and none of the above got more votes than either of the establishment candidates, gotta have another election and keep having another election until they nominate someone that can get more votes than none of the above. The government can come to a screeching halt during this process as far as I am concerned. The government is supposed to work for us. If they can't produce anyone we want to hire, then shut the whole thing down. Fuck the consequences.


----------



## Reaper




----------



## DOPA

About time InfoWars stopped sucking Trump's dick. I was getting a little sick of Alex Jones making excuses for the guy after the trash budget he signed which Congress brought before him. Seems the airstrikes on Syria have woken them up.


----------



## El Grappleador

Yesterday were talking about immigrants on a literature woekshop and I understood something. Immigrants are not the problem.
Why?
Because they work around 15 hours and bad paid on dirty jobs which average americans won't work. Period.


----------



## Pratchett

BruiserKC said:


> I would have loved having a "None of the Above" option this past election. A sweeter-smelling pile of shit is still a pile of shit.





Tater said:


> That'd be pretty fucking funny. If they had an election and none of the above got more votes than either of the establishment candidates, gotta have another election and keep having another election until they nominate someone that can get more votes than none of the above. The government can come to a screeching halt during this process as far as I am concerned. The government is supposed to work for us. If they can't produce anyone we want to hire, then shut the whole thing down. Fuck the consequences.


NOTA is probably the only thing that could work to allow the people to bypass the system that the politicians that direct our lives have set up for us. Which of course is why we will never be given that option when it comes time to vote.

And people still think they have a voice in deciding how this country is run. You don't even get to pick which candidates you are "allowed" to vote for. :mj4


----------



## virus21

El Grappleador said:


> Yesterday were talking about immigrants on a literature woekshop and I understood something. Immigrants are not the problem.
> Why?
> Because they work around 15 hours and bad paid on dirty jobs which average americans won't work. Period.


Serfdom making a come back.


----------



## Vic Capri

James Comey's wife voted for The Empress & just admitted during the Comey interview that a lot of her friends worked for Hillary Clinton.

- Vic


----------



## Art Vandaley

Most parliamentary systems have a "none of the above" option, its called voting for a minor party and it has completely destroyed the political systems of numerous countries.


----------



## Tater

Tinfoil Hat said:


> NOTA is probably the only thing that could work to allow the people to bypass the system that the politicians that direct our lives have set up for us. Which of course is why we will never be given that option when it comes time to vote.
> 
> And people still think they have a voice in deciding how this country is run. You don't even get to pick which candidates you are "allowed" to vote for. :mj4


It's ironic that the Republican primary was more democratic than the Democratic primary. I fully believe that the RNC would have rigged the primary against Trump had they thought he had any chance of winning. They didn't take his run seriously until it was too late.



virus21 said:


> Serfdom making a come back.


This is a lot truer statement than most people realize. Late stage capitalism is turning into somewhat of a neofeudalism system.


----------



## deepelemblues

So WW3 didn't start?

Just like last time?

_Again?_

When is WW3 gonna fucking start already?

When you get told WW3 is imminent for two fuckin' years and you get no WW3 :side:



Tater said:


> This is a lot truer statement than most people realize. Late stage capitalism is turning into somewhat of a neofeudalism system.


:heyman6

Just like WW3, the "late stage" and subsequent collapse of capitalism never shows up. 

Will the disappointment ever end?


----------



## Tater

deepelemblues said:


> "late stage" and subsequent collapse of capitalism never shows up.


The capitalists said everything was doing great in the Roaring 20s and before the collapse 10 years ago as well. If you can't see the next mega crash coming, you're either willfully ignorant or too stupid to understand economics.


----------



## Art Vandaley

When inequality becomes too entrenched (especially in a generational sense) and the power disparity between labour and capital becomes to unbalanced, it becomes hard to distinguish capitalism and feudalism.

Susan Reynolds has written some very interesting stuff on this point from a purely historical (as opposed to political or economic) perspective I'd recommend people give a read.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/827660?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents


----------



## BruiserKC

Let's just break it down for all of you Trumpamaniacs out here...

Enacted gun control policy
Fully funded Planned Parenthood
No DACA removal
No Wall funding
128,000 more H2 Visa's
ACA still here
Military funding for the Blue States
Possibly re-joining TPP
Continued indefinite involvement in the Middle East
An omnibus bill 2nd in spending only to Obama's TARP. 
Increased federal spending with no plans to actually cut the size of government
A tax cut that in reality is a tax increase for a substantial number of Americans. 

President Donald Trump has been as good or even better a Democratic President then his friend Hillary Clinton would have been. The more things change, the more they stay the same. 

But keep thinking things are going to change, Trumpamaniacs...the bottom hasn't dropped out yet but it is coming. Spare me the "But Gorsuch...but fake news...but James Comey...". Whatever successes he has had up to this point is in spite of himself. If this goes south, it's his fault and his fault alone.


----------



## Unorthodox

Comey stating the obvious, Of course he's not fucking morally fit to run the country. The guy is clearly just a massive prick but he's always been that way so expecting him to change all of a sudden because he's president is just stupid.


----------



## DOPA

@Tater @Tinfoil Hat @Reap @Miss Sally @DesolationRow


----------



## Tater

Makise Kurisu said:


> @Tater @Tinfoil Hat @Reap @Miss Sally @DesolationRow


I'm a Sun Tzu - Art of War :mark:. Excellent meme.


----------



## Headliner

Vic Capri said:


> James Comey's wife voted for The Empress & just admitted during the Comey interview that a lot of her friends worked for Hillary Clinton.
> 
> - Vic


The fuck does that have to do with anything when Comey himself is a lifelong Republican. Do you guys even think anymore? Or has Trump taken over your minds so much that you repeat the same Hannity, Fox News, Breitbart and Trump conspiracy and illogical talking points?


----------



## BruiserKC

Headliner said:


> The fuck does that have to do with anything when Comey himself is a lifelong Republican. Do you guys even think anymore? Or has Trump taken over your minds so much that you repeat the same Hannity, Fox News, Breitbart and Trump conspiracy and illogical talking points?


Then shouldn’t Trump and Comey be pals? After all Trump and Hillary are. 

People tend to forget or ignore the long term relationship between the Trumps and the Clintons. .


----------



## Tater

BruiserKC said:


> Let's just break it down for all of you Trumpamaniacs out here...
> 
> Enacted gun control policy
> Fully funded Planned Parenthood
> No DACA removal
> No Wall funding
> 128,000 more H2 Visa's
> ACA still here
> Military funding for the Blue States
> Possibly re-joining TPP
> Continued indefinite involvement in the Middle East
> An omnibus bill 2nd in spending only to Obama's TARP.
> Increased federal spending with no plans to actually cut the size of government
> A tax cut that in reality is a tax increase for a substantial number of Americans.
> 
> President Donald Trump has been as good or even better a Democratic President then his friend Hillary Clinton would have been. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> But keep thinking things are going to change, Trumpamaniacs...the bottom hasn't dropped out yet but it is coming. Spare me the "But Gorsuch...but fake news...but James Comey...". Whatever successes he has had up to this point is in spite of himself. *If this goes south, it's his fault and his fault alone.*


I think you're giving Trump a little too much credit here. This is on the entire establishment and not just the ones currently there now. This is on the Bushes and Clintons and Cheneys and Obamas of the world too because although Trump was elected as president, the overall trajectory of the country has not changed for decades. It may be technically possible for an outsider president to get elected and defy the will of the establishment but technically possible in the USA holds a position right next to completely impossible. Remember, Obama promised change and we got more Bush in the exact same way Trump promised change and we got more Obama.

As the old saying goes, real change only happens during times of crisis. The path we're on will not change, regardless of who gets elected, until the current status quo collapses. This is a status quo that has been very, very good for those at the top. As such, they will never let go of it until they have no other choice in the matter. In other words, buckle up my friend, because it's going to be a bumpy ride.


----------



## Headliner

BruiserKC said:


> Then shouldn’t Trump and Comey be pals? After all Trump and Hillary are.
> 
> People tend to forget or ignore the long term relationship between the Trumps and the Clintons. .


I'm just sick of this "us vs them" Trump politics where if you are a liberal, moderate or non-Trump conservative then you are the enemy, or apart of the "deep state", involved in a conspiracy against Trump, or somehow an inferior, bad person who should be dismissed. An example is Trump asking McGabe who he voted for while shitting on his wife and calling her a loser. 

That shit Hannity pulled last week was so toxic, factually inaccurate and embarrassing. He had a picture graph of Mueller and other people and it was called the Mueller crime family. Mueller is a lifelong Republican too. So now he's the enemy for just going his job and representing the rule of law?Remember when the Republican party prided itself on being the party that supported the FBI, DOJ and law enforcement until death? Now the face of the Republican party and his cronies in the House and on TV attack them like scorned black folks. This us vs them mentality is brainwashing. It's like a cult.


----------



## BruiserKC

Headliner said:


> I'
> 
> I'm just sick of this "us vs them" Trump politics where if you are a liberal, moderate or non-Trump conservative then you are the enemy, or apart of the "deep state", involved in a conspiracy against Trump, or somehow an inferior, bad person who should be dismissed. An example is Trump asking McGabe who he voted for while shitting on his wife and calling her a loser.
> 
> That shit Hannity pulled last week was so toxic, factually inaccurate embarrassing. He had a picture graph of Mueller and other people and it was called the Mueller crime family. Mueller is a lifelong Republican too. So now he's the enemy for just going his job and representing the rule of law?Remember when the Republican party prided itself on being the party that supported the FBI, DOJ and law enforcement until death? Now the face of the Republican party and his cronies in the House and on TV attack them like scorned black folks. This us vs them mentality is brainwashing. It's like a cult.


They don’t like me when I call them out. Problem is many folks like Hannity sold out a long time ago and became sensationalists rather than conservatives. They double down now because we are seeing that the emperor has no clothes on. It’s sad reality that Trump hijacked the conservative movement so I have no intention on helping clean up the mess they created. But I will rub their nose in it like when your dog takes a shit on the carpet.



Tater said:


> I think you're giving Trump a little too much credit here. This is on the entire establishment and not just the ones currently there now. This is on the Bushes and Clintons and Cheneys and Obamas of the world too because although Trump was elected as president, the overall trajectory of the country has not changed for decades. It may be technically possible for an outsider president to get elected and defy the will of the establishment but technically possible in the USA holds a position right next to completely impossible. Remember, Obama promised change and we got more Bush in the exact same way Trump promised change and we got more Obama.
> 
> As the old saying goes, real change only happens during times of crisis. The path we're on will not change, regardless of who gets elected, until the current status quo collapses. This is a status quo that has been very, very good for those at the top. As such, they will never let go of it until they have no other choice in the matter. In other words, buckle up my friend, because it's going to be a bumpy ride.


If Trump did his job rather than have pissing contests with everyone who has slighted him, shit might get done. The anger people felt I understood since I was pissed off too. However we have made things worse. 

Well, you bring the popcorn and I will brew a fresh pot of covfefe.


----------



## Eric Fleischer

Well Sean Hannity as it turns out, is Michael Cohen's third client so now it's obvious why he's swinging off Trump's taint even beyond the standard FAUX News talking head's protocol.


----------



## deepelemblues

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/985835704382099456

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/985878840684752896

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/985836732447887360
Conclusion: David Hogg should probably shut his piehole.


----------



## FriedTofu

Eric Fleischer said:


> Well Sean Hannity as it turns out, is Michael Cohen's third client so now it's obvious why he's swinging off Trump's taint even beyond the standard FAUX News talking head's protocol.


Imagine if Obama's personal lawyer was hired by Rachel Maddow primarily for 'real estate'. :lmao


----------



## DaRealNugget

Eric Fleischer said:


> Well Sean Hannity as it turns out, is Michael Cohen's third client so now it's obvious why he's swinging off Trump's taint even beyond the standard FAUX News talking head's protocol.


:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

this is the best timeline.


----------



## Tater

> *Trump’s Disastrous Syria Attack
> Written by Ron Paul
> Monday April 16, 2018*
> 
> Over the weekend, President Trump celebrated firing more than 100 missiles into Syria by Tweeting, “Mission Accomplished!” They say if you cannot learn from history you are condemned to repeat it. So I guess we are repeating it.
> 
> We all remember that “Mission Accomplished” was the banner behind then-President Bush as he gloated aboard a US navy ship that the war in Iraq had been won. After his “victory,” however, some 4,000 US military personnel were killed, perhaps a million Iraqis were killed, and the country’s infrastructure and social fabric were so badly destroyed that they probably can never be repaired.
> 
> Actually, there is much about the US attack on Syria that reminds us of Iraq.
> 
> With Iraq, the US moved in to start bombing before international inspectors had completed their mission to verify whether or not Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Had they been allowed to complete their mission and verify that he did not, imagine the suffering, death, and destruction that could have been avoided. In Syria, the US decided to start bombing before the international inspectors were even allowed to start checking claims that Assad gassed his own people in Douma. Why? What was the rush? Was Washington afraid they might not find Assad guilty?
> 
> Who really benefits from US attacks on the Syrian government? There were reports that ISIS began making moves immediately after the air strikes. Do we really want to be al-Qaeda and ISIS’s airforce? Is that going to keep us safer? I remember when al-Qaeda was actually considered our enemy, not an ally in overthrowing the last secular government in the Middle East.
> 
> Will Syria’s Christians be better off after the recent US attack? Just over a week ago Christians celebrated Easter in Aleppo for the first time in years. What changed? The Syrian army kicked out al-Qaeda, which had been occupying the eastern part of the city. So no, Christians will be much worse off if our “moderate terrorists” take control of Syria.
> 
> If Syria really had sarin and other chemical weapons factories, does it make sense for the US to bomb the buildings and risk killing thousands by widely disbursing the poisons? Does it make sense to risk killing Syrian civilians with chemical weapons in retaliation for allegations that the Syrian government killed civilians with chemical weapons? No, it seems more like the phony “mobile WMD labs” we were told that Saddam Hussein had constructed.
> 
> If the US knew Syria was manufacturing chemical weapons in the buildings they bombed, why not notify the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)? The OPCW had certified the very building the US bombed as chemical weapons free not that long ago. Why not just call them up and ask them to check it out? After all, they were just arriving in the country as the US started bombing.
> 
> There are many more questions about President Trump’s terrible decision to again make war on Syria. For example, where is Congress? It was disgraceful to see Speaker Paul Ryan telling the President he needs no Congressional authorization to attack Syria. All Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and the Constitution says that only Congress can declare war. Does that oath mean nothing these days?
> 
> President Trump will come to regret the day he let the neocons take over his foreign policy. Their track record is abysmal. His attack on Syria was clearly illegal and should his party lose the House in November he may find his new fair-weather friends in the Democratic Party quickly turning foul.
> 
> SOURCE


A point that I make often is that opposing war is not a left vs right issue but a libertarian vs authoritarian issue. That's why I'm such a fan of Ron Paul. Even though he's about as far right as you can get and I'm about far left as you can get, we're both about as far libertarian as you can get. There are a lot of people on the right and the left who are libertarian minded and should be united against the war mongering establishment that has taken control of our government. There's a time and a place to argue economics and there's other times to put those differences aside to unite against a common enemy. Now is a time for the latter.

ETA: I wanted to rephrase that last part.

There's a time and a place to argue left vs right economics and there's other times to unite as fellow libertarians against an authoritarian government. Now is a time for the latter.

ETA2: I hadn't seen that Alex Jones had republished this piece when I originally posted it in here. That dude is off his rocker insane and even he gets it. I say this as an atheist but god help us all if we're relying on Alex fucking Jones to talk sense into a base of people. :lmao 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/986017143056629767


----------



## BruiserKC

Tater said:


> A point that I make often is that opposing war is not a left vs right issue but a libertarian vs authoritarian issue. That's why I'm such a fan of Ron Paul. Even though he's about as far right as you can get and I'm about far left as you can get, we're both about as far libertarian as you can get. There are a lot of people on the right and the left who are libertarian minded and should be united against the war mongering establishment that has taken control of our government. There's a time and a place to argue economics and there's other times to put those differences aside to unite against a common enemy. Now is a time for the latter.
> 
> ETA: I wanted to rephrase that last part.
> 
> There's a time and a place to argue left vs right economics and there's other times to unite as fellow libertarians against an authoritarian government. Now is a time for the latter.
> 
> ETA2: I hadn't seen that Alex Jones had republished this piece when I originally posted it in here. That dude is off his rocker insane and even he gets it. I say this as an atheist but god help us all if we're relying on Alex fucking Jones to talk sense into a base of people. :lmao
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/986017143056629767



Meanwhile, folks with Israel’s intelligence community says that we didn’t hit a lot in Syria. Considering how badass Israel’s military is, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were spot on. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/israeli-intelligence-trump-syria-strike-failed-2018-4


----------



## Vic Capri

North and South Korea are about to end war after 65 years. This wouldn’t have been possible without President Trump talking tough.

- Vic


----------



## Tater

@CamillePunk Credit where credit is due. Your boy Tucker has been stellar in covering Syria this past week. Quite frankly, I am stunned that Fox News has allowed it to go on this long. Getting away with it for a single segment is one thing but he's been out there hammering the official narrative daily. From all other accounts I've seen, pretty much everything else on the network not Tucker has been in lock step with the rest of the war mongering MSM.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/986598841876131840


----------



## 2 Ton 21

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/986576502358671361
um...


----------



## Draykorinee

Vic Capri said:


> North and South Korea are about to end war after 65 years. This wouldn’t have been possible without President Trump talking tough.
> 
> - Vic


:Rollins

Wait, you probably believe that.


----------



## yeahbaby!

^ I know, it's like 'Vic please, you're not fooling anyone with that sort of talk'. Talking tough FFS.


----------



## MrMister

Don't care who gets credit. The world is much safer if that long dangerous conflict can end.


----------



## Dr. Middy

I'm going to have suspicions with this whole conflict between North and South Korea suddenly ending. I mean, I'm thrilled that its actually happening, but I can't help but wonder if there's something else at play here...


----------



## Art Vandaley

Trump was the first US Pres happy to meet with a NK dictator and legitimise their reign. That's the big difference.


----------



## Tater

Dr. Middy said:


> I'm going to have suspicions with this whole conflict between North and South Korea suddenly ending. I mean, I'm thrilled that its actually happening, but I can't help but wonder if there's something else at play here...


When it comes to geopolitics, there is pretty much always something else at play...


----------



## Miss Sally

MrMister said:


> Don't care who gets credit. The world is much safer if that long dangerous conflict can end.


It really doesn't matter, credit can be sorted out later. 

With this Political Climate someone could come up with the cure for AIDs, Cancer and the Flu and that person would get chastised if their Political alignments didn't match up to either the far Left or Right rather than what was accomplished.

@Tater Tucker is decent when he isn't towing the FOX line. Stossel is also good about it, I'm shocked some of them get the leeway they do because they've put a lot of people and Companies FOX likes on blast.

What made me raise my brow when it came to Politics is Stossel talked about how his kid and a few people from Right/Left/Far Left/Right all had their kids in the same private schools. I'm like wait.. so they talk a good game but don't follow on their rhetoric? 

It makes the Samantha Bee controversy with the whole Public/Private Education even more funny, all these people send their kids to elite private schools which exclude countless kids. :hmmm


----------



## Stinger Fan

Dr. Middy said:


> I'm going to have suspicions with this whole conflict between North and South Korea suddenly ending. I mean, I'm thrilled that its actually happening, but I can't help but wonder if there's something else at play here...


Well, if this is real and legitimate ,maybe it wasn't sudden and has been worked on for a while? Ultimately, I have no clue but one can be hopeful


----------



## Draykorinee

Alkomesh2 said:


> Trump was the first US Pres happy to meet with a NK dictator and legitimise their reign. That's the big difference.


This is the first time NK have ever said they'll stop trying to make nukes, it's never been on the table before. 

That's the difference.


----------



## DOPA

Only 4 Democratic Senators are outright against the escalation in Syria.

And they wonder why people say there is no opposition party in the United States :lol. Pathetic, this is like the biggest political layup they've been given to oppose Trump, the so called "resistance" and they can't even do that.


----------



## Vic Capri

Well, The Democrats are the party of warmongers so...

- Vic


----------



## Tater

Makise Kurisu said:


> Only 4 Democratic Senators are outright against the escalation in Syria.
> 
> And they wonder why people say there is no opposition party in the United States :lol. Pathetic, this is like the biggest political layup they've been given to oppose Trump, the so called "resistance" and they can't even do that.


Which 4? If you're not counting Sanders (whom I really hope is against this bullshit), that'd be 5 against it (if he is). We know we can reliably count on Rand Paul in these instances, so that's 6 Senators. Any other Republicans? Wasn't Mike Lee against it? His opposition might just be on procedural grounds though. Either way, it looks like at least 90% of the Senate is going right along with it.

The term "opposition party" becomes more :lmao every single day. The modern DNC wing of the establishment exists to make sure the country doesn't go any further left than center right when everyone gets disgusted with far right Republicans and votes them out. And they're about 99% authoritarian as the GOP as well, so the closest we'll get to anything libertarian is Rand Paul, who while is great on certain issues, is nowhere near as principled as his dad.

America, fuck yeah! I firmly believe they would do away with the facade of voting altogether if they thought they could get away with it and keep the population from revolting. It's easier to keep the sheep baaing when they are given the illusion of choice.


----------



## FriedTofu

Trump hiring Rudy Giuliani in his legal team. Probably because of how Comey went after Rudy in his book. So in the the main event we have Trump vs Muller. Mid card of Giuliani vs Comey. Under card of Cohen vs Stormy and Hannity as the comic relief? Decent 2018 card after the epic heel vs heel 2016 elections. Have to say Ted Cruz is a much better punchline than Hannity though.


----------



## DOPA

@Tater 






Sanders was one of them. Only three others are against it on principle from the DNC side. More are opposed to it on the "procedural" level and a shockingly high number of them are for it without any Congressional authority.

Rand is the only one from the GOP side who is outright opposed. Lee is just one of those who wishes for Congressional authority but is not opposed to the strikes.


----------



## deepelemblues

North Korea has announced that it is halting nuclear and missile testing. Negotiations are also being prepared between North and South Korea to formally end the Korean War (they are still technically at war with each other). 

Very welcome developments but vigilance must be maintained to the utmost, Pyongyang has played this game before with Bill Clinton and it didn't end well.


----------



## Vic Capri

Yeah, I'll believe it when the peace treaty is signed.

- Vic


----------



## dele

Dr. Middy said:


> I'm going to have suspicions with this whole conflict between North and South Korea suddenly ending. I mean, I'm thrilled that its actually happening, but I can't help but wonder if there's something else at play here...


I think there's a few things at play here:

- North Korea is in a bad spot in terms of global economics. They make nothing, import nothing, and have nothing. The Kim family knows it; more importantly the people know it and are getting fed up (phrasing). A move to end hostilities and legitimize the Kim family in any way is a win for the North.

- South Korea needs low wage workers to compete in Asia and the World. If only there were a group of people nearby who would be very happy to work, get paid, and get fed...

- Japan is not happy with the situation as a whole, but it's better than getting a nuke pointed at you.

- China needs to get out from under the rock of NK


----------



## virus21

> Democrats gave President Trump another potential legal headache Friday, filing a federal lawsuit that alleges an illegal election conspiracy between his presidential campaign, the Russian government, the WikiLeaks organization and others.
> The lawsuit seeks unspecified financial damages, probably in the millions of dollars, for computer fraud, racketeering and other illegal activity that it says undermined the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton's campaign. The suit does not name Trump as a defendant.
> "During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy, and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trump's campaign," Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement. "This constituted an act of unprecedented treachery: the campaign of a nominee for president of the United States in league with a hostile foreign power to bolster its own chance to win the presidency."
> Trump's campaign called the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Manhattan, "frivolous."
> 
> "This is a sham lawsuit about a bogus Russian collusion claim filed by a desperate, dysfunctional and nearly insolvent Democratic Party," said Brad Parscale, who was digital director of Trump's 2016 campaign and now manages the president's 2020 reelection bid.
> The Democrats' lawsuit echoes one filed against President Nixon's reelection campaign after five burglars were caught breaking into Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate complex in Washington in June 1972, and investigations soon uncovered a web of illegal activities run from the White House. The case was settled for $750,000 when Nixon resigned the presidency in August 1974.
> Two federal investigations have burrowed into Trump's inner circle, and the lawsuit suggests Democrats see a political advantage in the swirl of Russia-related allegations before the November election, when the party hopes to wrest back control of at least one chamber of Congress.
> "It's very motivating to the base," said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. "Swing voters are looking for more evidence. To the extent it provides more evidence, it could be important."
> Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is leading a wide-ranging investigation into whether Trump's team aided Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 race. Mueller has obtained criminal charges against 19 individuals so far, but no one has been charged with campaign-related malfeasance and Trump has denied any conspiracy or collusion.
> A separate but related federal investigation in New York is focused on Trump's longtime personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. He has not been charged, but FBI agents recently raided his office, apartment and hotel room for evidence of suspected crimes.
> The Democrats' lawsuit accuses Russians and Trump's aides of having "formed an agreement to promote Donald Trump's candidacy through illegal means."
> "Through multiple meetings, emails and other communications, these Russian agents made clear that their government supported Trump and was prepared to use stolen emails and other information to damage his opponent and the Democratic Party," the lawsuit claims.
> Rather than report the Russian operation to the FBI, "the Trump campaign and its agents gleefully welcomed Russia's help," it adds.
> The lawsuit names several current and former members of Trump's inner circle, including his eldest son, Donald Jr., his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort. The three met at Trump Tower in June 2016 with a Russian lawyer and others who had offered incriminating information on Clinton.
> "To the extent they had information concerning the fitness, character or qualifications of a presidential candidate, I believed that I should at least hear them out," Trump Jr. said after the meeting was exposed last year.
> Lawyers for Kushner and Trump Jr. did not respond to requests for comment Friday. A spokesman for Manafort declined comment.
> Manafort has pleaded not guilty to nearly two dozen federal charges of money laundering, tax evasion and bank fraud. The charges focus on his lobbying for a Kremlin-backed government in Ukraine before he joined the Trump campaign, although the indictments allege the crimes continued through 2016.
> WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy website founded by Julian Assange, is named in the lawsuit because it published tens of thousands of emails in fall 2016 that were hacked from accounts used by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta.
> U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that operatives working for Russia's military intelligence service had penetrated and stolen the emails, and view WikiLeaks as an adjunct of the Russian operation.
> In a Twitter message, WikiLeaks said it was "constitutionally protected from such suits" because it is "an accurate publisher of newsworthy information."
> Roger Stone, an informal advisor to Trump who is named in the suit, called it "a PR stunt" and "a fundraising plot." Stone exchanged messages with WikiLeaks and he tweeted before the Podesta emails came out that the Clinton aide would soon spend "time in the barrel," but he later denied any advance knowledge.
> The Democrats will face an uphill battle pursuing the Russian government, which has denied meddling in the U.S. election. But the lawsuit could compel depositions or production of documents, providing new information about Trump's campaign.


http://archive.is/x68cN#selection-3897.0-4569.240


----------



## neegit

*The case for Trump*



> _Whoever is writing the script for the political drama that Americans are currently living through needs to take it down a notch. The number of threads to the story is getting out of hand, and it's becoming difficult for even dedicated Washington-watchers, pundits and journalists to keep up._
> 
> This week alone has seen multiple developments in the swirling morass of controversy that has engulfed the Trump administration and those who have been or are investigating it.
> 
> Here's a quick review of the (exhausting) week that was.
> 
> *Fallout from the Cohen raid:
> *
> Just under two weeks ago, federal investigators raided the office and hotel room of Michael Cohen, Mr Trump's long-time personal attorney, business associate and all-around fixer of uncomfortable problems.
> 
> It represented a new legal front in the investigations into the president - including possible Cohen-orchestrated payments to women alleging affairs with Mr Trump - conducted by the US attorney's office in Manhattan, not special counsel Robert Mueller.
> 
> The week kicked off with a court hearing for Mr Trump's longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen
> 
> This week the legal battle centred around who gets to review the results of that search and determine what is covered by the protected communications lawyers can have with their clients.
> 
> Mr Cohen - joined by the president's legal team - argued that they should have first crack. The judge all but laughed them out of court.
> 
> The US attorneys want a special government team not directly connected to the case to do the review. The judge also entertained the possibility of appointing an independent third party to go over the documents and audio recordings.
> 
> There's more than a little concern in the White House (anonymously, on background, of course) that the search could expose misdeeds on Mr Cohen's part, perhaps involving personal or campaign finance violations, and he may feel pressure to co-operate with investigators, possibly jeopardising the president.
> 
> 
> *The president and the porn star: Why this matters
> *
> The search may also have led to the end of two lawsuits this week that could have generated big headlines if they had been allowed to proceed.
> 
> Mr Cohen dropped his defamation suit against news outlets that published the so-called Steele Dossier, which suggested that he had unsavoury ties to Russia. He had said the dossier damaged his professional and personal reputation. Now he's saying he has bigger legal fish to fry.
> 
> Then there's former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who alleges she had an affair with Mr Trump in 2005. She just settled her lawsuit to free herself from an exclusive agreement - brokered in part by Mr Cohen - to share her story with the National Enquirer. It was a tale the tabloid magazine with ties to Trump never chose to publish.
> 
> Karen McDougal says she was tricked into staying silent about the alleged affair
> In both cases, material from the Cohen search could have proven relevant. It was out there for the taking, and now both cases have been put to bed.
> 
> Maybe it's all a coincidence. Maybe it isn't. "Maybe" is the sort of thing that keeps lawyers - and politicians - up at night.
> 
> *The Comey media blitz debuts
> *
> 
> This was supposed to be Comey Week, remember?
> 
> It started off with a bang, as former FBI Director James Comey took to the airwaves to accuse the president of being morally unfit for office and share new details of his sometimes awkward interactions with Mr Trump before the president sacked him.
> 
> The interview certainly rankled the president's supporters and probably, when Mr Comey defended his handling of the Hillary Clinton email server investigation, reminded Democrats why they weren't his biggest fans in 2016, either.
> 
> After the fifth or sixth interview, the accusations lost a bit of their punch. Was that Mr Comey being interviewed by comedian Stephen Colbert? Did he really appear with Whoopi Goldberg et al on the daytime talk show The View?
> 
> Then, on Thursday evening, the Justice Department provided Congress with the memos Mr Comey wrote shortly after those key meetings and, within minutes, they ended up in reporters' hands.
> 
> The documents were consistent with Mr Comey's recent comments and testimony before Congress last June. They paint a picture of a president who wanted loyalty from his FBI director in general and to ease off the government investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn in particular.
> 
> Mr Trump's critics see the memos as damning corroborating evidence of the ex-director's accounts. The White House and congressional Republicans argue that they're proof Mr Comey was out to get the president from the start.
> 
> The battle lines were drawn a long time ago, and no one seemed interested in coming out of their trenches this week.
> 
> *McCabe (and Democrats) in the barrel
> *
> One new bit of information the Comey memos revealed is just how suspicious the president was of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe from the very beginning.
> 
> Mr Trump had blasted Mr McCabe on the campaign trail, accusing him of pro-Clinton bias in his handling of the email server investigation because his wife had taken campaign contributions from a Clinton ally during her a 2015 Democratic candidate for state office.
> 
> Mr McCabe had been sacked one day before his retirement from the FBI was to begin
> Last week a Justice Department inspector general report put the former deputy director in a tough spot, finding that he misled federal investigators under oath about his efforts to leak information to essentially protect his reputation. Mr Trump has cited this as vindication, although Mr McCabe's actions ended up being damaging to the Clinton campaign by revealing an ongoing federal investigation into her family's charitable foundation.
> 
> *FBI deputy director 'misled investigators'
> *
> This week we learned the inspector general referred Mr McCabe's file to a federal prosecutor who could bring criminal charges. That would probably put Mr Comey in the position of testifying against a former deputy he has vouched for in the past.
> 
> Meanwhile, 11 House Republicans wrote a letter urging Attorney General Jeff Sessions to consider a criminal investigation of Mr McCabe, Mr Comey, Hillary Clinton, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page for various actions during the 2016 presidential campaign.
> 
> "Because we believe that those in positions of high authority should be treated the same as every other American, we want to be sure that the potential violations of law … are vetted appropriately," they wrote.
> 
> Mr Trump has repeatedly groused that he is being unfairly targeted by investigators, when it's his political opponents who should feel the heat. Past presidents may have felt this way, but Mr Trump is one of the few to say (and tweet) it publicly, time and time again.
> 
> *Trump's legal team
> *
> OK. Take a deep breath. We're not done yet.
> 
> This week also saw re-enforcements arrive for Mr Trump's short-handed private legal defence team - and one of the new arrivals is a very familiar face.
> 
> Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City and a vocal Trump campaign supporter who was sidelined when the Trump administration was formed, is being brought on board - at least for a short time - to help "negotiate an end" to the investigation.
> 
> Mr Giuliani was once, a long time ago, the US attorney for the Southern District of New York - the jurisdiction that is handling the Cohen case - so he has some familiarity with how the government prosecutorial machinery operates.
> 
> The former New York mayor has been a strong supporter of Mr Trump. He also in the last days of the election was vocal about the various government investigation into Mrs Clinton and appeared to have advanced information on the newly discovered emails that led to Mr Comey's election-eve letter to Congress re-opening the investigation. Mr Comey said in an interview Thursday night that he had ordered an inquiry into possible FBI leaks to Mr Giuliani, but he was fired before it concluded.
> 
> This whole thing sometimes feels like a snake eating its own tail.
> 
> The other addition to the president's legal squad is a husband-and-wife team of former federal prosecutors from Florida who specialise in defending clients accused of white-collar crime. Multiple higher-profile law firms, and lawyers, had reportedly declined offers in recent weeks.
> 
> The website for the firm Raskin & (before, it seems, it crashed, perhaps due to massive amounts of traffic) quotes a reviewer who says "they are a good team to get you out of trouble."
> 
> Sounds like just what Trump and his team needs.
> 
> *The case for Trump
> **Meanwhile, amid all the sturm und drang of various Trump-related controversies and investigations, Texas Senator Ted Cruz - in a glowing Time Magazine tribute to the president published this week - concisely sums up why none of it may matter.
> 
> "The same cultural safe spaces that blinkered coastal elites to candidate Trump's popularity have rendered them blind to President Trump's achievements on behalf of ordinary Americans," writes the 2016 presidential candidate who was bested by Mr Trump and once called him a "pathological liar" and a bully.
> 
> Mr Cruz has been mocked for his editorial, which some called "fawning".
> 
> "While pundits obsessed over tweets, he worked with Congress to cut taxes for struggling families. While wealthy celebrities announced that they would flee the country, he fought to bring back jobs and industries to our shores. While talking heads predicted Armageddon, President Trump's strong stand against North Korea put Kim Jong Un back on his heels."
> 
> Will Syria air strikes cost Trump votes?
> 
> Trump was elected to "disrupt the status quo," Mr Cruz contends, which is exactly what he's doing. The chaos and the controversy, the gnashing of teeth by establishment lifers typified by people like Mr Comey, are "not a bug but a feature".
> 
> That's the Trump re-election pitch in a nutshell. For struggling Americans, Washington chaos isn't a pit; it's a ladder.
> 
> Mr Trump and his team have two-and-a-half years to sell that to the US public.*


Can Trump still win 2020?


----------



## Reaper

Trump's done for 2020. At this point he has no one to blame but himself: 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/us-steel-prices-up-dramatically-due-to-trump-tariffs-fed


> *US steel prices up 'dramatically' due to Trump tariffs: Fed
> *
> U.S. steel prices have risen sharply since President Donald Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on the metal, the Federal Reserve said Wednesday in its survey of regional economic conditions.
> 
> The central bank’s Beige Book, a collection of anecdotal reports from businesses, said there were “widespread reports” in March and early April “that steel prices rose, sometimes dramatically, due to the new tariff.” Prices for building materials such as lumber, drywall and concrete also climbed during the period.
> 
> Trump approved a 25% tariff on imported steel, as well as a 10% tariff on aluminum, in March, arguing that levies are necessary to protect U.S. producers of the two metals. The move was seen as a salvo against China, which Trump has criticized for dumping steel in the U.S. to force prices lower. Canada and Mexico were excluded from the tariffs.
> 
> Businesses generally expect more price increases in the months ahead, the Fed noted. There were “scattered reports” of some companies that were able to pass price increases to customers in manufacturing, information technology, transportation and construction.
> 
> The Beige Book also showed that the Fed’s 12 districts saw widespread employment growth. Companies continued to report a struggle in finding qualified candidates to fill open job positions. Labor shortages were common in high-skill positions, including engineering and health care.


Steel prices going up means EVERYTHING dependent on it is going to go up. 

Fucking moron. Too moronic to realize that it was competition that was forcing the steel manufacturers from raising their prices --- when they got a favorable legislation from the Moron Dick in Chief, OF COURSE they were going to respond with raising their prices. 

fpalm


----------



## Vic Capri

> Can Trump still win 2020?


1.) If the economy stays in good shape 
2.) If the Korean War ends
3.) If he builds The Wall
4.) If he has a weak opponent to go up against.

- Vic


----------



## DOPA

Trade protectionism didn't work and prices are sharply rising in the steel industry? IMAGINE MY SHOCK. If you have a trade war which is what tariffs essentially encourage since no country is going to get fucked over in terms of having to pay more to import or export goods without some sort of blowback, then goods are obviously going to become more expensive. Companies have to raise prices when they are being hit with a tax on importing or exporting their goods otherwise they lose profits. This is why free trade works.

This is something progressives who support tariffs don't get either. Them and Paleoconservatives are as bad as each other when it comes to this issue.

-------------

The DNC filing a lawsuit against Wikileaks, the Trump campaign and the Russians for a so called illegal election conspiracy when it's been proven they conspired to make sure Sanders didn't get the nomination is about the most hilarious thing I've read all week. If you think this so called Russian conspiracy isn't anything but nonsense then you haven't been paying attention. You've either been swindled by the Democrat Partisan MSM or you are a partisan hack yourself. 

It'll give Trump a headache, but it'll hurt the DNC more in the long run. They are missing opportunities to hit Trump on policy and are instead embarking still on a wild goose chase. Nobody will believe in you when on the most important of issues you stand alongside the very person you claim to be against.


----------



## virus21

> Things were already looking bad when, several people told me, Chelsea Clinton popped the Champagne. It was just after 9 p.m. on election night and she was having her hair and makeup done in the family’s suite at the Peninsula hotel. She stopped to pour what someone said was Veuve Clicquot into everyone’s glasses, figuring that in a couple of hours Donald Trump’s run of early victories in red states (West Virginia, Oklahoma, Alabama) would end and the map would turn back in her mom’s favor.
> Three hours later, the Rust Belt was awash in red, and somebody had to tell Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Robby Mook, the drained and deflated campaign manager, told his boss she was going to lose. She didn’t seem all that surprised.
> “I knew it. I knew this would happen to me,” she said, now within a couple of inches of Mr. Mook’s ashen face. “They were never going to let me be president.”
> In July 2013, Jill Abramson, the former executive editor of The New York Times, put me on the “Hillary beat” ahead of the 2016 election. It was 649 days before Mrs. Clinton would announce she was running for president again, 1,226 days before she would lose to Mr. Trump.
> 
> Every major life decision in my 20s and 30s — when to get married, where to buy an apartment, whether to freeze my eggs until after the election — had revolved around a single looming question: What about Hillary Clinton?
> 
> I figured that if anyone knew whom Mrs. Clinton was referring to with that insidious “they” that, like some invisible army of adversaries (real and imagined), wielded its collective power and caused her to lose the most winnable presidential election in modern history, it was me.
> They were the vast-right wing conspiracy. They were the patriarchy that could never let an ambitious former first lady finally shatter “that highest, hardest glass ceiling.” They were the people of Wisconsin and James Comey. They were white suburban women who would rather vote for a man who bragged about sexual assault than a woman who seemed an affront to who they were.
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, they were political reporters (“big egos and no brains,” she called us) hounding her about her emails and transfixed by the spectacle of the first reality TV show candidate.
> It’s dizzying to realize that without even knowing it, you’ve ended up on the wrong side of history. Months after the election, every time I heard the words “Russia” and “collude,” this realization swirled in my head, enveloping everything.
> 
> And the strange thing is, Oct. 7, 2016, started just like any other day.
> The Times newsroom had been quiet that afternoon. Then, around 4 p.m., I heard “Oh, my God,” and “Oh, God,” and “Jesus Christ” float from cubicle to cubicle until my largely agnostic colleagues sounded like a Sunday church choir. The Washington Post had published video of the Republican nominee for president bragging about sexually assaulting women.
> 
> I stared into my screen, as frozen as the paused image of Mr. Trump and Billy Bush stepping off the bus, the unknowing actress in the fuchsia halter dress waiting to greet them.
> I was still in this haze at 4:32 p.m. when WikiLeaks tweeted a link to emails from the Gmail account of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, including excerpts from her speeches to Wall Street firms.
> Mrs. Clinton’s refusal to release the speeches had been such a cause célèbre in the Democratic primary that I regularly saw protesters holding signs that said, “I’d rather be at home reading your Goldman Sachs speeches.” Now the juicy parts of this most sought-after trove of documents had landed in our laps.
> But it wasn’t a scoop. It was more like a bank heist.
> Editors and reporters huddled to discuss how to handle the emails. Everyone agreed that since the emails were already out there — and of importance to voters — it was The Times’s job to “confirm” and “contextualize” them. I didn’t argue that it appeared the emails were stolen by a hostile foreign government that had staged an attack on our electoral system. I didn’t push to hold off on publishing them until we could have a less harried discussion. I didn’t raise the possibility that we’d become puppets in Vladimir Putin’s master plan. I chose the byline.
> In December, after the election, my colleagues in Washington wrote a Pulitzer-winning article about how the Russians had pulled off the perfect hack. I was on the F train on my way to the newsroom when I read it. I had no new assignment yet and still existed in a kind of postelection fog that took months to lift. I must’ve read this line 15 times: “Every major publication, including The Times, published multiple stories citing the D.N.C. and Podesta emails posted by WikiLeaks, becoming a de facto instrument of Russian intelligence.”
> 
> 
> The Bernie Bros and Mr. Trump’s Twitter trolls had called me a donkey-faced whore and a Hillary shill, but nothing hurt worse than my own colleagues calling me a de facto instrument of Russian intelligence. The worst part was, they were right.
> A few weeks before Election Day, I was stuck in my cubicle poring over John Podesta’s emails. I wanted to be on the road. “I just feel like the election isn’t happening in my cubicle,” I said. “But it’s over,” an editor replied, reminding me that the Times’s Upshot election model gave Mrs. Clinton a 93 percent chance of winning. The ominous “they” who would keep the glass ceiling intact didn’t look that powerful then.
> Until the last day on the road, though, it never really felt like a winning campaign. Not that I thought Mr. Trump would win. I believed in the data. Yet I couldn’t shake the nagging sensation that no matter how many people I’d met in black churches and union halls and high school gyms around the country who told Hillary Clinton their problems, no matter how many women chanted, “Deal me in!” in unison, she wouldn’t win.
> I looked around at a get-out-the-vote rally in Akron, Ohio. It was just over a month until Election Day. Dozens of empty chairs sat in the press area. Extension cords dangled unused off folding tables. Cherry pickers set up to give photographers an aerial shot sat idle.
> 
> I had to remind myself that there was a time, during the Harkin Steak Fry, the political event of the year for Democrats, in the fall of 2014, before Mrs. Clinton was even a candidate and while Mr. Trump was still a reality TV star, when she had been the media’s obsession. Two hundred reporters had stampeded across the lawn for a glimpse of the most irresistible, dramatic story of what Salon called the “horribly dull political year to come.”
> The first woman with a real shot at the presidency, then able to capture the world’s attention with a single flip of sirloin, hardly registered by the time voting approached.
> I always figured that this was just how Hillary Clinton would win. It was the painful logic always at work for her: She was expected to project the iron of a commander in chief, the warmth of a best girlfriend and the charisma of a drinking buddy. And if she had somehow done all of that, there would still be some essential quality she lacked, in many people’s minds, because we simply had no template for a female president. The long-suffering feminist heroine would make history not in a festooned lovefest but in a dreary, mechanical slog.
> By late fall, the traveling press — called “the Girls on the Bus” since on any given day, of our cohort of about 20 regular reporters, as many as 18 of us were women — were calling it Hillary’s Death March to Victory.
> 
> She went through the motions. “Hello [insert swing-state city here]!”
> She did a whole riff on making lists. “I have a plan for just about everything,” she said. “You know, maybe this is a woman thing. We make lists, right? I love making lists. And then I love crossing things off!”
> If I had to identify a single unifying force behind Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, it was her obvious desire to get the whole thing over with. “This election is 10 days away,” she said at a rally in Des Moines. “Eleven, but we’re more than halfway through today.”
> When I started covering Mrs. Clinton in 2007 for The Wall Street Journal, she’d been a hands-on senator constantly in touch with her upstate constituents. But by her second campaign, she seemed like Rip Van Winkle, awake again after her stint as secretary of state to find a vastly different country. She’d missed the rise of the Tea Party. She’d missed the Occupy Wall Street movement and the rage over health care and bank bailouts and the 1 percent.
> And in early 2015, when her advisers told her that people no longer wanted to be called middle class — a data point that seemed a fundamental shift in the American psyche and as clear a sign as any that there was something stirring in this election — Hillary Clinton saw only a linguistic challenge.
> 
> Her consultants contemplated what to call this curious specimen of 121 million Americans who were technically middle class. Everyday Americans! It even sounded like Walmart’s Everyday Low Prices.
> “Everyday Americans need a champion and I want to be that champion,” Mrs. Clinton repeated this corporate catchphrase for several months until her campaign tested 84 possible replacement slogans.
> It didn’t take long before we’d turned Everydays into a proper noun. When the traveling press needed to get past the barricades to talk to voters, it was “C’mon, my editors need me to quote some Everydays.” Or when a line of women snaked around outside an event in North Charleston, S.C., we’d ask the campaign, “What’s the crowd count on the Everydays who couldn’t get inside?”
> 
> Even the Brooklyn campaign headquarters weren’t immune. When Chelsea Clinton requested a private plane to fly to an event, Mr. Podesta shrugged. “She’s not an Everyday American,” he said.
> Now we have an administration with hardly an everyday American in it. We are all living through the chaos of the Trump presidency, and Robert Mueller continues to dig into the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Hillary Clinton has settled into a surreal life of speaking at women’s conferences. I’ve started to see the “they” she spoke about on election night differently.
> They were Facebook algorithms and data breaches. They were Fake News drummed up by Vladimir Putin’s digital army. They were shadowy hackers who stole her campaign chairman’s emails hoping to weaken our democracy with Mr. Podesta’s risotto recipe. And they were The Times and me and all the other journalists who covered those stolen emails.
> 
> Of course, these outside forces wouldn’t have mattered or weighed so heavily on me, on the country, had Hillary Clinton, her campaign and her longtime aides — the same box of broken toys who’d enabled all of her worst instincts since the 1990s — not let the election get so close in the first place. The Russians, after all, didn’t hack into her calendar and delete the Wisconsin rallies.
> I never told anyone this, but one time when I’d been visiting the Brooklyn campaign headquarters I found an iPhone in the women’s restroom. I wasn’t sure, but it seemed to belong to Mr. Podesta’s assistant because when I picked it up, a flood of calendar alerts for him popped up. I placed it on the sink counter, went into the stall, came out and washed my hands. I left the phone sitting there, worried that if I turned it in, even touched it again, aides would think I had snooped. This seemed a violation that would at best get my invitation to the headquarters rescinded and at worst get me booted off the beat for unethical behavior.
> I can’t explain why, in the heat of breaking news, I thought covering John Podesta’s hacked emails was any different.


http://archive.is/lrj5q


----------



## virus21




----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

To whoever was responsible for the fake news reporting the passing of Bush 41, fuck you and fuck :fakenews.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Hannity Hannity Hannity lol. Nice to see an arrogant blowhard eat shit pie for a change. What a colossal buffoon.

An 11 year old could've told you to shut the hell up about Trump and his lawyer in his position.


----------



## Tater

We're helping the Saudis bomb weddings in Yemen; your taxpayer dollars hard at work...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/988377521833041920
...meanwhile, in Syria:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/988404240019271682
And Prof. Wolff with that sick burn!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/988425769234857984
@Makise Kurisu "obedient poodles"


----------



## Reaper

Who needs the Saudis to bomb weddings when American drones have been doing it too for decades.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-125820/US-bomb-kills-30-Afghan-wedding.html

^^ I vividly remember this in 2002. The internet is great for these kinds of things.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Reap said:


> Trump's done for 2020. At this point he has no one to blame but himself:
> 
> https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/us-steel-prices-up-dramatically-due-to-trump-tariffs-fed
> 
> 
> Steel prices going up means EVERYTHING dependent on it is going to go up.
> 
> Fucking moron. Too moronic to realize that it was competition that was forcing the steel manufacturers from raising their prices --- when they got a favorable legislation from the Moron Dick in Chief, OF COURSE they were going to respond with raising their prices.
> 
> fpalm


Same thing happened with Bush's steel tariffs in 2002-2003. Lamar Alexander tried to warn him two months ago in this meeting and referenced Bush. Trump just said nothing worked for Bush. fpalm

28:00








> *SENATOR ALEXANDER:* If I could use two 60-second stories just — I don’t know exactly what the tariff is proposed. And I thank you for having us down here before you’ve made your decision; that’s a big help. I thank you for that.
> 
> So here are the two examples: I hope you will look carefully at what President George W. Bush did in 2002 when he imposed 30 percent steel tariffs — 30 percent increase — on tariffs from China, South Korea, a couple of other places. The effect was, one, that even though that was only 5 percent of the imported steel, it raised the price of almost all steel in the United States.
> 
> Two, at the same time, auto-parts manufacturers who used the steel began to cut jobs and move outside of our country because they could buy the steel there, make the part, and ship the part back in without any tariff. And we found there were 10 times as many people in steel-using industries as there were in steel-producing industries. And so according to the auto manufacturers, they lost more jobs than exist in the steel industry.
> 
> So that’s — so the questions would be, will it raise prices —
> 
> *THE PRESIDENT: * Lamar, it didn’t work for Bush, but nothing worked for Bush. (Laughter.)
> 
> *SENATOR ALEXANDER: * Well, no, I wouldn’t–
> 
> *THE PRESIDENT: * It didn’t work for Bush but it worked for others. It did work for others. But you’re right, it did not work for Bush.
> 
> *SENATOR ALEXANDER: * Well, it’s a — I’m not recommending any solution. I’m just saying it’s worth looking at what happened because it backfired, raised prices, and lost jobs.
> 
> And then the other 60-second story is, my dad worked for Alcoa in the smelting plant in Tennessee. We don’t have smelting plants for aluminum anymore because you have to use a lot of electricity to make them, and they’re never coming back really. I think we only have six left.
> 
> So now we’re lucky enough there to be making auto parts from aluminum, for cars. Jobs are coming back up. But if we put a tariff on the ingots that come in from overseas, that will raise the prices and that will hurt. Our aluminum comes from Canada. None from China. So I hope you’ll look carefully at where the aluminum comes from.
> 
> *THE PRESIDENT: * Okay.
> 
> *SENATOR ALEXANDER: * So thank you very much for —


----------



## Reaper

Yeah. The incoming inflation is going wipe out our tax refunds in 2019. Since everyone knows that everyone is going to have more money it simply means that everyone can now charge more money. Sometimes I wonder if that is actually part of the plan when they do this stuff because all it does is squeeze and squeeze and squeeze the middle class for everything they're worth. 

I made a lot of posts on this topic a while ago in the thread and I'm not even an economist. 

This is why I'm in full on save for your life mode at the moment and have planned my life around hunkering down for some hard times. We won't have anything as devastating as the Housing Crisis but everything is going to go up slowly to the point where the new middle class that was recently created is going to struggle to move on up. Interest rates on Mortgages are already up to 4.5 from 3.9 just a few months ago and there's no sign of them slowing down at the moment. They plan on two more hikes just this year. Inflation is "stable" but in a market like ours even a few decimal points mean the difference between being able to make rent and not for a lot of people.


----------



## CamillePunk

Trump has flipped Paul on Pompeo for Secretary of State


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/988523697886711808


----------



## Tater

Reap said:


> We won't have anything as devastating as the Housing Crisis...


My young padawan, you have much to learn.



CamillePunk said:


> Trump has flipped Paul on Pompeo for Secretary of State
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/988523697886711808


Goddamnit, Rand. This is one of those times when I am sad he is not as great as his dad. Ron would never go along with such a ploy.


----------



## Vic Capri

He deleted his Tweet, but its good to know Kayne West (and Shania Twain) support Donald Trump.










- Vic


----------



## Pratchett

Makise Kurisu said:


> Only 4 Democratic Senators are outright against the escalation in Syria.
> 
> And they wonder why people say there is no opposition party in the United States :lol. Pathetic, this is like the biggest political layup they've been given to oppose Trump, the so called "resistance" and they can't even do that.


There is only one party in the US, its called the Political Party. The fact that they manage to keep the vast majority of their followers divided amongst themselves for their own benefit is amazingly overlooked by the masses.



Reap said:


> Trump's done for 2020. At this point he has no one to blame but himself:
> 
> https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/us-steel-prices-up-dramatically-due-to-trump-tariffs-fed
> 
> 
> Steel prices going up means EVERYTHING dependent on it is going to go up.
> 
> Fucking moron. Too moronic to realize that it was competition that was forcing the steel manufacturers from raising their prices --- when they got a favorable legislation from the Moron Dick in Chief, OF COURSE they were going to respond with raising their prices.
> 
> fpalm


Trump is perfectly safe for 2020. Do you honestly think for one second that the Establishment Powers are going to give up on keeping a guy that they have total control of in the White House? He is doing everything they want him to. Which also leaves him as the perfect fall guy for whatever goes wrong.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Tinfoil Hat said:


> Trump is perfectly safe for 2020. Do you honestly think for one second that the Establishment Powers are going to give up on keeping a guy that they have total control of in the White House?
> 
> Outside of maybe Tulsi Gabbard is there a single Democrat that would worry the Washington establishment of either party one iota? Trump won by about a margin of 100,000 votes in 3 swing states against possibly the worst Democratic GE candidate since McGovern. RL circumstances could change and his popularity could go up high enough to get reelected,but any reasonable Democratic candidate without baggage who runs a competent campaign should be able to win.
> 
> The power's that be got the judges and tax cut's they wanted out of him, I think a lot of them will have little care either way if he get's reelected.


----------



## deepelemblues

Reap said:


> Yeah. The incoming inflation is going wipe out our tax refunds in 2019. Since everyone knows that everyone is going to have more money it simply means that everyone can now charge more money. Sometimes I wonder if that is actually part of the plan when they do this stuff because all it does is squeeze and squeeze and squeeze the middle class for everything they're worth.
> 
> I made a lot of posts on this topic a while ago in the thread and I'm not even an economist.
> 
> This is why I'm in full on save for your life mode at the moment and have planned my life around hunkering down for some hard times. We won't have anything as devastating as the Housing Crisis but everything is going to go up slowly to the point where the new middle class that was recently created is going to struggle to move on up. Interest rates on Mortgages are already up to 4.5 from 3.9 just a few months ago and there's no sign of them slowing down at the moment. They plan on two more hikes just this year. Inflation is "stable" but in a market like ours even a few decimal points mean the difference between being able to make rent and not for a lot of people.


Well you're wrong so I don't see what you're worrying about. But if you want to misallocate your resources based on the boogeyman that's your choice.

Higher interest rates discourage lending. Less lending = less spending = less dollars going after products = less inflationary pressure. 

The steel tariffs are going to cause great inflationary pressure? Oh please. It isn't 1891. You know what did cause great inflationary pressure? The mid-2000s rise in oil prices. But here we are, having avoided major inflation. You can say that the recession was the reason, but after the recession ended you would expect to see accelerated inflation, with interest rates at historical lows. Didn't happen. Inflation is historically stagnant and historically independent of other economic conditions (although the meteoric rise in productivity over the last generation likely has very much a lot to do with it) and there is no end in sight to that situation. 

Please don't turn into Tater, one economic illiterate constantly sharing economic speculative doom porn that never turns into reality is enough. The "incoming inflation" isn't happening, steel tariffs aren't going to cause it (what are you smoking? Can you ship some up north? If the mid-2000s rise in oil did not cause great inflation, and it didn't, if the conjuring of over 10 trillion dollars out of thin air post-2008 that was injected into the global economy did not cause great inflation, and it didn't, a steel tariff and a tax cut in a term of increasing production isn't going to either), it isn't wiping out real income gains from the tax cuts, it isn't crippling the economy, it isn't any of it because it's not going to happen. Eventually you will realize that you don't need spectacularly or catastrophically proven correct to maintain your beliefs. Well Tater won't realize that but that's okay because like all Marxists he will never be proven right ever. 

It's a sad day when people are so disappointed and frustrated by the unfruitful nature of their beliefs that they have to double down to "everything's gonna go to total shit!" Sad! I say.


----------



## Miss Sally

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Tinfoil Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is perfectly safe for 2020. Do you honestly think for one second that the Establishment Powers are going to give up on keeping a guy that they have total control of in the White House?
> 
> Outside of maybe Tulsi Gabbard is there a single Democrat that would worry the Washington establishment of either party one iota? Trump won by about a margin of 100,000 votes in 3 swing states against possibly the worst Democratic GE candidate since McGovern. RL circumstances could change and his popularity could go up high enough to get reelected,but any reasonable Democratic candidate without baggage who runs a competent campaign should be able to win.
> 
> The power's that be got the judges and tax cut's they wanted out of him, I think a lot of them will have little care either way if he get's reelected.
> 
> 
> 
> Establishment Democrats won't want Tulsi in office. Trump is a far safer bet, means if they can get him to pass all the stuff they had to be shady about before. I mean he legalized the pretty illegal shit the Obama Administration was doing.
> 
> They now have a guy they can put the blame on while Establishment Dems/Republicans can all safely say they never really supported him while they get him to pass shit they know would not fly with the public on their watch.
Click to expand...


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> Well you're wrong so I don't see what you're worrying about. But if you want to misallocate your resources based on the boogeyman that's your choice.
> 
> Higher interest rates discourage lending. Less lending = less spending = less dollars going after products = less inflationary pressure.
> 
> The steel tariffs are going to cause great inflationary pressure? Oh please. It isn't 1891. You know what did cause great inflationary pressure? The mid-2000s rise in oil prices. But here we are, having avoided major inflation. You can say that the recession was the reason, but after the recession ended you would expect to see accelerated inflation, with interest rates at historical lows. Didn't happen. Inflation is historically stagnant and historically independent of other economic conditions (although the meteoric rise in productivity over the last generation likely has very much a lot to do with it) and there is no end in sight to that situation.
> 
> Please don't turn into Tater, one economic illiterate constantly sharing economic speculative doom porn that never turns into reality is enough. The "incoming inflation" isn't happening, steel tariffs aren't going to cause it (what are you smoking? Can you ship some up north? If the mid-2000s rise in oil did not cause great inflation, and it didn't, if the conjuring of over 10 trillion dollars out of thin air post-2008 that was injected into the global economy did not cause great inflation, and it didn't, a steel tariff and a tax cut in a term of increasing production isn't going to either), it isn't wiping out real income gains from the tax cuts, it isn't crippling the economy, it isn't any of it because it's not going to happen. Eventually you will realize that you don't need spectacularly or catastrophically proven correct to maintain your beliefs. Well Tater won't realize that but that's okay because like all Marxists he will never be proven right ever.
> 
> It's a sad day when people are so disappointed and frustrated by the unfruitful nature of their beliefs that they have to double down to "everything's gonna go to total shit!" Sad! I say.


You should probably re-read my post. It's anything but doom porn. It's pragmatic. I even stated that I don't expect inflation to go up more than a few decimal points and that it will - which is a difference maker for certain low income groups.


----------



## Pratchett

The DNC will *never *let Tulsi run for President. Get your head out of your ass. :mj4


----------



## Tater

Tinfoil Hat said:


> The DNC will *never *let Tulsi run for President. Get your head out of your ass. :mj4


A lot of people forget how young she is. Tulsi just turned 37 a couple of weeks ago and she's extremely popular locally, so she's not going to be disappearing from DC anytime soon. The DNC might be able to sabotage their presidential primaries but there is not a lot they can do to keep her out of Congress. She won her last primary/general election with something like 80 & 75% of the vote. Good luck beating that. Don't get me wrong. The rest of the people from Hawai'i (Schatz/Hirono/Hanabusa) are all establishment stooges but when the real deal comes along like Tulsi, it's tough to beat her at this level.

I don't think she's ready to run for President but she'd be a perfect Secretary of State for this time, considering all that is going on in the world right now. The biggest criticism of Sanders is that his foreign policy sucks. I don't trust Bernie to not be a puppet of the MIC/deep state war machine. That *is* something I would trust Tulsi to seriously push back against. If he runs again and manages to defeat the DNC rigged primaries, where I would want her most is in his administration at an important position to affect foreign policy. Plus, that would give her the kind of experience to maybe propel her own presidential administration in the future. One can hope.


----------



## Vic Capri

I'm enjoying the Macron / Trump bromance while it lasts. :lol

*#Diplomacy*

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> A lot of people forget how young she is. Tulsi just turned 37 a couple of weeks ago and she's extremely popular locally, so she's not going to be disappearing from DC anytime soon. The DNC might be able to sabotage their presidential primaries but there is not a lot they can do to keep her out of Congress. She won her last primary/general election with something like 80 & 75% of the vote. Good luck beating that. Don't get me wrong. The rest of the people from Hawai'i (Schatz/Hirono/Hanabusa) are all establishment stooges but when the real deal comes along like Tulsi, it's tough to beat her at this level.
> 
> I don't think she's ready to run for President but she'd be a perfect Secretary of State for this time, considering all that is going on in the world right now. The biggest criticism of Sanders is that his foreign policy sucks. I don't trust Bernie to not be a puppet of the MIC/deep state war machine. That *is* something I would trust Tulsi to seriously push back against. If he runs again and manages to defeat the DNC rigged primaries, where I would want her most is in his administration at an important position to affect foreign policy. Plus, that would give her the kind of experience to maybe propel her own presidential administration in the future. One can hope.


Tulsi is someone I'd vote for because she's intelligent, an independent thinker and fairly pragmatic. I don't like all her views but she seems fairly bipartisan and seems like she'd keep things pretty well balanced. She's a smart cookie and I don't see her bowing before the howling from Establishment Cronies.

So this means she can never win. :grin2:


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Mick Mulvaney is rumored to be Trump's next Chief of Staff, is the current director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and director of the Office of Management and Budget

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mick-mulvaney-encourages-bankers-lobbyists-to-donate-more-to-congress-to-undermine-cfpb



> *Mick Mulvaney encourages bankers, lobbyists to donate more to Congress*
> 
> Mick Mulvaney, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, encouraged a group of 1,300 bankers and lobbyists Tuesday they should boost their funding to lawmakers’ campaigns, according to a report.
> 
> Mulvaney, who is also Office of Management and Budget director, also shared how he showed favoritism to lobbyists who had financially backed him during his tenure as a South Carolina congressman.
> 
> *“We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress,” Mulvaney said at an American Bankers Association conference, according to the New York Times. “If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.”
> 
> Mulvaney characterized influencing lawmakers with campaign donations as one of the “fundamental underpinnings of our representative democracy. And you have to continue to do it.”*
> 
> According to a spokesperson for Mulvaney, the comments were intended to emphasize that it’s “vital” for lawmakers to listen to those from their districts.
> 
> “He was making the point that hearing from people back home is vital to our democratic process and the most important thing our representatives can do,” said John Czwartacki, a spokesperson for Mulvaney, according to the Times. “It’s more important than lobbyists and it’s more important than money.”
> 
> The report on Mulvaney's comments drew backlash from some politicos and ethics experts on Twitter.
> 
> “He should be investigated criminally under 18 USC 201. Trump drained the swamp all right – – so he could fill it to the brim with sewage,” Norm Eisen, a one-time Obama White House ethics lawyer and chairman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, tweeted Tuesday evening.
> 
> The CFPB did not respond to comment to the Washington Examiner at the time of publication.


Usually you don't see this kind of bluntness, in public, from politicians. "Give me money or fuck off."


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/989222392630202368:trump


----------



## MrMister

DRAGON ENERGY :mark:


----------



## Mra22

Mr. West !!!! :mark: Chance had come out and voiced his opinion too. The libs are freaking out.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/989221660661137408

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/989260195598688257


----------



## CamillePunk

All this Kanye-Trump stuff started because of "a cartoonist herp derp" that I've been talking about for almost 3 years now on here. 

Let's see how big this gets. :lol 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/989260195598688257


----------



## Art Vandaley

Kanye supporting Trump just confirms everything I disliked about both of them. 

Same with Taylor Swift.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Alkomesh2 said:


> Same with Taylor Swift.


It's weird simply by not using her media platform to pontificate on partisan politics some dislike Swift, even though with a little digging one can gambit the very people attacking her probably voted the same way. And many white nationalist's like Richard Spencer who treat her like a "Goddess" voted a different way then her.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Kanye is only panicking and making noise because he's well and truly been knocked off his throne by Kendrick Lamar, and he damn well knows it.


----------



## Art Vandaley

BoFreakinDallas said:


> It's weird simply by not using her media platform to pontificate on partisan politics some dislike Swift, even though with a little digging one can gambit the very people attacking her probably voted the same way. And many white nationalist's like Richard Spencer who treat her like a "Goddess" voted a different way then her.


My dislike of Kanye and Taylor Swift have nothing to do with their support for Trump.


----------



## Tater

It's funny seeing the very same people who rip "Hollywood libs" for supporting Democrats and say no one should give a shit what they think, then turn around and act like it is the greatest thing in the world when any celeb comes out in favor of Republicans.

I give just as many fucks what Kanye thinks as I did all the celebs that were trotted out by the Clinton campaign; which is exactly zero fucks, for those of you keeping count.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Apparently Cohen is pleading the 5th.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> It's funny seeing the very same people who rip "Hollywood libs" for supporting Democrats and say no one should give a shit what they think, then turn around and act like it is the greatest thing in the world when any celeb comes out in favor of Republicans.
> 
> I give just as many fucks what Kanye thinks as I did all the celebs that were trotted out by the Clinton campaign; which is exactly zero fucks, for those of you keeping count.


This is so true. It's hilarious how quickly people flip-flopped from "fuck all celebrities, they're out of touch and don't know anything and everything they say is invalid because they're rich and liberal" (ironic when you consider who they voted for, I might add) to sharing Kanye posts like he's a shining beacon of truth. You know, the same Kanye who had a very public mental breakdown and got tore apart by most of the very same people.


----------



## virus21

The celebs that are flip flopping are only doing so because they know where the wind is turning now.



> Hillary Clinton went on a “f***-laced fusillade” against “disgusting” Donald Trump during a 2016 debate preparation session amid her frustration of appearing inauthentic to voters, a new book about the presidential campaign claims.
> New York Times reporter Amy Chozick released her new bombshell book, “Chasing Hillary: Ten Years, Two Presidential Campaigns, and One Intact Glass Ceiling” on Tuesday.
> THE NEW YORK TIMES’ LEAD 2016 CLINTON CAMPAIGN REPORTER ADMITS CRYING AFTER TRUMP’S VICTORY
> The inside story of the campaign details how Clinton, struggling to portray herself as genuine to voters during the 2016 campaign, unleashed a profanity-laced tirade about Trump to her aides to prove that she can be authentic.
> “Aides understood that in order to keep it all together onstage, Hillary sometimes needed to unleash on them in private,” Chozick wrote in the book, according to the Guardian.
> “‘You want authentic, here it is!’ she’d yelled in one prep session, followed by a f***-laced fusillade about what a ‘disgusting’ human being Trump was and how he didn’t deserve to even be in the arena.”
> 
> “‘You want authentic, here it is!’ [Clinton] yelled in one prep session, followed by a f***-laced fusillade about what a ‘disgusting’ human being Trump was and how he didn’t deserve to even be in the arena.”
> - Amy Chozick, writing in "Chasing Hillary"
> 
> VIDEO SHOWS EX-CLINTON AIDE IN PROFANITY LACED CONFRONTATION WITH COPS
> Chozick’s book points out that the campaign struggled to bridge the generational gap between the staffers and the Clinton family, prompting disagreements on simple campaign strategy or how to deal with Trump’s attacks on Bill Clinton and his sexual assault allegations.
> Clinton reportedly “erupted” upon hearing that actress Lena Dunham, one the biggest supporters and main surrogates of the campaign, said she was “disturbed by how, in the 1990s, the Clintons and their allies discredited women” who accused the former president of sexual misconduct.
> BILL CLINTON ‘CASUALLY ENCOURAGED’ TRUMP TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT BEFORE 2016 RACE: BOOK
> The generational gap also led to campaign manager Robby Mook, 36, always “respectfully” listening to Bill Clinton, but mocking him behind his back and perceiving him as “a relic, a brilliant tactician of a bygone era.”
> But the former president repeatedly warned the campaign about Trump’s appeal to voters and knew that “Trump had a shrewd understanding of the angst that so many voters – his voters, the white working class whom Clinton brought back to the Democratic Party in 1992 – were feeling,” Chozick writes in her book.
> Meanwhile, the accusations of a toxic Clinton campaign environment come on the heels of this week's controversy involving a former Clinton financial adviser who was forced to resign from her current job after berating some New Jersey police officers.
> "You may shut the f--- up!" Caren Z. Turner, 60, a former financial adviser to Clinton and other Democrats -- who was forced to resign from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey -- shrieked at an officer, according to a police dash cam video released Monday.


http://archive.is/qeDJg#selection-1333.0-1435.266


----------



## RavishingRickRules

virus21 said:


> The celebs that are flip flopping are only doing so because they know where the wind is turning now.
> 
> 
> http://archive.is/qeDJg#selection-1333.0-1435.266


I was talking about the people on this forum flip-flopping, not the celebrities if I'm honest. Many people here have no mind of their own, it all comes down to "if it's pro Trump/Republican I'm for it, if it isn't I'm against it." The number of hoops these people jump through makes it actually quite entertaining to observe. Note, this isn't aimed at everybody, just the rabid delusional types who don't really use their own brains.


----------



## Reaper

THE MAN said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/989222392630202368:trump


----------



## SUPA HOT FIRE.

yeahbaby! said:


> Kanye is only panicking and making noise because he's well and truly been knocked off his throne by Kendrick Lamar, and he damn well knows it.


Which is highly interesting given how both of them collaborated on The Life Of Pablo album on the 'No More Parties In LA'-track and now both of them are at the other end of the spectrum regarding Trump. (Lamar calling Trump a 'chump' while West showers Trump with seemingly endless love.)

Things gotta be really awkward between West and some of his colleagues/past collaborators (Lamar, Jeezy, Snoop Dogg, T.I. etc) atm. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> It's funny seeing the very same people who rip "Hollywood libs" for supporting Democrats and say no one should give a shit what they think, then turn around and act like it is the greatest thing in the world when any celeb comes out in favor of Republicans.
> 
> I give just as many fucks what Kanye thinks as I did all the celebs that were trotted out by the Clinton campaign; which is exactly zero fucks, for those of you keeping count.


This is a good thing for people who hate the two party system actually. Kanye isn't really being pro-GOP or even really that pro-Trump, he's just encouraging people to think for themselves. It's a shame people have to hear it from a celebrity but oh well.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> It's funny seeing the very same people who rip "Hollywood libs" for supporting Democrats and say no one should give a shit what they think, then turn around and act like it is the greatest thing in the world when any celeb comes out in favor of Republicans.
> 
> I give just as many fucks what Kanye thinks as I did all the celebs that were trotted out by the Clinton campaign; which is exactly zero fucks, for those of you keeping count.


I'm fine with celebs supporting who they want to, them coming out in droves trying to influence people bugs me. Doesn't matter what side of the spectrum, fuck celeb endorsements.


----------



## Dr. Middy

I mean... it's Kanye for one thing. I don't think even he knows what he really believes on most days. Dude had made some killer albums though. 

But I pretty much ignore celebrity endorsements. They're allowed to be like everybody else and affiliate themselves with whatever political group they'd like, and I'm happy to simply ignore if they really decide to mention and preach about it all the time. I kinda find it funny sometimes when people actually abandon somebody they're fans of simply because of an opinion that differs from their own. If you go read some posts in the Kanye subreddit, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.


----------



## FITZ

SUPA HOT FIRE. said:


> Which is highly interesting given how both of them collaborated on The Life Of Pablo album on the 'No More Parties In LA'-track and now both of them are at the other end of the spectrum regarding Trump. (Lamar calling Trump a 'chump' while West showers Trump with seemingly endless love.)
> 
> Things gotta be really awkward between West and some of his colleagues/past collaborators (Lamar, Jeezy, Snoop Dogg, T.I. etc) atm. :lol


I feel like it shouldn't be too difficult really. I get along well with plenty of people that I don't agree with on politics.


----------



## Miss Sally

FITZ said:


> I feel like it shouldn't be too difficult really. I get along well with plenty of people that I don't agree with on politics.


If we stopped working with people based on Politics we'd have nobody to work with! Someone's Politics or past deeds doesn't stop me from appreciating their work or denying what they've done. 

I mean I been arguing with Rick off and on during the day, yet liked and agreed with several other comments he's made. I'll probably argue with him again later on but I like him more than most people I do agree with more on certain things. :laugh:

People need to relax, Kanye is his own person. his Politics is the least of the reasons you should like/dislike the guy.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Yeah actually I like the people I argue with on here more than most of the people I don't. People agreeing all the time is boring as fuck, if all of the people I spoke to just agreed with me I don't know how I'd be able to go through life at all :lol . Politics is politics, it's not the be all and end all of things, who people support and how they think a country should be run is irrelevant compared to a person's character and morality as far as I'm concerned. As long as you're not a bigot or a murderer/rapist/paedo or similar I couldn't give a fuck what politician you want to give your support to, though I may try to change your mind (as I'd expect you to try and change mine if you didn't like who I was supporting - democracy.) It's why I don't play into the left vs right war, I happen to think there are good parts of both sides, though I do get annoyed at the people who try and act like supporting one or the other makes you inherently a bad person. I'll support the "liberals" when people attack them as evil because progressives have done insane amounts of good in this world, including earning us commoners a say in politics. I'll support the conservatives when people try and tar them all as bigots, religious nuts and whatever else because it's simply not true. I won't support Trump though, because he really is a silly person who shouldn't be running a country. :wink2:


----------



## Miss Sally

RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah actually I like the people I argue with on here more than most of the people I don't. People agreeing all the time is boring as fuck, if all of the people I spoke to just agreed with me I don't know how I'd be able to go through life at all :lol . Politics is politics, it's not the be all and end all of things, who people support and how they think a country should be run is irrelevant compared to a person's character and morality as far as I'm concerned. As long as you're not a bigot or a murderer/rapist/paedo or similar I couldn't give a fuck what politician you want to give your support to, though I may try to change your mind (as I'd expect you to try and change mine if you didn't like who I was supporting - democracy.) It's why I don't play into the left vs right war, I happen to think there are good parts of both sides, though I do get annoyed at the people who try and act like supporting one or the other makes you inherently a bad person. I'll support the "liberals" when people attack them as evil because progressives have done insane amounts of good in this world, including earning us commoners a say in politics. I'll support the conservatives when people try and tar them all as bigots, religious nuts and whatever else because it's simply not true. I won't support Trump though, because he really is a silly person who shouldn't be running a country. :wink2:


Same! Though if a pedo did cure cancer I'd give them their credit but they'd still be a scumbag humanbeing! I absolutely love Gothicboho to bits but I don't always agree with her a lot too. It's hard to keep balance so always good to have many opinions.


----------



## Stinger Fan

FITZ said:


> I feel like it shouldn't be too difficult really. I get along well with plenty of people that I don't agree with on politics.


I'm assuming you're not speaking to people who think you're an evil person based on your political leaning. I feel like that's the key lol


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Stinger Fan said:


> I'm assuming you're not speaking to people who think you're an evil person based on your political leaning. I feel like that's the key lol


Yeah as far as I can see it that's actually the biggest problem with politics today and American politics especially. All of those on the left see everybody on the right as a bigoted, uneducated asshole and all of those on the right see everybody on the left as an overly PC, communist (lol), Hillary worshipper. There's no middle ground to be had at all, and frankly you can see it constantly on this forum in almost every thread with the idiotic point scoring and name calling. I swear though, if I ever hear anybody use the word "cuck" in real life I'm just going to bitchslap that person backhanded for using the most pathetic insult in the history of insults.


----------



## Tater

Reap said:


>


This is surprisingly accurate. :lol


----------



## Reaper

It's also basically me over time till I finally settled and now I'm shifting again :mj4


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> It's also basically me over time till I finally settled and now I'm shifting again :mj4


I'm just getting to the point where I'm sick to death of society and the general public period. I kinda just want a nice little place in the middle of nowhere for me and the fiance where I can make music and art, grow some food, keep some animals and not deal with any of the crap anymore. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> I'm just getting to the point where I'm sick to death of society and the general public period. I kinda just want a nice little place in the middle of nowhere for me and the fiance where I can make music and art, grow some food, keep some animals and not deal with any of the crap anymore. :shrug


I already am in such a place.  I've made my real life comfortable and happy. It's a nice little bubble that is completely isolated from outside noise and the rest of the world for the most part. 

I really don't take anything outside of this forum over into my real life tbh. IRL I'm the most jolly, calm and fun person you'll ever meet. 

I kinda just go with the flow on forums for interactions and to beat my loneliness. 

Of course I have some real views and do get frustrated at some things and bad news in particular (one news out of Pakistan really hit me hard recently and I stopped looking at newspapers after that, left Facebook and just focused on relaxing) but by and large I'm the type who compartmentalizes everything. 

Generally though. I'll have a discussion with someone and I'll forget I even had it 5 minutes later. I'm willing to bet a lot of us are actually like that. We just like to banter.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> I already am in such a place.  I've made my real life comfortable and happy. It's a nice little bubble that is completely isolated from outside noise and the rest of the world for the most part.
> 
> I really don't take anything outside of this forum over into my real life tbh. IRL I'm the most jolly, calm and fun person you'll ever meet.
> 
> I kinda just go with the flow on forums for interactions and to beat my loneliness.
> 
> Of course I have some real views and do get frustrated at some things and bad news in particular (one news out of Pakistan really hit me hard recently and I stopped looking at newspapers after that, left Facebook and just focused on relaxing) but by and large I'm the type who compartmentalizes everything.
> 
> Generally though. I'll have a discussion with someone and I'll forget I even had it 5 minutes later. I'm willing to bet a lot of us are actually like that. We just like to banter.


For me it's much the opposite. I paid cash for my house only for Brexit to happen and make it stupid to keep hold of it when the country's fucked. So now I'm trying to sell a house worth £350k in a market where nobody wants to buy anything whilst being signed off work to deal with a degenerative shoulder injury and my job isn't really the kind of job you want to be away from for that long because of all the internal politics. I live in a nice enough city but it's a fairly small one that relies on tourism (it's a VERY old city with Roman and Viking ruins all over the place so it's all protected so they can't modernise anything in the city centre and big businesses just don't exist here) so the quality of life here is going to plummet post-Brexit. It's all a big shit storm tbh. If I could turn back time I would've spent the money on a house abroad and got the hell out of dodge instead of tying the huge weight around my neck. I'm getting to the stage now where I'm seriously considering buying a small plot of land in rural Spain (fairly cheap tbh) before we leave the EU and selling the house whilst I'm over there just so I can get out quicker. I'm just getting fully sick of all the political backbiting everywhere I go offline or online. If it's not Brexiters vs Remainers it's Libtards vs Trumptards and none of it's particularly fulfilling or enjoyable at this stage for me. I really should take up drugs and drink again because being straight-edge really doesn't help me at all stress wise :lol


----------



## MrMister

Hey dragons are capricious fickle beasts so Kanye being all over the place makes sense.


----------



## Reaper

That's one great thing about America that can't be beat. There is really political and social diversity here thanks to small governments having a decent amount of power on their own to keep the Federalists away from enacting widespread laws that impact everyone. If you want far left you can move to a leftist state. If you want far right you can move to one like that. I prefer being in conservative areas so I'm actually in a sweet spot right now politically. 

I bought a house in a rather centrist city in Florida. The politics here aren't at either extreme. It's a small community of 177k people which is very racially and culturally diverse. The Republicans and the Democrats here both are centrists and Florida as a whole values economic freedom. Heck we don't even have a state income tax and our property taxes as well as mortgages are affordable. We got a house on a single income and pay less than 900 (inclusive of home insurance and property tax) for a 3 bed house which is fine for our needs.

Far cry from the last city we were stuck in. Wife's commute is worse but our bills are smaller so we've upped our standard of living significantly in just two months of the move.


----------



## Tater

Reap said:


> It's also basically me over time till I finally settled and now I'm shifting again :mj4


I was going to make a crack about you not understanding the political spectrum all that well...



Reap said:


> That's one great thing about America that can't be beat. There is really political and social diversity here thanks to small governments having a decent amount of power on their own. If you want far left you can move to a *leftist state*. If you want far right you can move to one like that.


...then this little gem came along. It's funny that you believe there is any state in the USA that is even remotely leftist as far as their government is concerned. There's a few that are bordering on centrist but most state governments are firmly in the center-right to far-right area.

Here's an easy rule of thumb to help you remember what left/right means. Is it pro-capitalist? If yes, then it cannot be leftist, by definition, because capitalism is right wing.

The closest you're going to get to leftist in the USA are the actual centrists like Bernie Sanders who want to keep capitalism but treat the working class well at the same time. That balance between workers and owners is what makes one a centrist. Your definition of centrists in Florida is actually center-right. The Dems/Reps in Florida are very much pro-capitalism.

I left the libertarian vs authoritarian part of the discussion out of it because you're not ready for 4D when you haven't figured out 2D yet.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> That's one great thing about America that can't be beat. There is really political and social diversity here thanks to small governments having a decent amount of power on their own to keep the Federalists away from enacting widespread laws that impact everyone. If you want far left you can move to a leftist state. If you want far right you can move to one like that. I prefer being in conservative areas so I'm actually in a sweet spot right now politically.
> 
> I bought a house in a rather centrist city in Florida. The politics here aren't at either extreme. It's a small community of 177k people which is very racially and culturally diverse. The Republicans and the Democrats here both are centrists and Florida as a whole values economic freedom. Heck we don't even have a state income tax and our property taxes as well as mortgages are affordable. We got a house on a single income and pay less than 900 (inclusive of home insurance and property tax) for a 3 bed house which is fine for our needs.
> 
> Far cry from the last city we were stuck in. Wife's commute is worse but our bills are smaller so we've upped our standard of living significantly in just two months of the move.


Sounds like a nice set up. I had a perfect set-up all told before the Brexit vote. I own my house outright so my monthly outgoings are very small, all of our bills come to less than a quarter of my fiance's wage and I earn almost 4 times her income so we're a wealthy middle-class household income wise. The problem is that this lovely quaint city in the north of England isn't going to be able to sustain itself with the way the economy's headed and a large portion of the local workforce (we both commute to elsewhere) is going to be fucked. We'll go from a very nice city that attracts tourists from across the globe to a struggling city rife with poverty and the side effects of that reality. All of that makes it even harder to sell my house without taking a pretty substantial loss. With how underfunded everything's getting and the complete incompetence of our Tory government who still haven't figured out that the economy needs money to make it work and you can't just keep running with the same austerity policies that haven't worked for almost a decade now chances for a positive post-Brexit economy are looking slimmer by the second. I could move to London but who the fuck wants to do that? Manchester's better but even then the situation isn't a great one because it really is just one colossal fuck-up. I feel more pressured now as a moderately wealthy adult than I ever felt as a dirt-poor working class youth to be honest, a lot more to lose I guess. The timing just couldn't have been any worse for me lol. There needs to be a "resigned laughter at my fucked up situation" emoji.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Tater said:


> I was going to make a crack about you not understanding the political spectrum all that well...
> 
> 
> 
> ...then this little gem came along. It's funny that you believe there is any state in the USA that is even remotely leftist as far as their government is concerned. There's a few that are bordering on centrist but most state governments are firmly in the center-right to far-right area.
> 
> Here's an easy rule of thumb to help you remember what left/right means. Is it pro-capitalist? If yes, then it cannot be leftist, by definition, because capitalism is right wing.
> 
> The closest you're going to get to leftist in the USA are the actual centrists like Bernie Sanders who want to keep capitalism but treat the working class well at the same time. That balance between workers and owners is what makes one a centrist. Your definition of centrists in Florida is actually center-right. The Dems/Reps in Florida are very much pro-capitalism.
> 
> I left the libertarian vs authoritarian part of the discussion out of it because you're not ready for 4D when you haven't figured out 2D yet.


You seem to be fighting a losing battle wanting everyone to use leftist or left leaning in the traditional grass roots sense - I sympathise, but it seems the majority has moved on from that traditional meaning to what it is today, right or wrong.

It's like yelling old school grammar rules at people who use words wrong innit.


----------



## deepelemblues

Just another shameful and disgraceful failure rightfully laid at the feet of socialists, the main result of their efforts (other than 100 million dead and hundreds of millions enslaved and impoverished and generally oppressed) has been moving the political center so far away from anti-capitalism that *everybody* is 'right-wing' these days :heston

I'd say socialists need to GIT GUD but that is literally an impossibility for socialism, it has no possible results save want, misery, and death


----------



## Tater

yeahbaby! said:


> You seem to be fighting a losing battle wanting everyone to use leftist or left leaning in the traditional grass roots sense - I sympathise, but it seems the majority has moved on from that traditional meaning to what it is today, right or wrong.
> 
> It's like yelling old school grammar rules at people who use words wrong innit.


This is what the real political spectrum looks like:










This is what the establishment/MSM narrative of the political spectrum looks like:










Take Obamacare, for example. That was a big government (authoritarian) right wing (capitalist) program that took taxes from people and gave them to private for-profit health insurance companies to pay for private for profit hospitals to provide healthcare. For an example of what an authoritarian left wing healthcare program looks like, that would be the NHS in England; not for profit government provided healthcare from government funded hospitals. The actual centrist position is what Bernie has proposed in the USA, which is a half n half approach. The hospitals and doctors etc would still be privately run but the healthcare insurance would be provided through government means. Yet, the USA has been so brainwashed by decades of corporate MSM propaganda that there were (and are still many) people who called Obamacare a socialist (leftist) program.

I fight back against this because this is how the ruling class wants it. They want you to keep all political debate within that authoritarian right wing box, because that is the area where they use big government to personally enrich themselves and retain generational power. 

It may be a losing battle but it's one I still fight because until people understand that the kind of private concentrated wealth/big government/authoritarian right wing/capitalist system we have now is the reason why the USA is going down the toilet, nothing is ever going to start significantly changing for the better.


----------



## Vic Capri

I'm definitely looking forward to the next Kanye album.



> I mean... it's Kanye for one thing. I don't think even he knows what he really believes on most days. Dude had made some killer albums though.
> 
> But I pretty much ignore celebrity endorsements. They're allowed to be like everybody else and affiliate themselves with whatever political group they'd like, and I'm happy to simply ignore if they really decide to mention and preach about it all the time. I kinda find it funny sometimes when people actually abandon somebody they're fans of simply because of an opinion that differs from their own. If you go read some posts in the Kanye subreddit, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.


It's amazing how salty the liberal media is by making his political opinion headlines news and mocking him because he goes against their narrative. They're afraid of him! :lol

It's also good to see some racist liberals expose themselves on social media. 

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

Kanye took all the attention, so Trump called in to Fox and Friends to create controversy. Have to watch it to believe it. That's the President of the United States! :lmao






THEY HAD TO CUT HIM OFF! :lmao


----------



## Art Vandaley

Tater said:


> The actual centrist position is what Bernie has proposed in the USA, which is a half n half approach. The hospitals and doctors etc would still be privately run but the healthcare insurance would be provided through government means.


Just noting that's what we have here and it works very well. 

In fact I don't think Bernie has suggested a single policy which isn't also backed by the Australian right, who hilariously hate him with a passion and deride him as a socialist, I take great enjoyment in pointing out they actually agree with him on everything. They don't really support that stuff they just pretend to because its super popular because it works really well. If they ever admitted their true views in public they'd never get elected again.


----------



## DesolationRow

> The federal government loses track of approximately twenty percent of unaccompanied immigrant children after they arrive to the U.S. through American refugee processing, as seen through the sample size of the final three months of 2017, according to HHS testimony on Thursday. Over 1,500 children were lost track of out of over 7,500 after a mere ninety days of having reached the U.S. HHS testimony revealed that this is by no means abnormal, as tens of thousands of children who have reached the interior U.S. have simply disappeared into American society over the past several years after U.S. asylum agents attempted to check in with them following their arrival. Unfortunately some of these children have become members of MS-13 and other gangs or have been exploited in workshops in what has become a major humanitarian disaster.


Sadly not at all surprising.


----------



## BruiserKC

RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah as far as I can see it that's actually the biggest problem with politics today and American politics especially. All of those on the left see everybody on the right as a bigoted, uneducated asshole and all of those on the right see everybody on the left as an overly PC, communist (lol), Hillary worshipper. There's no middle ground to be had at all, and frankly you can see it constantly on this forum in almost every thread with the idiotic point scoring and name calling. I swear though, if I ever hear anybody use the word "cuck" in real life I'm just going to bitchslap that person backhanded for using the most pathetic insult in the history of insults.


I see that for sure, especially with someone like me who is unapologetically far right but is not a fan of our current POTUS. I tell people that he simply does not share my values and really doesn't believe what I do but just simply provides lip service to the masses. But people automatically assume that I am a diehard Hillary lover when I despise the woman with every ounce of my being (and they voted for a man that found her just swell enough to be a friend and donor to her campaigns and the Foundation).

This is one of the few sites left on the Internet where I can actually have a civil conversation with people I may not necessarily agree with. I actually can have the talk with anyone who brings reason and is willing to at least listen. However, some are just complete idiots who you can't reason with. 

I've talked here about the lady at work who worships Trump, we were talking one day about the potential damage SESTA/FOSTA could do to the Internet. She told me that Obama wanted to control the Internet and destroy the concept of free speech. I said by Trump signing that bill he potentially started us down that road. Yes, sex trafficking is horrible and those who perpetrate it should be locked up under the jail. However, the FBI seized and shut down Backpage (which was another version of Craigslist which I used quite a bit to buy and sell stuff) because of a few sex ads. By gutting Section 230, you open up a Pandora's Box where potentially they could start targetting sites for comments they might not agree with (even political sites or ones like this forum). She said it didn't matter because prostitution and sex trafficking are disgusting. I advised that is true, but this law will eventually lead to mission creep. Of course, she went to Trump is the President of morality and values (even though he bangs porn stars while his wife recovers from having their child). Some people are stupid. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

BruiserKC said:


> I see that for sure, especially with someone like me who is unapologetically far right but is not a fan of our current POTUS. I tell people that he simply does not share my values and really doesn't believe what I do but just simply provides lip service to the masses. But people automatically assume that I am a diehard Hillary lover when I despise the woman with every ounce of my being (and they voted for a man that found her just swell enough to be a friend and donor to her campaigns and the Foundation).
> 
> This is one of the few sites left on the Internet where I can actually have a civil conversation with people I may not necessarily agree with. I actually can have the talk with anyone who brings reason and is willing to at least listen. However, some are just complete idiots who you can't reason with.
> 
> I've talked here about the lady at work who worships Trump, we were talking one day about the potential damage SESTA/FOSTA could do to the Internet. She told me that Obama wanted to control the Internet and destroy the concept of free speech. I said by Trump signing that bill he potentially started us down that road. Yes, sex trafficking is horrible and those who perpetrate it should be locked up under the jail. However, the FBI seized and shut down Backpage (which was another version of Craigslist which I used quite a bit to buy and sell stuff) because of a few sex ads. By gutting Section 230, you open up a Pandora's Box where potentially they could start targetting sites for comments they might not agree with (even political sites or ones like this forum). She said it didn't matter because prostitution and sex trafficking are disgusting. I advised that is true, but this law will eventually lead to mission creep. Of course, she went to Trump is the President of morality and values (even though he bangs porn stars while his wife recovers from having their child). Some people are stupid. :lol


The Obama Admin did a lot of shady shit, it will take a decade for it all to probably come out but who could be surprised when you had the Fast and Furious debacle, using the IRS as a political hit squad, Libya, arming ISIS, Drone strikes killing civilians and blowing up Weddings and more and more it seems the Government spying increased under Obama's watch?

The problem is Trump is legalizing all this shady shit and expanding on it. So he's just as guilty unless he changes what he's doing. The Establishment Left/Right love Trump even though they say they hate him because he legalizes their bullshit and gives them a perfect scapegoat for all the issues!

Trump acts like Pontius Pilate and sanctions things he knows are wrong, he knows this Political mob of miscreants are wrong but instead of standing up to them he basically makes a "washing of the hands gesture" by placating to them. Simply saying you wash your hands of all their corruption doesn't absolve you when you make it *LEGAL * to carry out their corrupted deeds!:crying:


----------



## Stinger Fan

RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah as far as I can see it that's actually the biggest problem with politics today and American politics especially. All of those on the left see everybody on the right as a bigoted, uneducated asshole and all of those on the right see everybody on the left as an overly PC, communist (lol), Hillary worshipper. There's no middle ground to be had at all, and frankly you can see it constantly on this forum in almost every thread with the idiotic point scoring and name calling. I swear though, if I ever hear anybody use the word "cuck" in real life I'm just going to bitchslap that person backhanded for using the most pathetic insult in the history of insults.


Well, I think the internet makes things look worse than it is to be honest, the internet can be a dumpster fire :lol . I think most people who are on one side or the other are just normal people who go about their day and feel their country should run a certain way. I genuinely believe most people have the mentality of "agree to disagree" , maybe I'm wrong but I guess I like to think people are better than the far ends of their team.


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump coming to the UK on the one weekend I can't make it, he did that on purpose so I can't protest.

I doubt he'll get much of a protest now, most people are ambivalent because he's viewed as a trainwreck by most in the UK.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

FriedTofu said:


> Kanye took all the attention, so Trump called in to Fox and Friends to create controversy. Have to watch it to believe it. That's the President of the United States! :lmao
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THEY HAD TO CUT HIM OFF! :lmao


Full video is worth a watch. It's like they're herding cats.







__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/989851593137971202


----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> Trump coming to the UK on the one weekend I can't make it, he did that on purpose so I can't protest.
> 
> I doubt he'll get much of a protest now, most people are ambivalent because he's viewed as a trainwreck by most in the UK.


Not gonna lie, I did check my schedule to see whether I could head down and lob some eggs :lol


----------



## Sincere

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, an interpretation by Titus O'neil


----------



## Mra22

Chance the rapper turned into a coward and apologized


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Mra22 said:


> Chance the rapper turned into a coward and apologized


Lots of those cowards around I reckon.

edit: also :lol


----------



## Nolo King

I was really concerned when I saw headlines about Trump Fox and Friends interview, then I watched the ENTIRE interview and remembered why I'm supportive of the guy.

It's such a shame that a lot of people are too lazy to look deeper into things to see how much they are being duped.

Trump has been making a few mistakes so far, but the exaggerations are really killing a lot of people's credibility.

Also, people that are genuinely going against the Trump hate are awesome, but the ones doing it for publicity sicken me a bit. I don't care what people believe, so long as they aren't harming others or blocking people from having their say.


----------



## Miss Sally

Mra22 said:


> Chance the rapper turned into a coward and apologized


I have no idea why he did, are people literally saying if you're Black you can only vote for one Political party? :laugh:

It's shit like that is why we get no real change. People are just so, so stupid.


----------



## CamillePunk

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung-wha-amanpour-intl/index.html

Bad Cop Good Cop works. Good job Trump. Didn't even take him that long or that much effort. :lol A few tweets and statements. Career politicians can never deliver results like this.


----------



## Draykorinee

Nolo King said:


> I was really concerned when I saw headlines about Trump Fox and Friends interview, then I watched the ENTIRE interview and remembered why I'm supportive of the guy.
> 
> It's such a shame that a lot of people are too lazy to look deeper into things to see how much they are being duped.
> 
> Trump has been making a few mistakes so far, but the exaggerations are really killing a lot of people's credibility.
> 
> Also, people that are genuinely going against the Trump hate are awesome, but the ones doing it for publicity sicken me a bit. I don't care what people believe, so long as they aren't harming others or blocking people from having their say.


You watched that interview and THAT made you remember why you support him...hno


----------



## FriedTofu

draykorinee said:


> You watched that interview and THAT made you remember why you support him...hno


Trump is aggressive in tone. That seem like the only quality in this interview that would remind people why they supported him. Many of them just seem to support him because he ragged on people they hate. :shrug


----------



## Vic Capri

> I have no idea why he did


Probably a forced apology from his manager or publicist. Shania Twain had to do the same thing. And its so dumb because their initial thoughts are how they really feel. Making an apology for it isn't going to change the minds of fake fans who turned on them due to difference of political opinion. 

- Vic


----------



## Nolo King

draykorinee said:


> You watched that interview and THAT made you remember why you support him...hno


What were issues with the interview?

Keep in mind I watched the entire 33 minute interview, instead of carefully edited snippets on news stations that hate him.


----------



## BruiserKC

North Korea...waiting and seeing. In the past the Kim family has made overtures for peace but nothing came about. Hopefully things are different this time but will be cautiously optimistic. 

Last night Trump threatened shutdown in September without funding for the wall. Last May he said the government needed a good shutdown in September. When that time came he ran across the aisle to cut a deal with Chuck and Nancy. He threatened to veto the omnibus bill which was garbage but signed it anyway. Mr. President, why should we believe you this time when you had the chance and failed?

Spare me the “It’s Congress who is to blame.”
Trump signed those spending bills so this is on him also.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung-wha-amanpour-intl/index.html
> 
> Bad Cop Good Cop works. Good job Trump. Didn't even take him that long or that much effort. :lol A few tweets and statements. Career politicians can never deliver results like this.


Doesn't BCGC need two people by default? Two cops?

Nervertheless has Scott Adams spoken on this yet and taken credit as well?


----------



## MrMister

yeahbaby! said:


> Doesn't BCGC need two people by default? Two cops?
> 
> Nervertheless has Scott Adams spoken on this yet and taken credit as well?


Pompeo could be the good cop here. I have no idea what Pompeo and Kim discussed and how it was discussed.


----------



## DesolationRow

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/04/30/kanye-west-trump-daz-dillinger-crip/



> Rapper Issues ‘Crip Alert For Kanye’, Warns West To ‘Stay In Calabasas’ After Supporting Trump
> 
> LONG BEACH (CBSLA/AP) — A former member of Snoop Dogg’s rapping entourage is calling for gang members to assault Kanye West for his recent support of President Donald Trump.
> 
> Daz Dillinger, who recorded several successful hip hop records as part of Tha Dogg Pound duo in the 1990s, made the apparent threat in a video posted to his Instagram, which was later removed. (WARNING: Video includes explicit language, viewer discretion advised.)
> 
> “Yo national alert, all the Crips out there, y’all f— Kanye up,” he said, referring to the infamous Los Angeles-area street gang.
> 
> Dillinger – whose real name is Delmar Drew Arnaud – also warns West to stay out of Long Beach and California, even though the Wests famously live in upscale Calabasas in the northwest San Fernando Valley.
> 
> “Better not ever see you in concert. Better not ever see you around the LBC. Better not ever see you around California,” he says in the video. “Stay in Calabasas, ya hear me? ‘Cuz we got a Crip alert for Kanye.”
> 
> A message reading “F— KANYE UP” was also posted on Dillinger’s verified Twitter account.
> 
> Dillinger’s posts were an apparent reaction to West for his recent and perhaps unexpected online support of Trump.
> 
> There was plenty of reaction from celebrities across social media, including from rappers Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson, YG, and Nipsey Hussle, who shared an image of a recent performance in Washington, D.C.
> 
> Captioned “Picture Speaking A thousand Words”, the post includes a shot of the stage displaying photos of West wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat.
> 
> West, the enigmatic hip hop provocateur, posted a series of tweets in support of the president, whom he visited at Trump Tower in December 2016 during the presidential transition.
> 
> “You don’t have to agree with trump but the mob can’t make me not love him. We are both dragon energy,” West wrote Wednesday. “He is my brother. I love everyone. I don’t agree with everything anyone does. That’s what makes us individuals. And we have the right to independent thought.”
> 
> Later, West posted a photo of himself wearing one of Trump’s signature red campaign “Make America Great Again” hats and showcased that the president had signed it. “MAGA!” Trump responded in another tweet, using the acronym for his slogan.
> 
> West noted that his wife, reality star Kim Kardashian West, wanted him to clarify that he was not in lockstep with all the Republican president’s positions.
> 
> “My wife just called me and she wanted me to make this clear to everyone,” West wrote. “I don’t agree with everything Trump does. I don’t agree 100% with anyone but myself.”
> 
> West lent an air of celebrity to Trump, who has not been nearly as popular among movie and music stars as his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama. He complained about struggling to lure big-name talent to his Inauguration and made a point of calling Roseanne Barr, a rare Trump supporter in Hollywood, for the recent success of her sitcom.
> 
> Trump has also consistently been supported by a small percentage of black voters.
> 
> West has recorded several best-selling albums and produced a buzzy fashion line and has the undeniable talent for attracting attention. He’s also been linked to several previous presidents, including when Obama called him “a jackass” in 2009 for storming the stage at an MTV awards show to interrupt Taylor Swift. And in 2005, during a telethon to raise money for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, West criticized the White House’s response to the storm by famously charging that “George W. Bush doesn’t care about black people.”
> 
> (© Copyright 2018 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)


----------



## CamillePunk

Looks like Kanye has had a bit too much to THINK


----------



## Art Vandaley

Nolo King said:


> What were issues with the interview?
> 
> Keep in mind I watched the entire 33 minute interview, instead of carefully edited snippets on news stations that hate him.


Its rambling and incoherent.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

"Yo national alert, all the Crips out there, y'all f— Kanye up"

The coonery is strong with this one. :eyeroll



CamillePunk said:


> Looks like Kanye has had a bit too much to THINK


He's properly woke, fam. :yoshi


----------



## virus21

DesolationRow said:


> http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/04/30/kanye-west-trump-daz-dillinger-crip/


Why yes, that is the perfect response to this. Who are the violent assholes suppose to be again?


----------



## Pratchett

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> He's properly woke, fam. :yoshi


Yeezy got an album dropping soon tho :mj


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Tinfoil Hat said:


> Yeezy got an album dropping soon tho :mj


Controversy certainly creates cash, but I think it's more than just that. Kanye actually tweeted support for Teflon Don early in his presidency in addition to meeting Trump himself in person to discuss serious issues that notably affect black folks in the US.

Although he disappointingly back-pedalled in light of the travel ban, I'm glad that Ye went into IDGAF mode and has gone full steam ahead once again in his support. Hopefully this leads to a serious paradigm shift for African-Americans' almost universal tendency of being strictly leftist, especially since having a neoliberal party spearheaded by a black president did fuck all in regard to actually implementing a somewhat serious approach to handling the issues that still needlessly plague African-Americans.


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/04/30/kanye-west-trump-daz-dillinger-crip/


Stuff like this doesn't make the whole situation look good. Also harassing Chance the rapper for saying Blacks don't have to be Democrats is also pretty telling. Maybe it's just me but all of that makes everyone look really bad.

It reminds me of prohibition era where gangs of thugs would beat up voters, people would get killed for not "voting the right way". You were basically forced to vote against your own interests or the mob and it's cronies would go after you. Have we really come to this again?


----------



## yeahbaby!

> Kanye: "I don’t agree 100% with anyone but myself.”


I lolled. Extremely Trumpist.


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> I lolled. Extremely Trumpist.


To be honest most of these rappers have more in common with Trump over what they don't. :laugh:


----------



## Tater

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Hopefully this leads to a serious paradigm shift for African-Americans' almost universal tendency of being strictly leftist, especially since having a neoliberal party spearheaded by a black president did fuck all in regard to actually implementing a somewhat serious approach to handling the issues that still needlessly plague African-Americans.


Um... :lol

Why in the blue hell would the failure of right wing neoliberals make anyone want to stop being leftist? You've got this completely backasswards. If anything, it will make people _more_ leftist because they see how badly right wing neolib Democrats have fucked them over in favor of their corporate overlords.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> Um... :lol
> 
> Why in the blue hell would the failure of right wing neoliberals make anyone want to stop being leftist? You've got this completely backasswards. If anything, it will make people _more_ leftist because they see how badly right wing neolib Democrats have fucked them over in favor of their corporate overlords.


Because it's not acceptable to be anything but Democrat and establishment Left isn't going to let any Liberal ideology get a hold in Politics. They'll use bullying and scare tactics. Nobody is going to go more Left because the establishment neo-libs have pretty much bamboozled everyone into thinking they're the real Left.


----------



## Tater

Miss Sally said:


> Because it's not acceptable to be anything but Democrat and establishment Left isn't going to let any Liberal ideology get a hold in Politics. They'll use bullying and scare tactics. Nobody is going to go more Left because the establishment neo-libs have pretty much bamboozled everyone into thinking they're the real Left.


As far removed from the left as modern liberals are, they aren't even really liberal anymore either. Liberals of 50 years ago were staunchly anti-war. Modern liberals don't seem to care much anymore about protesting war as long as the people being sent to war are white/black/man/woman/gay/straight/etc. It's not just that self-described liberals have moved to the right, they've become more authoritarian as well. For them, it's much more about identity politics than anything of real substance that would substantially improve the lives of Americans.


----------



## Le Duff Fluffer

I wasnt a fan of trump at all i was actually a huge Bernie fan and voted for hillary and felt extrmemely dirty about voting for her but I am starting to really enjoy trump as president. Hes actually getting shit done and stopping wars and worlds problems. if he runs again id prolly vote for him


----------



## Vic Capri

> Stuff like this doesn't make the whole situation look good. Also harassing Chance the rapper for saying Blacks don't have to be Democrats is also pretty telling. Maybe it's just me but all of that makes everyone look really bad.
> 
> It reminds me of prohibition era where gangs of thugs would beat up voters, people would get killed for not "voting the right way". You were basically forced to vote against your own interests or the mob and it's cronies would go after you. Have we really come to this again?


Yes. Democrats / Liberals declared war on conservatives / Trump supporters after November 9, 2016. I'm done being Mr. Nice Guy

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

Le Duff Fluffer said:


> I wasnt a fan of trump at all i was actually a huge Bernie fan and voted for hillary and felt extrmemely dirty about voting for her but I am starting to really enjoy trump as president. Hes actually getting shit done and _stopping wars_ and worlds problems. if he runs again id prolly vote for him


Please be satire, please be satire.


----------



## Le Duff Fluffer

draykorinee said:


> Please be satire, please be satire.


true true my bad


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Miss Sally said:


> To be honest most of these rappers have more in common with Trump over what they don't. :laugh:


Let's be honest, a large portion of the African-American community have more in common with Republican conservatives than the Democrat conservatives they seem to vote for values wise. A lot of my friends out there are African-American and almost all of the over 35's I know sound like the cliche right-wing religious types whenever certain topics come up (homosexuality, religion, fashion etc.) I've told them for years their values fit better with a lot of Republican ones than Democrat ones but they're either set in their ways as Democrats or just apathetic towards the whole political process. Conversely most of my younger friends of any ethnicity in the US seem massively distrustful of both parties and all seem to sit somewhere in the centrist realms politically. My younger friends are definitely FAR more liberal/progressive than my older friends and almost none of them support the Democrats OR the Republicans.


----------



## Crasp

RavishingRickRules said:


> ... and almost none of them support the Democrats OR the Republicans.


That usually means they're just Reps on the downlow


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Crasp said:


> That usually means they're just Reps on the downlow


Yeah not so much, they're fairly vocal in their opposition tbh. The prevailing opinion is that both parties are just different sides of the same coin which I'd tend to agree with myself. Both are conservative political parties with a huge overlap in where they sit politically. Both are massively controlled by lobbyists and money men. Neither are particularly progressive. The only real difference I see between them is that the Republican spectrum seems to go further to the right and the Democrats actually have some centrists like Bernie on their left hand side. It's much like New Labour and the Tories, it's the same politics with a slightly different face.


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> both parties are just different sides of the same coin


Or as I like to say, different cheeks of the same ass.



RavishingRickRules said:


> centrists like Bernie


Finally! Someone besides me calling Bernie for the centrist that he is.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> Or as I like to say, different cheeks of the same ass.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally! Someone besides me calling Bernie for the centrist that he is.


If there's an actual left wing politician in US politics they're small enough for me to have never heard of them in the UK. We have actual left wing politicians here so it's easier to see the difference. He's a centrist, not my favourite type of centrist if I'm honest but his heart seems in the right place. He's fairly similar in politics to the Nordic countries to me, social democracy capitalism with strong trade unions and effective welfare state with a lot less red tape. I like a lot of what he says, some of it less so. I'm not sure he could be described as left-wing though as he definitely sits on both sides of the fence in moderate positions (as do many centrists of his ilk all told.)


----------



## GothicBohemian

I assume anyone from countries where left wing candidates and parties exist on the national level knows the US choices are between centre right and right wing. Even the libertarian groups all lean right. Bernie being labelled a socialist is funny to me, but then not nearly as hilarious as that title being slapped on Obama. 

I blame much of it on the Cold War years; a generation of Americans grew up being force fed government propaganda about communism, which they barely differentiated from socialism, then passed said propaganda on, in further garbled form, to subsequent generations. Hence the _Eek, evil commies! _reaction to state ownership/regulations or tax dollars being used for much of anything but war funding. That's why no amount of evidence that the Nordic system, for instance, has several workable ideas worth scavenging has any effect - the socialism = communism = leftist and/or godless = EVIL wall goes up.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

GothicBohemian said:


> I assume anyone from countries where left wing candidates and parties exist on the national level knows the US choices are between centre right and right wing. Even the libertarian groups all lean right. Bernie being labelled a socialist is funny to me, but then not nearly as hilarious as that title being slapped on Obama.
> 
> I blame much of it on the Cold War years; a generation of Americans grew up being force fed government propaganda about communism, which they barely differentiated from socialism, then passed said propaganda on, in further garbled form, to subsequent generations. Hence the _Eek, evil commies! _reaction to state ownership/regulations or tax dollars being used for much of anything but war funding. That's why no amount of evidence that the Nordic system, for instance, has several workable ideas worth scavenging has any effect - the socialism = communism = leftist and/or godless = EVIL wall goes up.


I couldn't have put it better myself. This is my exact perception coming from the UK and interacting with and observing the USA. Also one of the many reasons I find the Libtard vs Trumptard war so ridiculously silly. It should really be a rightist vs little bit more rightist war, there's no "left" to be seen.


----------



## Nolo King

Alkomesh2 said:


> Its rambling and incoherent.


Not sure what interview you heard.

I mean, it wasn't rehearsed and inauthentic as most politicians, but it felt like an uncle's buddy giving their opinion on politics. 

That's the Trump appeal, just a natural sounding speaker that doesn't tell the audience perfect sounding statements with no intention of following through, but one who means what he says.

Just the way I see it.


----------



## Martins

GothicBohemian said:


> I assume anyone from countries where left wing candidates and parties exist on the national level knows the US choices are between centre right and right wing. Even the libertarian groups all lean right. Bernie being labelled a socialist is funny to me, but then not nearly as hilarious as that title being slapped on Obama.
> 
> I blame much of it on the Cold War years; a generation of Americans grew up being force fed government propaganda about communism, which they barely differentiated from socialism, then passed said propaganda on, in further garbled form, to subsequent generations. Hence the _Eek, evil commies! _reaction to state ownership/regulations or tax dollars being used for much of anything but war funding. That's why no amount of evidence that the Nordic system, for instance, has several workable ideas worth scavenging has any effect - the socialism = communism = leftist and/or godless = EVIL wall goes up.


To be fair to America, you come into Europe and you'll see a ton of countries where the ruling parties or main opposition parties will actually be called "Socialist Party" and they won't be socialists at all either :lol 

It's actually the opposite situation to the US: they originally named themselves as such because they knew it would gather *support * from the people at the time. It's why Marxist thinkers today like Slavoj Zizek don't like to use the term "socialist" to identify themselves, nowadays in a lot of circles calling yourself a "socialist" is taken as little more than supporting universal healthcare and some vague stuff about "equality".


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Tater said:


> Um... :lol
> 
> Why in the blue hell would the failure of right wing neoliberals make anyone want to stop being leftist? You've got this completely backasswards. If anything, it will make people _more_ leftist because they see how badly right wing neolib Democrats have fucked them over in favor of their corporate overlords.


I'm trying to be an fairly realistic optimist, damn you. :trump3


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/991409245127102467
Hopefully, there isn't anyone in this thread stupid enough to believe Bibi's "revelations" about Iran.


----------



## MrMister

US is definitely going to destroy Iran now.


----------



## Reaper

MrMister said:


> US is definitely going to destroy Iran now.


How can you destroy something that destroyed itself 39 years ago?


----------



## MrMister

Reap said:


> How can you destroy something that destroyed itself 39 years ago?


With lots of bombs.


----------



## Draykorinee

Weird time for a doctor to come out saying he faked Trump's health report. Not that it matters, who gives a fuck.


----------



## Art Vandaley

draykorinee said:


> Weird time for a doctor to come out saying he faked Trump's health report. Not that it matters, who gives a fuck.


Pissed about not being offered a cabinet position like Trump's other doctor?


----------



## DOPA

Bernie is a curious case really. Yes on the surface with the policies he is presenting, he seems like a centre left politician who wants well regulated capitalism with a large welfare state yet he has in the past gone on record praising Venezuela for it's policies, claiming that having breadlines is a good thing for example. So the question becomes did his views evolve and did he realize that the Marxist-Leninist state socialist model in reality doesn't work and is horrible and thus turned to the Nordic Model instead as a viable alternative *or* is this a political calculation on his part knowing that he can't fully implement the changes that he would like in reality and instead is going for incremental changes which he knows are potentially reachable? That to me is unclear and I'm not entirely sure what the true answer is.

It's the same thing with Jeremy Corbyn here in the UK except it is much more clearer what he is doing. Rather than being the "different and honest" politician that his supporters claim, he is very much playing political calculation with what he thinks he can sell to the public. He damn well knows that talking about mass nationalization of the economy, taking large amount of sectors into the hands of the state would seem too extreme for most of the population and wouldn't garner his support. So he has instead has put forward something that seems more palatable: namely nationalizing just rail and energy and mainly talking about raising corporate taxes and the high income bracket tax. That's on top of the usual promises politicians in the UK make i.e more money for the failing NHS and for the education system.....and of course free tuition fees, the younger voters may get swindled with that to go out and vote for him but I remember all too well when the same promise was made by the Lib Dems only for them to not only not deliver that promise but do a complete 180 on the policy when getting into power. If you think Corbyn would prioritize free university over his own goals of a socialist economy in other areas then you are unfortunately naive. If there was any proof that Corbyn is no different than every other politician, look no further than when he put party politics over his true views on leaving the European Union by tepidly supporting Remain whilst doing very little to campaign for it. He put party politics over his true views on what he feels is best for the country.

With Bernie it's a little more ambiguous where his true motivations lie but I'm not fully sold that deep down he really is a "centrist" at heart. The overturn window in American politics doesn't allow for any viable candidate for President or Congress that is a full on leftist in the most extreme economic of senses. He fully damn well knows that.

Let's also remember that Bernie and his supporters only push forward for the policies which involve further state intervention such as a single payer healthcare system, free college, a living wage (which some of the Nordic countries don't even have a minimum wage) etc. They never talk about the fact that the Nordic countries until recently had a much lower corporate tax rate than the United States and those same people bashed Trump when he decided to lower the corporate tax rate to a similar rate as them (the Scandinavian countries have anywhere between a 20-28% corporate tax rate). So it's clear they don't truly believe in the Nordic Model which functions as a market economy. Bernie himself called Denmark a Democratic Socialist country and the prime minister of that country had to correct him stating that Denmark has a market economy. In reality, Denmark and the other Nordic countries are social democracies, yet it didn't stop Bernie and his supporters to this day continually claiming that they are Democratic Socialist countries. It's actually the American left more than anyone since Bernie's campaign that has continuously made this false claim.

I'll post my views on the Korean situation and Kanye (yes really :lol ) some other time.


----------



## virus21

http://archive.is/5cojl
Gee I wonder why!?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

The Kanye thread made me think of this.

I was thinking about the W. Bush years and how you had just this lockstep support for Bush and his agenda from a lot of conservatives. Just virulent defense of anything Bush did and calling of anyone against it unamerican, traitors, etc. In some segments it was almost cult like. And in some it almost seemed to be just not wanting to back down in any way to the other side while it was going on. Then it was over they just moved on to something else. It seemed the second Bush left office, all his supporters suddenly started acting like they never supported shit. It was like he was Nickelback. Somehow he's hated by everyone, yet was on top for years.

I'm wondering is this what's going to happen to Trump when he leaves office because I see some of the same things. The left just attacking everything and his supporters digging their heels in even more. When he's gone will all the people just move on to the next guy and act like they never supported him? Like right now they're in the middle of it, but when it's over will they just jam their MAGA hats into the back of their closets?


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *Exclusive: Democrats lose ground with millennials - Reuters/Ipsos poll*
> 
> MANCHESTER, N.H. (Reuters) - Enthusiasm for the Democratic Party is waning among millennials as its candidates head into the crucial midterm congressional elections, according to the Reuters/Ipsos national opinion poll.
> 
> The online survey of more than 16,000 registered voters ages 18 to 34 shows their support for Democrats over Republicans for Congress slipped by about 9 percentage points over the past two years, to 46 percent overall. And they increasingly say the Republican Party is a better steward of the economy.
> 
> Although nearly two of three young voters polled said they do not like Republican President Donald Trump, their distaste for him does not necessarily extend to all Republicans or translate directly into votes for Democratic congressional candidates.
> 
> That presents a potential problem for Democrats who have come to count on millennials as a core constituency - and will need all the loyalty they can get to achieve a net gain of 23 seats to capture control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November.
> 
> The Reuters/Ipsos poll surveyed young voters during the first three months of this year and the same period in 2016.
> 
> Only 28 percent of those polled expressed overt support for Republicans in the 2018 poll - about the same percentage as two years earlier.
> 
> But that does not mean the rest will turn out to back Democrats, the survey showed. A growing share of voters between ages 18 and 34 years old said they were undecided, would support a third-party candidate or not vote at all.
> 
> The shift away from Democrats was more pronounced among white millennials - who accounted for two-thirds of all votes cast in that age group in 2016.
> 
> *Two years ago, young white people favored Democrats over Republicans for Congress by a margin of 47 to 33 percent; that gap vanished by this year, with 39 percent supporting each party*.
> 
> The shift was especially dramatic among young white men, who two years ago favored Democrats but now say they favor Republicans over Democrats by a margin of 46 to 37 percent, the Reuters/Ipsos poll showed.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-millennials-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1I10YH


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Really Mike? A tireless champion of the rule of law? :no:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/991448021169852417


----------



## Nolo King

Stinger Fan said:


> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-millennials-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1I10YH


Let's hope this turns the tide.

It wouldn't surprise me if there was a backlash, no because of racism, but being fed up of being made to feel guilty of not spewing this virtue signalling that has become the norm.

Wake up millennials, prosperity awaits us all.


----------



## Draykorinee

The democrats have been dying since Hillary. Trump is incredibly lucky his nonsense is nothing on the rubbish coming out of the democrats.

I don't think the whole sjaydoubleoo pc brigade has much bearing on any numbers of significance, just a load of keyboard geeks.

If Trump can't turn millennials to the democrats, or stop them turning away from the democrats, then what the hell are the democrats doing?

(This is similar to Cornyn and May, how bad was Teresa may to nearly lose to Corbyn!)


----------



## Reaper

MrMister said:


> With lots of bombs.


How much do you really know about Iran?

BTW, this isn't mean advocating for US intervention BTW. I just know that Iran as a state sponsors violence in Pakistan that has killed thousands of people there. 

That's not the only state where it does this. Iran is a major force of terror in the region. Not just political groups in the country but as a State.


----------



## yeahbaby!

I think Millenials would much prefer to have their favourite YouTubers in power than either of the major parties. I don't think they're turning away from one major to the other.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

O.K. so Trump really might want to think about dumping Rudy from his legal team. I don't think he's helping.

https://apnews.com/d86f6661263042dea1f1dc335ef7d308



> *Giuliani: Trump repaid Cohen $130K for payment to porn star*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: length
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump reimbursed his personal lawyer for $130,000 in hush money paid to a porn actress days before the 2016 presidential election, a Trump attorney said Wednesday, appearing to contradict the president's past claims that he didn't know the source of the money.
> 
> During an appearance on Fox News Channel's "Hannity," Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani said the money to repay Michael Cohen had been "funneled ... through the law firm and the president repaid it."
> 
> Asked if Trump knew about the arrangement, Giuliani said: "He didn't know about the specifics of it, as far as I know. But he did know about the general arrangement, that Michael would take care of things like this, like I take care of things like this for my clients. I don't burden them with every single thing that comes along. These are busy people."
> 
> The comments appear to contradict statements made by Trump several weeks ago, when he said he didn't know about the payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels as part of a nondisclosure agreement she signed days before the presidential election.
> 
> Guiliani's revelation seemed aimed at reducing the president's legal exposure. But outside experts said it raised a number of questions, including whether the money represented repayment of an undisclosed loan or could be seen as reimbursement for a campaign expenditure.
> 
> Asked aboard Air Force One last month whether he knew about the payment, Trump said flatly: "No." Trump also said he didn't know why Cohen had made the payment or where he got the money.
> 
> In a phone interview with "Fox and Friends" last week, however, Trump appeared to muddy the waters, saying that Cohen represented him in the "crazy Stormy Daniels deal."
> 
> The White House referred questions to the president's personal legal team.
> 
> Giuliani, a former New York City mayor and ex-U.S. attorney who joined Trump's legal team last month, said the president had repaid Cohen over several months, indicating the payments continued through at least the presidential transition, if not into his presidency. He also said the payment "is going to turn out to be perfectly legal" because "that money was not campaign money."
> 
> No debt to Cohen is listed on Trump's personal financial disclosure form, which was certified on June 16, 2017.
> 
> Giuliani also described the payment to Daniels as "a very regular thing for lawyers to do."
> 
> Daniels' lawyer, Michael Avenatti, called the comment "a stunning revelation."
> 
> "Mr. Trump evidently has participated in a felony and there must be serious consequences for his conduct and his lies and deception to the American people," he said.
> 
> Giuliani made the statements to Fox host Sean Hannity, who has his own connection to the case. It was recently revealed in court that Hannity is one of Cohen's clients. Hannity has described his personal dealings with Cohen as centered on real estate advice and said that it "never rose to any level that I needed to tell anyone that I was asking him questions."
> 
> Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, says she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, months after his third wife gave birth to his youngest child, and was paid to keep quiet as part of a nondisclosure agreement she is now seeking to invalidate. She has also filed a defamation suit against Trump after he questioned a composite sketch she released of a man she says threatened her to stay quiet.
> 
> The White House has said Trump denies having a relationship with Daniels.
> 
> Cohen had said previously: "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly." He notably did not include the president personally.
> 
> Asked about Cohen's denial, Giuliani said that he didn't know whether Cohen had made the payment without asking Trump but that he had "no reason to dispute that."
> 
> The revelation from Giuliani came as Cohen was under escalating legal pressure. He is facing a criminal investigation in New York, and FBI agents raided his home and office several weeks ago seeking records about the nondisclosure agreement.
> 
> Daniels' lawsuit over the hush deal has been delayed, with the judge citing the criminal investigation.
> 
> The payment to Daniels has raised numerous legal questions, including whether it was an illegal campaign contribution and, now, loan.
> 
> "If this is true then it looks like Cohen may have made an unreported loan to the campaign rather than a contribution," said Richard L. Hasen, an expert in election law at the University of California, Irvine.
> 
> He said that might be better for Cohen, but not for Trump, because it undermines the argument that Cohen was acting independently.
> 
> "The greatest significance is that it implicates the president directly," he said.
> 
> Law firms advance expenses for clients as a matter of course, and so there's nothing inherently improper about a lawyer covering a particular payment and then being reimbursed for it. In this case, though, the client who apparently reimbursed the expense was running for president and the money was paid just days before the election, raising questions about whether Cohen's law practice was functioning as a vendor for the campaign and whether the expense was therefore an unreported campaign expenditure. If so, that could be legally problematic.
> 
> Andrew Herman, an attorney specializing in campaign finance law at Miller & Chevalier, said Giuliani's argument that this was a private payment unrelated to the campaign appears to be "pretty far-fetched" given the timing — weeks before the election while Trump was under fire for his behavior with women and for an "Access Hollywood" tape in which he spoke of groping women without their consent.
> 
> But if Cohen or Trump could establish that discussions with Daniels over the payment long predated his run for office, that could help them with the argument that the money was a personal rather than political expense.
> 
> "It obviously increases the president's exposure to potential campaign finance violations, but it also makes him look terrible," said Sol Wisenberg, a defense attorney who was a deputy independent counsel during the Starr special counsel investigation into President Bill Clinton.
> 
> "I don't understand the Giuliani strategy," he added. "Maybe it's been too long since he's been in the criminal justice field."




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/991883505033342977
Once again, I don't give a shit if he fucked Stormy Daniels at all, but they really need to pick one story and stick with it.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/rudy-giuliani-riles-up-obstruction-of-justice-talk-with-remark-about-why-trump-fired-james-comey



> *Rudy Giuliani riles up obstruction of justice talk with remark about why Trump fired James Comey*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: length
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy Giuliani, a new addition to President Trump's personal legal team, on Wednesday said Trump fired former FBI Director James Comey because the top law enforcement official would not say publicly whether the president was a target of the FBI investigation's into Russia interference in the 2016 election.
> 
> "He fired Comey because Comey would not — among other things — say that he wasn't a target of the investigation," Giuliani told Fox News.
> 
> "He is entitled to that. Hillary Clinton got that, and he couldn't get that. So he fired him, then he said, 'I’m free of this guy,'” the former New York City mayor added.
> 
> Left-leaning political pundits were quick to conclude that in Giuliani regaling his version of events he may have admitted that Trump obstructed justice.
> 
> The scope of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation includes whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the lead-up to the 2016 election and whether Trump obstructed justice by dismissing Comey, who was leading the FBI's probe into Russian interference at the time.


Once again, pick one story and stick with it.

Really Trump should have seen this coming after Rudy said this in an interview in early 2017. He just throws Trump under a bus and seems to have no idea he did it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/giuliani-trump-asked-me-how-to-do-a-muslim-ban-legally-2017-1



> Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani told Fox in an interview on Saturday that he helped draft President Donald Trump's "extreme vetting" executive order after Trump called him and asked how to do a "Muslim ban" "legally."
> 
> "When he first announced it, he said 'Muslim ban,'" Giuliani, who served as the vice chairman of Trump's transition team, told Fox. "He called me up. He said 'put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'"
> 
> Giuliani then put a commission together with Judge Mike Mukasey, Congressman Mike McCaul, Rep. Pete King, and a "whole group of very expert lawyers on this," he said.
> 
> "We focused on, instead of religion, on danger," Giuliani continued. "The areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on."


----------



## Tater

virus21 said:


> It's actually the American left more than anyone since Bernie's campaign that has continuously made this false claim.


Bernie actually gets a lot of criticism from the left. The "American left", who are really centrists, are all in on his platform. Actually, it's not just the American left. It's a majority of all Americans. Pretty much all of his policies poll well with the public at large.

I wouldn't mind seeing him get elected solely because of how much the establishment haaaaaates him but I don't think he'd get much accomplished on his own and what he did get done wouldn't come anywhere close to solving our problems. The answer is not big government. The answer is decentralization of power and the end of capitalism.


----------



## MrMister

Reap said:


> How much do you really know about Iran?
> 
> BTW, this isn't mean advocating for US intervention BTW. I just know that Iran as a state sponsors violence in Pakistan that has killed thousands of people there.
> 
> That's not the only state where it does this. Iran is a major force of terror in the region. Not just political groups in the country but as a State.


I am aware the Iranian government is terrible. I rank authoritarian theocracies as among the worst governments possible. You mix authoritarian with magical thinking and fucking bad things happen.

If Israel is saber rattling this openly then that's not good insofar as shit is probably going down sooner than later. Israel and the US have wanted to destroy Iran since around 1979. It's better to have an ally in Iran than an enemy. Too bad tons of people might die to achieve this. I'd love for Iran to be a better nation for its people and for that region, but I also don't want thousands/millions of people dying to achieve this. A Persian secular liberated Iran is exactly what this world needs, but at what cost?

Hopefully it's just Bibi being a shithead. Hopefully Trump isn't persuaded to attack Iran. Hopefully Iran's terrible government can be replaced by something that isn't one of the worst governments on the face of the planet and this can be done with relatively little loss of life. That's a lot of hope in a situation that doesn't seem hopeful to me.


----------



## Reaper

Yes. It's going to end in violence. 

I don't want western nations involved any more than anyone else, but it is going to happen. Either because Iran is going to become outwardly violent or necons will see it as their next big target.


----------



## Dr. Ian Malcolm

MrMister said:


> I am aware the Iranian government is terrible. I rank authoritarian theocracies as among the worst governments possible. You mix authoritarian with magical thinking and fucking bad things happen.
> 
> If Israel is saber rattling this openly then that's not good insofar as shit is probably going down sooner than later. Israel and the US have wanted to destroy Iran since around 1979. It's better to have an ally in Iran than an enemy. Too bad tons of people might die to achieve this. *I'd love for Iran to be a better nation for its people and for that region*, but I also don't want thousands/millions of people dying to achieve this. A Persian secular liberated Iran is exactly what this world needs, but at what cost?
> 
> Hopefully it's just Bibi being a shithead. Hopefully Trump isn't persuaded to attack Iran. Hopefully Iran's terrible government can be replaced by something that isn't one of the worst governments on the face of the planet and this can be done with relatively little loss of life. That's a lot of hope in a situation that doesn't seem hopeful to me.


Have you ever tried following your own advice and asked Iran to #BeBetter? You might've been able to single-handedly resolve Middle East conflict years ago.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-05-02/china-has-stopped-buying-u-s-soybean-supplies-bunge-ceo-says



> *China Shunning U.S. Soybeans on Trade Tensions, Bunge CEO Says*
> 
> The world’s biggest oilseed processor just confirmed one of the soybean market’s biggest fears: China has essentially stopped buying U.S. supplies amid the brewing trade war.
> 
> “Whatever they’re buying is non-U.S.,” Bunge Ltd. Chief Executive Officer Soren Schroder said in a telephone interview Wednesday. “They’re buying beans in Canada, in Brazil, mostly Brazil, but very deliberately not buying anything from the U.S.”
> 
> In a move that caught many in U.S. agriculture by surprise, China last month announced planned tariffs on American shipments of soybeans. As the market waited for the measure to take effect, there was some hope among traders and shippers alike that relations between the nations could ease in the meantime and the trade flow would continue. But that doesn’t seem to be the case, at least for now, according to Bunge.
> 
> It’s “very clear” that the trade tensions have already stopped China from buying U.S. supplies, Schroder said. “How long that will last, who knows? But so long as there is this big cloud of uncertainty, that’s likely to continue.”
> 
> Price volatility in farm goods has picked up in recent weeks as the saber-rattling between the U.S. and China intensifies. Other agricultural products caught up in the dispute include corn, pork and sorghum. Soybeans are the second-largest American crop and prices are heavily dependent on trade with the Asian nation, the world’s top importer.
> 
> In the two weeks ended April 19, China canceled a net 62,690 metric tons of U.S. soybean purchases for the marketing year that ends Aug. 31, U.S. Department of Agriculture data show. At this time of year, South American countries typically complete their harvests and become the dominant shippers for several months. Brazil’s lead on global exports is expected to widen to a record in the 2017-2018 season as it sells 73.1 million tons abroad versus 56.2 million from the U.S., the USDA estimates.
> 
> Bunge has still been able to meet Chinese demand by filling shipments with supplies from outside the U.S., Schroder said. The White Plains, New York-based company has a large presence in South America.
> 
> “I would rather say that we would prefer that free trade and no disruptions take place because it’s not good for anyone,” Schroder said. “We are, by virtue of our footprint, in a very good position to deal with” the situation, he said.


Trump last month



> “But if we do a deal with China, if, during the course of a negotiation they want to hit the farmers because they think that hits me, I wouldn’t say that's nice. But I tell you, our farmers are great patriots,” Trump said.
> 
> “These are great patriots. They understand that they're doing this for the country," Trump said. "And we'll make it up to them. And in the end, they're going to be much stronger than they are right now.”


Yeah farmers, take a giant hit so steel prices can rise here in the U.S. You're patriots afterall.


----------



## MrMister

Dr. Ian Malcolm said:


> Have you ever tried following your own advice and asked Iran to #BeBetter? You might've been able to single-handedly resolve Middle East conflict years ago.


:lmao

This has never occurred to me. You might be a genius.

Hey Iran...#BeBetter


----------



## Reaper

2 Ton 21 said:


> Yeah farmers, take a giant hit so steel prices can rise here in the U.S. You're patriots afterall.


As predicted previously in the thread: 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/i...o-faster-rise-in-us-interest-rates-2018-04-30



> The PCE index, the Fed’s preferred inflation barometer, rose to 2% year over year from a 1.7% pace in February.
> 
> The 12-month increase in the more closely followed core rate of inflation was close behind, rising to 1.9% in March from 1.6% in the prior month. That’s the biggest yearly gain in the core rate since April 2012.
> 
> The PCE index was unchanged in March, the government said Monday. The core rate rose 0.2%.
> 
> The inflation figures are included in the government’s monthly report on consumer spending. Outlays rose 0.4% last month to mark the first advance since the end of 2017. Incomes climbed 0.3% in March. Both figures were in line with Wall Street expectations.
> 
> What happened: Inflation has been increasing steadily for months owing to the rising cost of oil, higher home prices, the tightest labor market in decades and a strong U.S. and global economy. Prices pressures aren’t likely to ease up much, either.
> 
> Consumer spending, meanwhile, rose for the first time in three months. Americans spent more on new cars and trucks in March and paid more for to heat and power their homes.
> 
> Rising incomes are helping Americans to afford their purchases, but they did into their savings a bit in March. The savings rate dropped to 3.1% from 3.3%.
> 
> Big picture: The U.S. economy is growing soundly nearly nine years into an economic expansion, but it was inevitable that such a long period of growth would eventually trigger higher inflation.
> 
> Inflation is still quite low by historical standards, but the Fed might be inclined to raise U.S. interest rates more aggressively to make sure it doesn’t get out of hand. If so, Treasury rates are expected to rise and stocks could take a hit. Higher rates tend to draw money out of equities and into bonds.


https://www.fxstreet.com/news/us-inflation-pressure-likely-to-rise-further-nbf-201804271549


> US: Inflation pressure likely to rise further - NBF
> 
> According to National Bank of Canada’s analysts, Krishen Rangasamy, inflation pressure is likely to rise further as the output gap moves into positive territory.
> 
> Key Quotes:
> 
> “After this morning’s consensus-topping GDP data, which showed real growth of 2.3% annualized in Q1, the U.S. output gap is now almost closed according to Congressional Budget Office estimates of potential. In theory, that means price pressures will intensify. True, the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation, the core PCE deflator, currently shows an annual inflation rate of less than 2%. But expect the latter to rise as the output gap eventually moves into positive territory.”
> 
> “Also warranting optimism that the Fed will finally hit its 2% inflation target is the tightening labour market which is pushing up costs.”
> 
> “The private sector’s employment cost index, which takes into account wages, salaries and benefits, rose again in Q1 and is now growing at the fastest pace since 2008.”


This is not all bad, but it's not all good either. Inflation is again rising at a rate higher than wages, but at the same time overall minimum wage earners have YET to see a consistent increase, nor have their tax returns for 2019 come in yet --- meaning that low income earners will likely continue to have a hard time making ends meet in this kind of an economy.

The great irony is that those who have plenty always tend to celebrate "economic growth" and "expansion" because they can conveniently ignore the impact a few dollars can make on a low income family's lifestyle. 

And their solution pretty much always is:


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/991769992126517250
#TinyBenShapiro

:sodone


----------



## skypod

I've noticed speakers on the Right all seem to be turning on each other recently, between Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro, Tomi Lahren, Alex Jones, Dave Rubin, Ann Coulter. Do they not all join and speak at the same events?


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

They don't all have the same goals,Ben is acting like someone who might run for high office one day. Ann,Alex and Candace are just about getting paid and Dave Rubin is just trying to get Conservative friends over to play Jenga


----------



## Stephen90

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/991769992126517250
> #TinyBenShapiro
> 
> :sodone


Shapiro would destroy Alex Jones and I'm far from a Shapiro fan.


----------



## Draykorinee

I don't like Shapiro much but he's not exactly got any reason to face an imbecile like Jones.


----------



## samizayn

2 Ton 21 said:


> Once again, pick one story and stick with it.


Said by someone who clearly hasn't a clue. See the point is, if they lie publicly, and then continue to lie, eventually everybody will just stop caring and leave Trump be.

You have to think in 4D.


----------



## Vic Capri

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/991865178835902465


> I've noticed speakers on the Right all seem to be turning on each other recently, between Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro, Tomi Lahren, Alex Jones, Dave Rubin, Ann Coulter. Do they not all join and speak at the same events?


Half of them can't make up their minds if they want to continue to support President Trump or not.

- Vic


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://nypost.com/2018/05/04/trump-says-legal-newbie-giuliani-will-get-his-facts-straight/



> *Trump says legal newbie Giuliani will ‘get his facts straight’*
> 
> President Trump on Friday said that Rudy Giuliani — whom he hired on April 19 to lead his legal team in the Russia probe — “started yesterday” and that eventually “he’ll get his facts straight.”
> 
> Speaking before his trip to Dallas to address the NRA, the president defended the combative former mayor, who spilled the beans Wednesday on Trump’s hush money payoff to porn queen Stormy Daniels.
> 
> “I’ll tell you what. Rudy is a great guy. But he just started a day ago. But he really has his heart into it. And he’s going to be issuing a statement too. But he’s a great guy,” the president said, apparently referring to a statement from Giuliani clarifying his comments about Trump reimbursing his lawyer Michael Cohen for paying Daniels.
> 
> “Virtually everything he said has been said incorrectly and it has been said wrong or it has been covered wrong by the press,” Trump said in another apparent slap at Giuliani.
> 
> Trump — who had denied knowing about the payment last month — also argued that the administration had not changed its story following Giuliani’s bombshell revelation on Sean Hannity’s TV show on Wednesday.
> 
> “We’re not changing any stories. All I’m telling you is that this country is running so smooth right now, and to be bringing up that kind of crap, and to be bringing up witch hunts all the time, that’s all you want to talk about,” Trump told the reporter who had asked him on April 5 on Air Force One whether he was aware of the payment to Daniels.
> 
> “No,” the president replied then.
> 
> Asked about the clear contradiction, the president said, “Excuse me, you take a look at what I said. You go back and take a look, you’ll see what I said,” without elaborating.
> 
> Trump’s criticism came a day after Giuliani insisted that he and the commander in chief were on the same page.
> 
> “You won’t see daylight between me and the president,” he declared.


----------



## Reaper

BoFreakinDallas said:


> They don't all have the same goals,Ben is acting like someone who might run for high office one day. Ann,Alex and Candace are just about getting paid and Dave Rubin is just trying to get Conservative friends over to play Jenga


Or maybe they're just not a political hive mind like a certain group of people believe that they might be because they've never actually spent any time listening to them.


----------



## Draykorinee

Trumps upset the UK with his latest false equivalency, is he suggesting if we had less gun control we'd have less knife crime? I mean, I guess we could agree on that, but then we'd have the US gun crime statistics so...yeah, what's his point other than sensationalist bullshit about another country to deflect from his own issues?


----------



## virus21

> New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, the state's highest-ranking law enforcement official, will resign Tuesday, a day after four women accused him of violent physical abuse in an explosive article published by the New Yorker.
> Schneiderman announced his resignation in a statement just three hours after the article was published.
> “It’s been my great honor and privilege to serve as Attorney General for the people of the State of New York," he said.
> "In the last several hours, serious allegations, which I strongly contest, have been made against me. While these allegations are unrelated to my professional conduct or the operations of the office, they will effectively prevent me from leading the office’s work at this critical time. I therefore resign my office, effective at the close of business on May 8, 2018.”


http://archive.is/JIdzL#selection-3129.0-3175.368


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/993320181874249730
The Mossad Squad? :lol


----------



## Reaper

Are they intentionally trying to make Melania look like a total moron, or a troll. I can't decide. 

#BeBest 

??


----------



## Vic Capri

President Trump withdrawing from the Iran deal.

- Vic


----------



## MrMister

I like how that Farrow article ties Trump to Weinstein as if mercenaries really ever give a fuck who they work for. It's a good manipulative piece though, hats off the Farrow. Fan those flames Frank Sinatra's son.

I also like how the New Yorker is essentially the National Enquirer, but with better writers so people can think it's something other than sensationalism.

edit: oh my god the intel mercs are called BLACK CUBE how is this reality not a comic book again?


----------



## CamillePunk

Well we're at the stage of negotiation with Iran where all the "experts" say Trump has blundered and put us on the path to World War 3. 

Love to America chants in Iran by 2019?


----------



## virus21

MrMister said:


> I like how that Farrow article ties Trump to Weinstein as if mercenaries really ever give a fuck who they work for. It's a good manipulative piece though, hats off the Farrow. Fan those flames Frank Sinatra's son.
> 
> I also like how the New Yorker is essentially the National Enquirer, but with better writers so people can think it's something other than sensationalism.
> 
> edit: oh my god the intel mercs are called BLACK CUBE how is this reality not a comic book again?


If someone should be damned because they worked with Weinstein, then all of Hollywood should be demonized.

And in Europe:


----------



## FriedTofu

I fear the withdrawing of the deal is a first step towards putting troops on the ground. In the middle east, you either ally with the US or you get invaded. John Bolton and Nethanyahu will ensure that.


----------



## Pratchett

https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/993994418079191040 (no I cannot embed Tweets)



> The single largest donor to any 2016 campaign was billionaire oligarch Sheldon Adelson, who gave $25 million to a Trump super PAC. In 2013, Adelson said that the United States should drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.


https://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Adelson-US-should-drop-atomic-bomb-on-Iran-329641



> Adelson: US should drop atomic bomb on Iran
> American-Jewish billionaire blasts Obama over negotiations with Tehran; says US should show Iran nuclear capabilities.
> By Maya Shwayder, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT October 24, 2013 14:58
> 
> > Israel to US: Pass more sanctions, Iran could have material for bomb within weeks
> 
> NEW YORK – During a panel at Yeshiva University on Tuesday evening, Sheldon Adelson, noted businessman and owner of the newspaper Israel Hayom, suggested that the US should use nuclear weapons on Iran to impose its demands from a position of strength.
> 
> Asked by moderator Rabbi Shmuley Boteach whether the US should negotiate with Iran if it were to cease its uranium enrichment program, Adelson retorted, “What are we going to negotiate about?”
> 
> Adelson then imagined what might happen if an American official were to call up an Iranian official, say “watch this,” and subsequently drop a nuclear bomb in the middle of the Iranian desert.
> 
> "Then you say, ‘See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development. You want to be peaceful? Just reverse it all, and we will guarantee you that you can have a nuclear power plant for electricity purposes, energy purposes’," Adelson said.
> 
> “So a tremendous demonstration of American strength?” Boteach clarified. “So that they would get the message?”
> 
> “It’s the only thing they understand,” Adelson said.
> 
> “And do you see the current negotiations as a sign of weakness?” Boteach asked.
> 
> “Absolutely,” Adelson said.
> 
> Adelson, who donated tens of millions of dollars to defeated Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney during the most recent campaign, criticized the Obama administration's willingness to engage the Iranians diplomatically.
> "[It's] the worst negotiating tactic I could ever imagine, my entire life," he said.
> 
> "Because you can’t get anything. He’s not saying to them, Roll back your entire program and show that you’re willing to be peaceful. So, roll it all back… and we’ll roll back the sanctions…. What is that, a game of chicken, who’s going to blink first?"
> 
> In response to Adelson's comments, Boteach said whether the remarks were regarded as serious or an exaggeration to exemplify the extreme measures that the US must take to thwart Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, the international community often employs double standards on Israeli issues.
> 
> “When I heard Sheldon make his remark, my initial thought was that his purpose was to goad his more liberal critics into attacking the policy so that their double standards on nuclear threats against Israel could be exposed,” said Rabbi Boteach in a statement.
> 
> “I would hope that those who seem alarmed by Sheldon’s overstatement on the extent to which the United States should go to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon will at least protest that much more loudly against its actual development,” he added.


I'll just leave this here...


----------



## CamillePunk

I'd take $25 million from someone who wanted to nuke my house.


----------



## Art Vandaley

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/us/politics/michael-cohen-shell-company-payments.html

Stormy Daniels, Muh Russia and Financial Dodgy Dealings, this article wins Trump Bingo I think.


----------



## Stinger Fan

CamillePunk said:


> Well we're at the stage of negotiation with Iran where all the "experts" say Trump has blundered and put us on the path to World War 3.
> 
> Love to America chants in Iran by 2019?


Is it the same path he took with North Korea to start WW3? Or did he find another path to go this time?


----------



## Draykorinee

Stinger Fan said:


> Is it the same path he took with North Korea to start WW3? Or did he find another path to go this time?


Let's see if he can get another winter Olympics/China/South Korea/NK style nuclear facility destruction to fix the problems.


----------



## Reaper

I read somewhere that DPRK does this song and dance every 5-6 years to get some sanctions eased off. 

Even if you notice, the entire media focus is on the so-called denuclearization, but NOT 1 MENTION has been made of the 22 million people still in absolute destitution. 

You want to fix North Korea, remove all sanctions, allow goods to flow to the country, allow people to get used to commodities and they will tear down communism by themselves. 

China despite all of its current problems still is nowhere NEAR as bad as it used to be before they converted themselves into a global factory.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

So I was just wondering how the die-hard Trump fans reconcile him pondering a quite blatant attack on freedom of speech by revoking journalist's credentials? Considering how so many of you like to attack the UK for punishing hate speech, I'm sure you're all LIVID at the prospect of him doing this right?


----------



## Reaper

Obviously. Unfortunately, it's in his rights to do this but it's absolutely in poor taste to do it. But at this point it's just a suggestion. 

Is it an attack on free speech ... yes and no. 

The press and journalists that might lose their credentials will still have a platform to say whatever they want. In fact, Trump just gave them fuel for their fire anyways - which is what is really moronic here imo.

BTW, just for perspective and this is not whataboutism, but Obama's administration revoked journalist's access to the White House as well. They also went a little further in trying to prosecute whistleblowers and leakers as well.

Free Speech is a myth. The only people fighting for it are the ones that are on the ground. The government is in fact in direct opposition to free speech (it has ALWAYS been) which is _why _the constitution and separation of powers exists in America at the level it does. 

In that, I believe we managed to do something no other country has done. That is put Supreme Court Judges in office - none of whom have ever bent in favor of the government's desire to quell free speech.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> Obviously. Unfortunately, it's in his rights to do this but it's absolutely in poor taste to do it.
> 
> Is it an attack on free speech ... yes and no. The press and journalists that lost their credentials still have a platform to say whatever they want. In fact, Trump just gave them fuel for their fire anyways - which is what is really moronic here imo.


I don't actually consider you a die-hard, I was thinking more of the guys who still drink the kool-aid and think he's some strategic mastermind and ultimate American instead of a fairly incompetent rich kid who's beliefs and political ideals change more than the direction the wind blows in. :lol

I can't think of anything more against free speech than "reporters don't say everything I want them to say so I'm going to revoke their ability to report on me" though if I'm honest. If he actually did that then that'd be the first justification for the loonies who like to scream that he's a Nazi too imo. Controlling the press screams "I want to be a dictator" to me. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

I edited my post with a lot more nuance LOL. 

Can you guys please give me like 5 minutes after I post something before commenting on it so that I get a good chance to make sure I've gotten out all my thoughts organized and clearer


----------



## MrMister

There is a difference in saying you're going to revoke credentials and actually doing it. If he does it then yeah, fuck that and fuck him (also fuck a lot of American journalism lol but that's another story).

Trump is a troll though, so he might not have been 100% serious when he said that. If he's done it and I'm not aware of it, then refer back to the fuck that fuck him thing.


----------



## CamillePunk

Yes yes, Trump has gone from being a joke -> hitler -> mentally ill -> lucky.  What's next? Admitting that he's just actually competent (even if he doesn't do the things I want him to do, grr)? :lol 

Other people's cognitive dissonance is such a fun spectacle.


----------



## Miss Sally

MrMister said:


> There is a difference in saying you're going to revoke credentials and actually doing it. If he does it then yeah, fuck that and fuck him (also fuck a lot of American journalism lol but that's another story).
> 
> Trump is a troll though, so he might not have been 100% serious when he said that. If he's done it and I'm not aware of it, then refer back to the fuck that fuck him thing.


He could do it and say Obama did it, so he learned from him because learning from black leaders is important. >


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> Other people's cognitive dissonance is such a fun spectacle.


The irony is palpable. 

For some of us he started, and remains a very big joke.


----------



## yeahbaby!

RavishingRickRules said:


> The irony is palpable.
> 
> For some of us he started, and remains a very big joke.


Sadly the biggest joke is on America and the world that follows it. Trump and his family and cabinet won't pay for his idiocy - the people will.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Reap said:


> I edited my post with a lot more nuance LOL.
> 
> Can you guys please give me like 5 minutes after I post something before commenting on it so that I get a good chance to make sure I've gotten out all my thoughts organized and clearer


Do what I do, write what you write, then re-write and edit it about 20 times before posting and still be unhappy with what you write :lol


----------



## samizayn

MrMister said:


> There is a difference in saying you're going to revoke credentials and actually doing it. If he does it then yeah, fuck that and fuck him (also fuck a lot of American journalism lol but that's another story).
> 
> Trump is a troll though, so he might not have been 100% serious when he said that. If he's done it and I'm not aware of it, then refer back to the fuck that fuck him thing.


Regardless there are simply threats you do not make. Trump's track record of repeatedly undermining the media while championing his own words (or simply positive words about him) as the only truth is so very, very North Korea lite, and for all of the hysteria going around about free speech these days you think a leader so openly hostile to free press would be a perfect target for their ire. And yet...


----------



## CamillePunk

samizayn said:


> Regardless there are simply threats you do not make. Trump's track record of repeatedly undermining the media while championing his own words (or simply positive words about him) as the only truth is so very, very North Korea lite, and for all of the hysteria going around about free speech these days you think a leader so openly hostile to free press would be a perfect target for their ire. And yet...


There are threats you and I'm sure most politicians do not make. Trump makes them, and stuff like the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula becomes possible. :lol He's threatened to revoke press credentials before and hasn't done it. This is the way Trump operates. Let me know when he actually _does_ something that violates free speech, not when he just talks about it. 

Meanwhile


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994132722108026885

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994204408475926529
This is not a country that is on the road to joining civilization. :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

President Trump rescued 3 prisoners.

President Obama left Otto Warmbier for dead.

*#ThanksDonald *

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Yes yes, Trump has gone from being a joke -> hitler -> mentally ill -> lucky.  What's next? Admitting that he's just actually competent (even if he doesn't do the things I want him to do, grr)? :lol
> 
> Other people's cognitive dissonance is such a fun spectacle.


He's still a joke, when did he go Joke > Hitler?

He's Joke + Hitler + mentally ill + lucky.


----------



## samizayn

CamillePunk said:


> There are threats you and I'm sure most politicians do not make. Trump makes them, and stuff like the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula becomes possible. :lol He's threatened to revoke press credentials before and hasn't done it. This is the way Trump operates. Let me know when he actually _does_ something that violates free speech, not when he just talks about it.


But free speech is useless without a functioning democracy. And as problem-filled as America's has traditionally been, I fear the quality of public discourse has already taken a perhaps irreversible downturn. Reflected, but also fed by, the words of Donald Trump here; it is not "just" talk when the consequences are already this pronounced.


Vic Capri said:


> President Trump rescued 3 prisoners.
> 
> President Obama left Otto Warmbier for dead.
> 
> *#ThanksDonald *
> 
> - Vic


Getting them out of there was really major, actually.


----------



## Headliner

Vic Capri said:


> President Trump rescued 3 prisoners.
> 
> President Obama left Otto Warmbier for dead.
> 
> *#ThanksDonald *
> 
> - Vic


He didn't "leave him for dead". That sounds cruel and morally disturbing.
The administration tried and failed to get him released. Big difference. And you also forgot to mention Euna Lee, Laura King, Robert Park, Aijalon Gomes, Eddie Young Su Jun, Jeff Fowle, Matt Miller, Sandra Suh and Arturo Pierre Martinez as those who were freed from North Korea under the Obama administration. As Trump's trophy wife says, you need to "be best", or in better English, do better.

Anyway, the release of these three hostages were a good step forward. Those who are creaming themselves and recommending a nobel peace prize for Trump needs to fall back and wait until the results of the Kim/Donald meeting. Who knows what scheme Kim could have up his sleeve.


----------



## CamillePunk

samizayn said:


> But free speech is useless without a functioning democracy. And as problem-filled as America's has traditionally been, I fear the quality of public discourse has already taken a perhaps irreversible downturn. Reflected, but also fed by, the words of Donald Trump here; it is not "just" talk when the consequences are already this pronounced.


Actually Trump and Kanye are going to bring us into a golden age of public discourse. Stay tuned. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994659346477867008
:lol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994624234289741824
:lmao


----------



## MrMister

Headliner said:


> As Trump's trophy wife says, you need to "be best", or in better English, do better.


Actually it's #bebetter. Melania just got the WF fantasy meme wrong, no big deal.


----------



## CamillePunk

Melania is fluent in 5 languages and English is not her native tongue. :lol If some right wing person made fun of some foreign lefty who couldn't talk the English too good like we does there'd be uproar. 

Oh well. I don't engage in outrage culture.


----------



## Headliner

CamillePunk said:


> Melania is fluent in 5 languages and English is not her native tongue. :lol If some right wing person made fun of some foreign lefty who couldn't talk the English too good like we does there'd be uproar.
> 
> Oh well. I don't engage in outrage culture.


With all the racism and general criticism Michelle had to deal with, there's absolutely nothing wrong with making light hearted jokes at Melania. She's not a victim.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

As far as I'm concerned anybody and everybody in the public eye is fair game for comedy :shrug

I like Melania though, she seems like a classy lady tbh. I liked Michelle too, again, another very classy lady. I can't say I've seen anything from either of them that put them in a negative light, regardless of what all of their respective haters like to spew.


----------



## Reaper

Headliner said:


> also forgot to mention Euna Lee, Laura King, Robert Park, Aijalon Gomes, Eddie Young Su Jun, Jeff Fowle, Matt Miller, Sandra Suh and Arturo Pierre Martinez as those who were freed from North Korea under the Obama administration.


I was not aware of this --- of course, the right wing media tends not to cover the details.

I poked fun at Melania's #bebest crap as well - and I think it's crap.


----------



## GothicBohemian

I rarely wander into this thread for obvious reasons, and I know CNN is disliked in these parts, but I'm shocked at the words being said about Sen. John McCain by some of his fellow Republicans. 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/11/politics/donald-trump-john-mccain-death/index.html



> On Thursday morning, a White House aide named Kelly Sadler joked about Arizona Sen. John McCain's opposition to CIA nominee Gina Haspel by noting that "he's dying anyway."
> 
> It was the latest in a series of increasingly nasty comments about McCain: Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) called it "ridiculous" that McCain wasn't planning to invite President Donald Trump to his funeral while a retired general on Fox News on Thursday referred to a debunked conspiracy theory that McCain had informed on his comrades while a prisoner of war during Vietnam.





> Trump's campaign was based on a simple idea: Politicians are too political. They're afraid of their own shadows. They won't say it like it is because they live in fear of the political correctness police coming to knock on their door.
> 
> He cast himself as the antidote to all of that -- someone who would say what everyone was thinking. He was a status quo shaker, the worst nightmare for the staid and ineffective political establishment. That idea, in and of itself, is powerful.
> 
> The problem was -- and is -- that Trump conflated insults and bullying with shaking things up. So, questioning McCain's war credentials -- "He's not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured." -- as Trump did in July 2015, at the start of his presidential campaign, was somehow treated by Trump and those who supported him as speaking truth to power.
> 
> Ditto his attacks on Carly Fiorina's looks. His attempts to raise the heritage of Judge Gonzalo Curiel. His suggestion that Khizr Khan, the father of a solider fighting in Iraq, had been put up to his speech at the Democratic National Convention by partisans out to get him. His suggestion, as President, that "both sides" were to blame for the white nationalist violence in Charlottesville, Virginia. His repeated bullying of his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, and his comments about the alleged plastic surgery of "Morning Joe" anchor Mika Brzezinski.
> 
> On and on the list goes. And it all adds up to one thing: Trump weaponized nastiness and bullying. He turned it into a political art form. He gave cover for all of those people with uninformed views -- on race, ethnicity and everything else -- to emerge from the shadows and speak out.
> 
> And, if you didn't laugh or "get the joke," -- even though Trump was often not joking in these circumstances -- you were part of the problem. Just another defender of a status quo that rewarded elites and left out the little guy. Just another person who didn't get it.


I'm far from a huge McCain fan but this is not ok. It isn't funny, it isn't conservative values, it isn't honest communication replacing SJW influence, it's just rude and thoughtless. Is this really what people want?


----------



## Headliner

Btw I don't hate or dislike Melania at all and it's a shame this Stormy Daniels thing had to be made public. She doesn't deserve that. I can see how that would upset her.


----------



## MrMister

Melania is hotter for #bebest let's be real.

Are people really giving Melania shit for this? How is she not the most sympathetic character involved in this insanity?


----------



## Reaper

Because she's a poor deer caught in headlights but honestly speaking given the stature the only blame I can place on her is to not have attempted to change. 

Yes, it's a ceremonial position or whatever but since you got it, flaunt it.


----------



## alejbr4

Headliner said:


> He didn't "leave him for dead". That sounds cruel and morally disturbing.
> The administration tried and failed to get him released. Big difference. And you also forgot to mention Euna Lee, Laura King, Robert Park, Aijalon Gomes, Eddie Young Su Jun, Jeff Fowle, Matt Miller, Sandra Suh and Arturo Pierre Martinez as those who were freed from North Korea under the Obama administration. As Trump's trophy wife says, you need to "be best", or in better English, do better.
> 
> Anyway, the release of these three hostages were a good step forward. Those who are creaming themselves and recommending a nobel peace prize for Trump needs to fall back and wait until the results of the Kim/Donald meeting. Who knows what scheme Kim could have up his sleeve.


dont forgot bolton and trump also ripped obama as helping a dictator for getting them freed


----------



## DesolationRow

Genuinely fascinating map:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994957136252866560


----------



## Reaper

@Tater; ... Please check in and let us know how you're doing and that everything is ok. 

I know this isn't the thread for it but I'm sure most people in here would like to know too.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Are people really giving Melania shit for this? How is she not the most sympathetic character involved in this insanity?


That's the "tolerant" left in a nutshell. They don't just go for you, they attack your family too.

- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

Vic Capri said:


> That's the "tolerant" left in a nutshell. They don't just go for you, they attack your family too.
> 
> - Vic


Do they kick your dog, chew gum in class, and litter as well?


----------



## virus21

Can she just fuck off already?


> Twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke in Melbourne Thursday with Australia's first female prime minister Julia Gillard. The two discussed misogyny in politics and Clinton yet again blamed sexism for her 2016 loss, implying that the U.S. just couldn’t handle a leader who is a woman.
> “There is still a very large proportion of the population that is uneasy with women in positions of leadership,” Clinton told Gillard, “and so the easiest way to kind of avoid having to look at someone on her merits is to dismiss her on her looks.”
> Gillard compared the chants of “lock her up” that Clinton faced during the election to “the Salem Witch Trials.”
> "There is this fear, there is this anger, even rage about women seeking power, women exercising power and people fall back on these attacks like you’re a witch or you should go to prison,” Clinton agreed. “It’s not a majority, thank goodness, it’s not, but it’s a very vocal minority at least in my country. And sometimes these tropes are very much part of the press coverage.”
> Clinton continued to insist that her opponents who claimed not to be against women have since shown that they are misogynists.
> “People would all the time say ‘well I’m not against women’ as they’d be wearing a t-shirt saying these horrible things, ‘I’m just not for that woman,’” she said. “Okay fine so the election happens, forget that I get 3 million more votes, it’s over and we go on to what he’s going to do next but as soon as other women, women with high profiles who might someday run for president began speaking out, the same attacks started all over again.”
> "For men, likeability and professional success go hand in hand," Clinton claimed. "But with women, it's the exact opposite."
> Clinton also repeated claims that Trump was “stalking” her during a town hall debate. She said it was “very clear that (he) was stalking me, looming over me, trying to intimidate me and he was doing it very deliberately.”
> “Do I turn to him and say you’re not going to intimidate me, back up creep, but in the end I didn’t — I know whatever I say or however I phrase it, it could come across as looking like I was angry, or looking like I couldn’t take it,” she explained. “And if she can’t deal with Trump, how will she deal with Putin. So how do we deal with that?
> For women, she claimed, “the balance between how much emotion to show and how much to hold in becomes a complex calculation.”
> This is not the first time Clinton has blamed her loss on misogyny while on foreign soil. Clinton claimed in India recently that Trump voters were sexist and racist.
> "His whole campaign: 'Make America Great Again' was looking backwards,” she said of Trump. “You know, you didn't like black people getting rights, you don't like women, you know, getting jobs, you don't want to you know see that Indian American succeeding more than you are, whatever your problem is, I'm going to solve it.'”


http://archive.is/eiLlP#selection-1425.0-1519.325


----------



## Art Vandaley




----------



## yeahbaby!




----------



## DOPA

John Bolton is an absolute lunatic.

I will personally tell the US to fuck off if they try to put sanctions on European companies wanting to uphold the Iran deal and do business.


----------



## Reaper

I think I've had another political shift and I feel like embracing the alt-center now :draper2 

Srsly tho ... I have gotten pretty annoyed with the bickering about the left all the time too now and kind of feel embarrassed for getting swayed that much to the right myself. 

Still ancap though, but I'm pulling myself out of identity politics entirely. I don't think it achieves anything. 



DOPA said:


> John Bolton is an absolute lunatic.
> 
> I will personally tell the US to fuck off if they try to put sanctions on European companies wanting to uphold the Iran deal and do business.


Bolton is mentally retarded. Completely and totally. His world view is actually and really warped in an extremely dangerous way.


----------



## GothicBohemian

This fiasco involving Bolton was predictable. I not happy about what's happening but I'm not suprised by it either. A large number of Americans believe in American exceptionalism, and that extends to the US having the right to tell every other nation what to do and when to do it without repercussions to themselves. Most of those people voted for the current American government, one led a man susceptible to manipulation by seasoned political players within his party who happen to be belligerent hawks. 

This is what happens when a political party extends a welcome to groups that don't necessarily share basic common ambitions. The Republicans invited in the extreme right, the religiously-driven conservatives, the hawks and these folks have hijacked the movement away from traditional fiscal conservatism. It's the same phenomenon as Democrats flirting with some of the most stifling social extremes found on college campuses or within groups like third wave feminism. It's a problem everywhere; the Conservative Party in Canada is inviting Quebec separatists into the fold over a common ground of nationalism-based identity politics. Never mind that the PQ separatists want to break up the country and/or impose French on non-francophone regions, the potential votes are more important and long term consequences be damned. 

Anyway, Bolton gonna Bolton. Hopefully the US can avoid becoming an international trade pariah or setting off either disastrous trade wars or WWIII. Good luck, we'll all need it.


----------



## Vic Capri

A man frequently compared to Hitler recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

*#PromisesMadePromisesKept*

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

That photo is HORRIBLY photoshopped. :lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

GothicBohemian said:


> Anyway, Bolton gonna Bolton. Hopefully the US can avoid becoming an international trade pariah or setting off either disastrous trade wars or WWIII. Good luck, we'll all need it.


is there like a betting site where I can capitalize on all these people who truly believe all these doomsday scenarios that the media that is wrong about everything put out every day but never actually materialize? :lol


----------



## MrMister

There's detente in Korea and the nuclear war thing is still a thing? Why?


----------



## GothicBohemian

CamillePunk said:


> is there like a betting site where I can capitalize on all these people who truly believe all these doomsday scenarios that the media that is wrong about everything put out every day but never actually materialize? :lol


I don't follow the media much. I'm aware of what goes on in the world but I don't read blogs or spend my days tuned in to news channels. I know I'm invisible to 90% of WF members and that I'm regarded as a bitch or a joke, or both, by the rest but I'm not clueless about everything in life. Nations, like individuals, only tolerate so much before they walk away. The US is alienating multiple allies with recent talk and actions.

Like any large nation or union, America needs trading partners with buying power and needs strategic military alliances in multiple regions. Governments around the world are willing to give and take but there's a breaking point where they begin to walk away. That point hasn't been reached yet but it isn't as distant as it was. Nothing is going to happen today or next month but, if this continues, two years from now could be very lonely times for America. The loudest voices in Washington are pushing destabilizing agendas, both at home and abroad, while the administration simultaneously acts in ways that make them seem unreliable partners in international agreements. That's not smart.


----------



## CamillePunk

GothicBohemian said:


> Like any large nation or union, America needs trading partners with buying power and needs strategic military alliances in multiple regions. Governments around the world are willing to give and take but there's a breaking point where they begin to walk away. That point hasn't been reached yet but it isn't as distant as it was. Nothing is going to happen today or next month but, if this continues, two years from now could be very lonely times for America. The loudest voices in Washington are pushing destabilizing agendas, both at home and abroad, while the administration simultaneously acts in ways that make them seem unreliable partners in international agreements. That's not smart.


If you don't follow the media then it is uncanny how identical your talking points are. :lol See you in 2 years when we're all still alive and everyone still wants to trade with and be best friends with the US.


----------



## Crasp

GothicBohemian said:


> ... I know I'm invisible to 90% of WF members and that I'm regarded as a bitch or a joke, or both, by the rest...


Now that's some social anxiety bullshit. You're one of my favorite members and I'm pretty sure you're appreciated, or at least respected, by anyone that's actually worth a shit in this pisshole.


OT I tend to disagree that the US are likely to become truly isolated. That would require some quite unprecedented solidarity from other UN member states and especially Europe, and in the event that a group of nations indicate their intention to effectively shut out the US, there will always be someone who sees an economic opportunity in siding with the US instead, and then it's just dominoes (not the pizza).


----------



## GothicBohemian

CamillePunk said:


> If you don't follow the media then it is uncanny how identical your talking points are. :lol See you in 2 years when we're all still alive and everyone still wants to trade with and be best friends with the US.


Maybe those talking points are alike because, like many news sources, I base my hunches partly on how similar events have unfolded in history. It really doesn't take much analysis to look at current situations and see a potential problem. 

But believe what you want. I'm not someone who proclaims imminent apocalypse every time the Trump administration does something questionable. Bolton's appointment, which means he has Trump's ear and Trump listens to advisers who know how to play him, has potential to become a huge problem.

The relationship between the US and its allies is worsening and, yes, that does matter over the long term. 



Crasp said:


> I tend to disagree that the US are likely to become truly isolated. That would require some quite unprecedented solidarity from other UN member states and especially Europe, and in the event that a group of nations indicate their intention to effectively shut out the US, there will always be someone who sees an economic opportunity in siding with the US instead, and then it's just dominoes (not the pizza).


Oh, they'll never be entirely isolated. No country is, unless that's what they want (like PRK). There are always partners available, but are those always going to be the allies the US wants? 

America has retained close relations with its WWII-era allies and also created newer partnerships built mainly on oil. I'm concerned they may eventually find themselves shut out by these allies who may either band together or seek out increased trade with others should the US continue to make economic threats, act as an unreliable partner or be apt to demand military commitments that would cost them too much home support. Agreed, Europe would have to show more unity than it traditionally has but the EU is a thing now. Thanks to Brexit, the UK could be looked at as the most likely candidate of the traditional allies to have to back the US unconditionally for trade reasons.

Also, China is watching this, looking to see where they might be able to slip in and fill a void. A lot of the west doesn't see China as a real challenger to US economic power, understandably, but they do see themselves having future potential that way which could make all the difference years down the road. I could see them courting some US partners and I could see them getting a few of them over time if international trade relations became too strained. 

My hope is that Bolton's rhetoric gets pulled back and Trump agrees to reasonable deals, political and economic, behind all his bluster. I don't care if he wants to pretend he's ruling the world on Twitter so long as he doesn't start a regime change agenda and cripple his nation's economy by assuming trade wars are "easy to win". My fear is that those who want such scenarios to play out know how to get him to listen. Bolton having his current role leads me to think Trump is listening, and that's worrisome.


----------



## virus21

> Retaliation against liberals may be what ends up getting President Trump re-elected. That's Gerard Alexander's take for the New York Times, in which he notes liberals are inspirational in their idealism and smart—but "not as smart and persuasive as they think." Alexander warns that liberals, ensconced in what he says are positions of power in entertainment, media, and higher ed, may not realize "how provocative and inflammatory" they are with their progressive beliefs, and that they may be pushing away as many people as they're attracting. Although liberals may (rightfully) be more on top of pushing narratives on such topics as racism and sexism into wider view, Alexander argues they may be forcing others to adapt too quickly. "Some liberals have gotten far out ahead of their fellow Americans but are nonetheless quick to criticize those who haven’t caught up with them," he notes.
> Alexander concedes that Trump himself doesn't make the situation any easier with his "derogatory" and "vulgar" remarks, but he stresses that labeling everyone who supports Trump as racist, for example, is self-defeating. In fact, there may be people who "might be open to reconsidering ways they have done things for years, but who are likely to be put off if they feel smeared before that conversation even takes place." What liberals can do to help stave off a Trump win in 2020, which Alexander thinks is entirely possible: Stop being so self-righteous. "Without sacrificing their principles, liberals can come across as more respectful of others," he writes. "Self-righteousness is rarely attractive, and even more rarely rewarded." Click for Alexander's full column.


http://archive.is/EKe3r#selection-1573.2-1587.1


----------



## CamillePunk

GothicBohemian said:


> The relationship between the US and its allies is worsening and, yes, that does matter over the long term.


Which specific allies? What's the evidence that the relationship is worsening? What are the tangible effects thus far of this worsening?


----------



## Miss Sally

GothicBohemian said:


> This fiasco involving Bolton was predictable. I not happy about what's happening but I'm not suprised by it either.* A large number of Americans believe in American exceptionalism, and that extends to the US having the right to tell every other nation what to do and when to do it without repercussions to themselves.* Most of those people voted for the current American government, one led a man susceptible to manipulation by seasoned political players within his party who happen to be belligerent hawks.
> 
> This is what happens when a political party extends a welcome to groups that don't necessarily share basic common ambitions. The Republicans invited in the extreme right, the religiously-driven conservatives, the hawks and these folks have hijacked the movement away from traditional fiscal conservatism. It's the same phenomenon as Democrats flirting with some of the most stifling social extremes found on college campuses or within groups like third wave feminism. It's a problem everywhere; the Conservative Party in Canada is inviting Quebec separatists into the fold over a common ground of nationalism-based identity politics. Never mind that the PQ separatists want to break up the country and/or impose French on non-francophone regions, the potential votes are more important and long term consequences be damned.
> 
> Anyway, Bolton gonna Bolton. Hopefully the US can avoid becoming an international trade pariah or setting off either disastrous trade wars or WWIII. Good luck, we'll all need it.


A lot of people believe in their own Nation's exceptionalism, else when the Olympics , sports teams, political "sides" win there would be no celebration or boasting. European nations often bemoan how progressive and peaceful they are, Canada tells anyone who will listen about how tolerant and great they are. So this mentality isn't an American thing since we have people constantly telling us Americans how we should behave and what we should/shouldn't do. :grin2:


I do agree Nations shouldn't tell other Nations what to do but that would be like asking people not to be people.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

I'm not one of those WW3 harbinger guys. I do think John Bolton being in anybody in power's ear is a bad thing. That guy would roll troops into any nation on Earth for regime change if he could. How he was able to wash the stink of the Iraq war of of him and get another administration job is beyond me.


----------



## DesolationRow

Ultimately the sitting president providing some support for the U.S. in what have largely been one-sided trade wars as with the Chinese is not going to do anything to isolate the U.S. The more problematic and irrevocable way by which the U.S. would become isolated over time is through the same old predictable story of empires which have become overextended through far too many military commitments, which is why "America First" by way of foreign policy at large is abstractly beneficial toward the U.S. not becoming isolated. The petrodollar is the U.S.'s most indispensable global economic asset, providing the U.S. with the financial durability necessary to keep the dollar where it is with its exclusivity, which is of course as the world's reserve currency. Unfortunately for the U.S., following the astonishing spending on both military and domestic concerns under George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the calendar year 2016 and the first quarter of 2017 saw no fewer than twenty-six nations, representing almost 66% of the world's GDP, establishing major swap lines, enabling them to bypass the U.S. dollar and S.W.I.F.T., or the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. Fissures developed in the final years of the Obama administration in particular, with China, Russia and India essentially all leading the charge toward increasing distrust of U.S. handling of the same post-World War II Bretton Woods agreement-sanctioned _status quo_, and Chinese, Russian, Indian government officials and officials to other governments all solemnly noting in the past two years that they are beginning to look ahead to the time at which point the U.S. dollar no longer enjoys its title as world reserve currency. The Chinese in particular are cagily cornering the market on gold, as Matt Schifrin at Forbes notes, all while commissioning and spearheading the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which many economic and financial analysts rightly see as a burgeoning rival to the World Bank. The United Kingdom and France among other nations, close allies to the U.S., have cozied up to the AIIB.


----------



## Tater

Reap said:


> @Tater; ... Please check in and let us know how you're doing and that everything is ok.
> 
> I know this isn't the thread for it but I'm sure most people in here would like to know too.


This thread has always been a bit of a catch all for topics other than just Trump, so I'm sure our super awesome mods won't mind.

My question is how you knew I was in such bad shape? Was it simply the lack of posts recently? :lol Which, BTW, I very much appreciate you asking.

Actually, I'm in some pretty extreme fucking pain right now. The worst pain I'd experienced in my life before now was when I broke my nose as a teenager and they had to blow up a balloon in my nasal cavity to keep me from bleeding out. I was told by the nurses that patients on both the floors above and below me could hear my screams.

I had a bit of a biking accident and spent last night in the hospital. I've got a few scrapes on my arms and legs and a bump on my head but that is nothing compared to my injured ribs. When they took the X-rays, they said they weren't broken but were extremely bruised. I thought I'd felt pain before from the nose thing, which yeah hurt pretty fucking bad, but this feels like a combination of being hit by a sledgehammer and jabbed with an ice pick every time I breath. 

When I woke up a little while ago and all the painkillers had worn off (BTW, the only way I was able to sleep at all is because I have some xanax), that's now the top of the list of worst pain I've ever experienced. I took a percocet (prescribed by the doctor), an oxy (acquired via other means) and a handful of kratom. Even with all of that in me, my pain levels are still at about 70 percent.

Me trying to be a tough guy told my manager I'd get back to work tomorrow night only taking ibuprofen (can't go to work on narcotics). Well, judging by the pain I'm experiencing right now, I don't think I could work even with the narcotics. It might be weeks before I can actually work again. Luckily for me, I have a very good reputation with my manager and at my job, so I don't think I'll have to worry about any job security issues.

So, yeah, hurting like fucking hell over here right now. Thanks for asking.



Reap said:


> I think I've had another political shift and I feel like embracing the alt-center now :draper2


I've always thought you would feel right at home in the libertarian left area of the spectrum. Maybe one of these days I'll convince you of that.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Tater said:


> This thread has always been a bit of a catch all for topics other than just Trump, so I'm sure our super awesome mods won't mind.
> 
> My question is how you knew I was in such bad shape? Was it simply the lack of posts recently? :lol Which, BTW, I very much appreciate you asking.
> 
> Actually, I'm in some pretty extreme fucking pain right now. The worst pain I'd experienced in my life before now was when I broke my nose as a teenager and they had to blow up a balloon in my nasal cavity to keep me from bleeding out. I was told by the nurses that patients on both the floors above and below me could hear my screams.
> 
> I had a bit of a biking accident and spent last night in the hospital. I've got a few scrapes on my arms and legs and a bump on my head but that is nothing compared to my injured ribs. When they took the X-rays, they said they weren't broken but were extremely bruised. I thought I'd felt pain before from the nose thing, which yeah hurt pretty fucking bad, but this feels like a combination of being hit by a sledgehammer and jabbed with an ice pick every time I breath.
> 
> When I woke up a little while ago and all the painkillers had worn off (BTW, the only way I was able to sleep at all is because I have some xanax), that's now the top of the list of worst pain I've ever experienced. I took a *percocet* (prescribed by the doctor), an *oxy* (acquired via other means) and a handful of *kratom*. Even with all of that in me, my pain levels are still at about 70 percent.
> 
> Me trying to be a tough guy told my manager I'd get back to work tomorrow night only taking ibuprofen (can't go to work on narcotics). Well, judging by the pain I'm experiencing right now, I don't think I could work even with the narcotics. It might be weeks before I can actually work again. Luckily for me, I have a very good reputation with my manager and at my job, so I don't think I'll have to worry about any job security issues.
> 
> So, yeah, hurting like fucking hell over here right now. Thanks for asking.


Fuck that noise, fam. Here's what you really need:










On a serious note, get well soon and good to hear that you're on the mend. :trump



Reap said:


> Still ancap though, but I'm pulling myself out of identity politics entirely. I don't think it achieves anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Bolton is mentally retarded. Completely and totally. His world view is actually and really warped in an extremely dangerous way.


It never does, brah. :lol Shit like identity politics is how fucksticks like the Nazis and Black Lives Matter managed to gain their respective footholds. Meritocracy is the best way forward, since the only color it cares about is green.

:vince$

Agreed 100% on Evil Waldorf, though. The idealist in me thinks he and Pompeo might be shafted in the event the Korean peace treaty is officially a done deal, since their only use was to essentially play the bad cop role toward Little Rocket Man.


----------



## Reaper

I'm glad you're all ok. And Tater hang in there bud. 

I've developed strong feelings for the people in this thread. Ok I know this sounds crazy but I'm like feeling like an old man that comes to hang out with his buddies in a bar .. only that it's online ... And not all of us are drinking... You get the idea.

Ok. I'll stop gushing but this thread has been great over the last two years. I've learnt a lot from all of you and even if we don't all get along I appreciate all y'all. 

Just saying. If we ever lose touch I'll remember this.


----------



## Tater

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Fuck that noise, fam. Here's what you really need:


If only... *sigh*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> On a serious note, get well soon and good to hear that you're on the mend. :trump


Thanks buddy. 

Because of the whole opiod epidemic going on right now, they could only give me 6 percs. The good news is, they printed me out a page to go get more in 2 days. 

As it turns out, doctors still understand just how fucking painful damaged ribs are.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Tater said:


> If only... *sigh*
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks buddy.
> 
> Because of the whole opiod epidemic going on right now, they could only give me 6 percs. The good news is, they printed me out a page to go get more in 2 days.
> 
> As it turns out, doctors still understand just how fucking painful damaged ribs are.


:salute

Is medicinal marijuana illegal in your neck of the woods by any chance? :lenny2


----------



## DOPA

@Tater Fuck man, what you are going through sounds excruciating. I hope you have a good and speedy recovery man. Health comes before everything.


I feel we've always had more in common than differences. We've always been on the same lines in terms of civil liberties, foreign policy and the role of government. And I feel in terms of what has happened with Syria and the Iran deal that is more important now more than ever.

In any event, get well soon buddy  .


----------



## CamillePunk

But "left libertarianism" is still entirely nonsensical


----------



## MrMister

@Tater Those busted ribs and the pain you get is reminding you how lucky you are to not be seriously injured or dead. Stay safe from those pain meds though seriously also hopefully the pain subsides relatively soon. I can only imagine how slow time must move with busted ribs.

You probably hate me for saying not seriously injured, but I mean paralyzed or loss of limb or something permanently debilitating. It's great you have a good relationship with your job so you're gonna be ok. Plus you live in paradise so fuck you.


Oh yeah Reap is clearly a wizard confirmed to know that something was up with you. :lol


----------



## virus21

CamillePunk said:


> But "left libertarianism" is still entirely nonsensical


Just like Anarcho-Communism


----------



## CamillePunk

I assume Reaper was talking about the volcano stuff

Hawaii (or maybe the entire Earth :mark: Supervolcano) gonna be playing some high stakes the floor is lava soon


----------



## Reaper

Nope. I'm psychic :mj 

Srsly tho. Tater had been MIA since before the volcanoes (or since at least before I found out about them) so I was worred that something was up. And yeah, the fissures played up a little on that too. 

I would have just asked on his wall, but I kinda feel like this is now a close-knit group and I'm sure despite all our arguments we share a common bond and it's a brotherhood (and sisterhood).


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> Just like Anarcho-Communism


If everyone agreed with everyone's ideas then the world would be a boring place.


----------



## Tater

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> :salute
> 
> Is medicinal marijuana illegal in your neck of the woods by any chance? :lenny2


IIRC, Hawai'i was one of the first states to legalize medical marijuana. Why we haven't legalized it for recreational purposes probably has something to do with the corporate Dems who run the state. I seem to recall a story last year about a medical marijuana dispensary having a grand opening and not actually having any pot to sell.

I pretty rarely smoke bud now anyways. I prefer kratom. Pot is easy as fuck to get here and the cops don't seem to bother the potheads too much. They're much more concerned with the fucking meth junkies.



DOPA said:


> @Tater Fuck man, what you are going through sounds excruciating. I hope you have a good and speedy recovery man. Health comes before everything.
> 
> 
> I feel we've always had more in common than differences. We've always been on the same lines in terms of civil liberties, foreign policy and the role of government. And I feel in terms of what has happened with Syria and the Iran deal that is more important now more than ever.
> 
> In any event, get well soon buddy  .


Thanks buddy. And yes, we do share a lot of similar views. If you weren't so damned stubborn, we'd have even more in common. 



CamillePunk said:


> But "left libertarianism" is still entirely nonsensical


I'd rather be a nonsensical libertarian leftist than someone who claims to hold strong right libertarian values but ends up slobbering on his knees when an authoritarian strong man comes along.



MrMister said:


> @Tater Those busted ribs and the pain you get is reminding you how lucky you are to not be seriously injured or dead. Stay safe from those pain meds though seriously also hopefully the pain subsides relatively soon. I can only imagine how slow time must move with busted ribs.
> 
> You probably hate me for saying not seriously injured, but I mean paralyzed or loss of limb or something permanently debilitating. It's great you have a good relationship with your job so you're gonna be ok. Plus you live in paradise so fuck you.
> 
> 
> Oh yeah Reap is clearly a wizard confirmed to know that something was up with you. :lol


Ah, yes. I had forgotten all about the volcano. That was probably it. I had my mom texting me because people were asking her about it too. The hot spot doesn't move. It's the tectonic plate that moves. It doesn't go backwards either, so there is pretty much zero chance of one going off on O'ahu. Hell, had no one asked me about it, I wouldn't even have known. The wind was blowing East and I didn't smell any vog.

Nah, I don't hate you. I appreciate the sentiment. I'm not gonna lie... painkillers are a good fucking time. But then the time passes, the pain subsides and you stop taking them. The withdrawals are a bitch for a couple of days but it's nothing I've not dealt with before.

ETA: 



Reap said:


> Nope. I'm psychic :mj
> 
> Srsly tho. Tater had been MIA since before the volcanoes (or since at least before I found out about them) so I was worred that something was up. And yeah, the fissures played up a little on that too.
> 
> I would have just asked on his wall, but I kinda feel like this is now a close-knit group and I'm sure despite all our arguments we share a common bond and it's a brotherhood (and sisterhood).


:nod


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> I'd rather be a nonsensical libertarian leftist than someone who claims to hold strong right libertarian values but ends up slobbering on his knees when an authoritarian strong man comes along.


yeah he's really stepping on my throat with those tax cuts and that deregulation


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> yeah he's really stepping on my throat with those tax cuts and that deregulation












Carneys and rubes, @AryaDark. Carneys and Rubes.


----------



## Dr. Ian Malcolm

I sensed FRIENDSHIP moments were happening in this thread so here is YOUR 2014 WF LadyCroft Memorial Nicest Member Award Winner saying be good to one another. :hb ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ


----------



## Vic Capri

Today's outrage from the haters: President Trump getting shit for calling MS-13 gang members "animals"

:lol

- Vic


----------



## Tater

Dr. Ian Malcolm said:


> I sensed FRIENDSHIP moments were happening in this thread so here is YOUR 2014 WF LadyCroft Memorial Nicest Member Award Winner saying be good to one another. :hb ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ


Yeah, we argue a lot, but it's a community here. The mods are lax as long as we don't devolve into personal attacks and that goes a long ways towards making the political thread at a wrestling forum of all places the best political thread of them all. Many of my good friends here are right wingers. We can yell at each other one day about how retarded the other's ideas are and the next day we can share pot roast recipes. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

Vic Capri said:


> Today's outrage from the haters: President Trump getting shit for calling MS-13 gang members "animals"
> 
> :lol
> 
> - Vic


Going too far calling one of the most ruthless gangs animals. SMH at people. :laugh:


----------



## virus21

Vic Capri said:


> Today's outrage from the haters: President Trump getting shit for calling MS-13 gang members "animals"
> 
> :lol
> 
> - Vic


Of course he does. 



Dr. Ian Malcolm said:


> I sensed FRIENDSHIP moments were happening in this thread so here is YOUR 2014 WF LadyCroft Memorial Nicest Member Award Winner saying be good to one another. :hb ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ


FRIENDSHIP again?


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak

Vic Capri said:


> Today's outrage from the haters: President Trump getting shit for calling MS-13 gang members "animals"
> 
> :lol
> 
> - Vic


:lol I'm neutral on Trump. But can we all agree that the media does a disservice by taking things Trump says out of context? We all know you don't like the man. But you're just making those who don't trust you already distrust you more. 

I feel like specially those who worry Trump will go after the Media. This gives fuel to that fire. As Ben Shapiro said on CNN last year.


----------



## CamillePunk

https://www.mediaite.com/online/cnn...text-to-suggest-he-called-immigrants-animals/

Man they're getting desperate. :lol Surely the "genius" Mueller (who is regularly getting humiliated and smacked down in the courts) will ride in on the white horse soon though!


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Tater said:


> IIRC, Hawai'i was one of the first states to legalize medical marijuana. *Why we haven't legalized it for recreational purposes probably has something to do with the corporate Dems who run the state.* I seem to recall a story last year about a medical marijuana dispensary having a grand opening and not actually having any pot to sell.
> 
> I pretty rarely smoke bud now anyways. I prefer kratom. Pot is easy as fuck to get here and the cops don't seem to bother the potheads too much. They're much more concerned with the fucking meth junkies.


In that case, Tulsi better get her ass in gear and fix that post-haste. Unless, of course, she doesn't mind her potential presidential aspirations being stepped all over like her buddy Bernie's were in 2016.

:trump

Had to look up Kratom because it reminded me of Klaatu Barada Nikto. 8*D It seems to be fairly promising, albeit risky in regard to handling one's usage of opioids, so of course the FDA won't even give it the time of day. :armfold


----------



## Art Vandaley

Tater said:


> IIRC, Hawai'i was one of the first states to legalize medical marijuana. Why we haven't legalized it for recreational purposes probably has something to do with the corporate Dems who run the state. I seem to recall a story last year about a medical marijuana dispensary having a grand opening and not actually having any pot to sell.
> 
> I pretty rarely smoke bud now anyways. I prefer kratom. Pot is easy as fuck to get here and the cops don't seem to bother the potheads too much. They're much more concerned with the fucking meth junkies.


What on earth is Kratom?

Also help you're feeling better soon!


----------



## BruiserKC

Tater said:


> Yeah, we argue a lot, but it's a community here. The mods are lax as long as we don't devolve into personal attacks and that goes a long ways towards making the political thread at a wrestling forum of all places the best political thread of them all. Many of my good friends here are right wingers. We can yell at each other one day about how retarded the other's ideas are and the next day we can share pot roast recipes. :lol


Glad to hear you're on the mend. Broken ribs are no bueno. Prayers to you at this time, sir. 

And I agree, as someone who frequents the right-wing sites of the Internet, this is definitely one of the best places to discuss these issues. And if @Tater and I knew each other IRL, I could picture us yelling at each other regarding our stances on Medicare For All/UHC and then heading to the strip club to make it hail (we are poor mofos so can't afford to make it rain).


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997460075223699462
You want a non-Trumpian government in 2020, don't do this shit and condemn anyone that buys into violent language and rhetoric.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997460075223699462
> You want a non-Trumpian government in 2020, don't do this shit and condemn anyone that buys into violent language and rhetoric.


Yeah the guy really didn't prove any points with that shit-show of aggression that's for sure. Idiots like this guy just further enforce the barriers between the "sides" and ensure that people stay as divided as possible. Sometimes I really do feel like that song "clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right..." SMFH.


----------



## DOPA

So this week, the MSM thought the biggest priority to report on was selective fake outrage regarding Trump's comments on MS-13 calling them "animals" claiming that Trump referred to all immigrants, once again misconstruing what was actually said much like other issues where the MSM have misled or in this case outright lied about a certain policy Trump has undertaken......DACA and the big immigration bill being two classic examples. Meanwhile, *6 Democrats* thought it would be a brilliant idea to confirm the nomination of a known war criminal who partook and lead a torture program and then destroyed the tapes after the fact.

Three Republicans, namely John McCain, Jeff Flake and Rand Paul crossed the aisle to oppose Gina Haspell's nomination but it wasn't enough. How exactly can I be mad at Trump when the MSM and the Democrats not only don't oppose but are complicit in some of Trump's worst decisions? This isn't even a debatable situation. This isn't taxes or healthcare. We are talking about use of torture here which not only is a cruel, inhumane and barbaric act but has been proven in studies to not work. It isn't even close. Yet the Democrats can't even unite to oppose motherfucking torture. They prioritized net neutrality over this for fuck sake.

I'm not mad at the Democrats per say because I don't want them anywhere near power anyway but more so that someone who should be in prison is now the head of the CIA. An institution that has an ungodly amount of power that isn't even held accountable. The Democrats could be wiping the floor with Trump if only they opposed him on a basic level on issues which were political layups. This being one of them. I'm not even surprised at this point but it still amazes me how pathetic this so called opposition party and the so called "resistance" movement are. Both in Washington and in the media.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Yes proposed by Trump, voted up by 45 Republicans and 6 Democrats, and you don't blame Trump, you don't blame the 45 Republicans you blame the entire Democratic party of whom 42 voted against. 

That is a perfectly reasonable stance.



DOPA said:


> How exactly can I be mad at Trump


Because it was his idea....


----------



## Headliner

CamillePunk said:


> https://www.mediaite.com/online/cnn...text-to-suggest-he-called-immigrants-animals/
> 
> Man they're getting desperate. :lol Surely the "genius" Mueller (who is regularly getting humiliated and smacked down in the courts) will ride in on the white horse soon though!


I agree that the media has spun the Trump comments on immigrants out of context, but you(and Trump for that matter) shouldn't be so quick to get excited over that one judge that challenged Mueller in Manafort's Virginia case. A lot of legal experts said he normally ruffs up prosecutors and then ends up ruling in their favor anyway. This judge has yet to rule on whether or not to throw out the charges. Plus the judge in Manafort's Washington D.C case just rejected Manafort's motion to dismiss the charges and ruled in Mueller's favor yesterday. I'm not sure where and how he's "regularly" getting humiliated. That's just not true. 

Even if the Virginia judge surprisingly rules against Mueller and throws out the case against Manafort, Manafort is still screwed. He'll most likely spend the rest of his life in prison if he's convicted of the charges in the Washington case, and if Trump pardons or shortens his sentence, the state Attorney Generals in multiple states could decide to bring state charges against Manafort. Trump cannot pardon state charges. Only governors can. There's a bill in the NY state Congress to make sure this potentially happens.


----------



## DesolationRow

Tater said:


> This thread has always been a bit of a catch all for topics other than just Trump, so I'm sure our super awesome mods won't mind.
> 
> My question is how you knew I was in such bad shape? Was it simply the lack of posts recently? :lol Which, BTW, I very much appreciate you asking.
> 
> Actually, I'm in some pretty extreme fucking pain right now. The worst pain I'd experienced in my life before now was when I broke my nose as a teenager and they had to blow up a balloon in my nasal cavity to keep me from bleeding out. I was told by the nurses that patients on both the floors above and below me could hear my screams.
> 
> I had a bit of a biking accident and spent last night in the hospital. I've got a few scrapes on my arms and legs and a bump on my head but that is nothing compared to my injured ribs. When they took the X-rays, they said they weren't broken but were extremely bruised. I thought I'd felt pain before from the nose thing, which yeah hurt pretty fucking bad, but this feels like a combination of being hit by a sledgehammer and jabbed with an ice pick every time I breath.
> 
> When I woke up a little while ago and all the painkillers had worn off (BTW, the only way I was able to sleep at all is because I have some xanax), that's now the top of the list of worst pain I've ever experienced. I took a percocet (prescribed by the doctor), an oxy (acquired via other means) and a handful of kratom. Even with all of that in me, my pain levels are still at about 70 percent.
> 
> Me trying to be a tough guy told my manager I'd get back to work tomorrow night only taking ibuprofen (can't go to work on narcotics). Well, judging by the pain I'm experiencing right now, I don't think I could work even with the narcotics. It might be weeks before I can actually work again. Luckily for me, I have a very good reputation with my manager and at my job, so I don't think I'll have to worry about any job security issues.
> 
> So, yeah, hurting like fucking hell over here right now. Thanks for asking.


Sounds agonizing. Please take care and heal up safely and promptly!


----------



## Art Vandaley

> He explained the newly elected president asked him if vaccines were a “bad thing” and Mr Trump told him he was exploring forming a commission to look into the “ill effects of vaccines”.
> 
> ..........
> 
> “In fact, he went up and talked to Jen and was being super nice and then 20 minutes later he flew in a helicopter into the same place.
> 
> “Clearly he had been driven away, but he wanted to make a grand entrance in a helicopter.”


https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2018/05/18/bill-gates-mocks-donald-trump-hiv/

I'm not suprised at all that Trump is an anti vaxxer.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

He's still going after Amazon? fpalm

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-pressured-postmaster-general-to-jack-up-shipping-rates-for-amazon-2018-05-18



> *Trump pressured postmaster general to jack up shipping rates for Amazon*
> 
> President Trump personally pressured Postmaster General Megan Brennan to double the charges Amazon and other firms pay to ship packages, a new report said Friday.
> 
> Brennan resisted Trump’s demand, explaining “in multiple conversations” that the rates are set in contracts and that any changes would have to be approved by regulators, the Washington Post reported.
> 
> She also told Trump that the Amazon AMZN, -0.47% relationship was beneficial for the Postal Service and that many other companies also partner with the service for deliveries.
> 
> Despite her arguments, Trump has kept slamming Amazon, which is owned by Jeff Bezos, who also owns the DC paper, whose coverage of Team Trump is often critical — or “fake,” in the words of the president.
> 
> Trump has raged in public and private about Amazon and Bezos.
> 
> Trump claims that Amazon is being subsidized by the Postal Service and has accused the Washington Post of being Amazon’s “chief lobbyist.”
> 
> Some administration officials told the paper that several of Trump’s attacks aimed at Amazon came in response to articles in the Post that he didn’t like.
> 
> Trump has met with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, then-National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and Domestic Policy Council Director Andrew Bremberg to discuss raising Amazon’s rates, the paper reported.
> 
> Trump has slammed Amazon and the Post on social media, briefly driving down Amazon’s stock price.
> 
> And he has stated that he doesn’t believe the information his advisers and Brennan have shared with him about the Postal Service’s contract with Amazon.
> 
> “I am right about Amazon costing the United States Post Office massive amounts of money for being their Delivery Boy,” he tweeted on April 3.
> 
> “Amazon should pay these costs (plus) and not have them bourn [sic] by the American Taxpayer. Many billions of dollars. P.O. leaders don’t have a clue (or do they?)!”
> 
> Still, Postal Service officials insisted they make money off their arrangement with Amazon.
> 
> In January, Postal Service spokesman David Partenheimer wrote an op-ed in The Hill pushing back against calls for it to raise package rates.
> 
> “Some of our competitors in the package delivery space would dearly love for the Postal Service to aggressively raise our rates higher than the marketplace can bear — so they could either charge more themselves or siphon away postal customers,” he wrote.


----------



## Tater

Alkomesh2 said:


> What on earth is Kratom?
> 
> Also help you're feeling better soon!


I'll try to keep the answer short and in layman's terms. Kratom is a plant grown in Southeast Asia and and affects the body in similar ways as opiates but isn't one. There are many different strains and each affect different people in different ways. For many, a smaller dose is more like an upper and higher doses is more like a painkiller. What's most important in this day and age is that it has helped many people break opiate addictions. Like I said, it affects the body in a similar way but it's not actually an opiate with all the problems that go with that kind of hard drug. If you read the reviews of it from customers, you'll find a lot of people with chronic pain who were able to stop using the hard drugs by using kratom instead.

Personally, I take a standard dose in the morning and it affects me basically like drinking a cup of coffee. I sometimes take another dose around lunch time if I am feeling particularly sluggish that day. Green Maeng Da is my strain of choice but I occasionally like some White Sumatra when relaxing at home on a lazy day.

It's not a drug in the sense that you can overdose and die from it. It's a natural plant that is used by some for energy and by others who suffer from chronic pain. And because it affects the opiate receptors in your body, which helps pill junkies get off the hard stuff, the Big Pharma lackeys at the FDA have been trying to come after it recently.

https://purkratom.com/ is where I do my purchasing. Their product is always high quality. The customer service is great and always responds in a prompt manner. I've been a customer of theirs for years and other than the occasional promotional discounts they offer, they've even given me my own personal discount code for when sales are not in effect. For example, they were out of stock of some of their major strains recently and when they came in, they emailed everyone a 3 day long 15% off code. Shipping is always free too.

I'm starting to sound like an ad here. :lol But I assure you, I just have a very high opinion of this source and their product.



BruiserKC said:


> Glad to hear you're on the mend. Broken ribs are no bueno. Prayers to you at this time, sir.
> 
> And I agree, as someone who frequents the right-wing sites of the Internet, this is definitely one of the best places to discuss these issues. And if @Tater and I knew each other IRL, I could picture us yelling at each other regarding our stances on Medicare For All/UHC and then heading to the strip club to make it hail (we are poor mofos so can't afford to make it rain).


You always call yourself far right and that may be true in a sense but your "far right" is a lot closer to the libertarian right than the authoritarian right. We might not line up very much on the left/right scale but we often perfectly align on the libertarian/authoritarian scale.

Also, nah... I don't think there'd be a lot of yelling. Well, at least not about the politics part. There might be a fair amount of hooting and hollering at that other venue though. :lmao



Alkomesh2 said:


> Yes proposed by Trump, voted up by 45 Republicans and 6 Democrats, and you don't blame Trump, you don't blame the 45 Republicans you blame the entire Democratic party of whom 42 voted against.
> 
> That is a perfectly reasonable stance.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was his idea....


Very little of what Trump does is "his idea". He's every bit the puppet of the deep state as Obama, Clinton and the Bushes before him.


----------



## CamillePunk

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/glenn-beck-dons-maga-hat-i-will-vote-for-trump-in-2020

"He broke me". :lol Reminds me of one of my favorite moments from 2016:


----------



## Vic Capri

For 17 months, the haters all whined and bitched and moaned about MUH RUZZIA, now the hackers were from Saudi Arabia? :sk

- Vic


----------



## DOPA

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...siness&utm_medium=social&utm_content=business



> *Sweden’s got a major supply and demand problem.*
> 
> By 2025, its entire workforce is expected to grow by 207,000 people—yet it needs more than that number just to staff its fabled welfare state. The worker shortfall could crimp services and raise labor costs, especially in a political environment less hospitable to immigration.
> 
> The mismatch is one of the biggest headaches facing Sweden’s next government. Past precedents don’t bode well. The workforce rose by 488,000 between 2007 and 2017, with less than a third of that increase absorbed by the public sector.
> 
> Local authorities recruiting 208,000 workers is “not a credible scenario,” said Annika Wallenskog, chief economist at the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. The real risk is that the public and private sectors end up competing for the same workers, she said.
> 
> The government is going to have to come up with some seriously big ideas on how to make up for future labor shortages. Immigration has also become an especially sensitive topic since the country re-imposed border controls in the wake of the 2015 refugee crisis.
> 
> Sweden needs to accelerate the speed of automation, increase employment and reform its welfare state, Wallenskog said. Otherwise “we won’t have enough people to continue working the way we do.”
> 
> *Financial Hurdles*
> 
> There are also financial hurdles. So far, a fast-growing economy has come to the rescue, helping Finance Minister Magdalena Andersson run a budget surplus and slash public debt to its lowest level since 1977.
> 
> But with the economy now expanding at a more traditional clip, whoever governs after the Sept. 9 general election will not be able to ignore the conundrum. Andersson has so far promised 5 billion kronor ($580 million) a year to local authorities, which run welfare services such as schools, hospitals and care centers for the elderly.
> 
> *That is far from enough.*
> 
> Sweden’s population is forecast to grow by 10 percent over the next decade, reaching about 11 million, due mostly to a recent rise in immigration (the Scandinavian nation accepted more asylum seekers than most of its European partners during the 2015 refugee crisis). An aging population and the growing need to integrate foreigners are also piling pressure on its welfare state, widely regarded as one of the world’s most generous.
> 
> Speaking last week at a conference in Gothenburg staged by the opposition Moderate Party, Wallenskog estimated that the central government will need to increase taxes by 0.3 percent of gross domestic product in 2020 (and 0.4 percent in 2021) in order to meet the needs of the welfare state while sticking to the surplus target that governs Swedish budgets.
> 
> In the absence of more generous transfers from the central government, “the risk is quite big that municipalities and regions will raise taxes, with the negative consequences that would have,” said Wallenskog.


Good article. Interesting as well considering this is the model that the progressive base of Democratic party wants the US to adopt.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2018/05/18/bill-gates-mocks-donald-trump-hiv/
> 
> I'm not suprised at all that Trump is an anti vaxxer.


Unfortunately, the new wave of anti-science hysteria has caught pretty much most politicians. 

Bernie believes in ancient "Chinese medicine" where tusks are considered to have magical properties. 

Hillary believed that she had a conversation with Eleanor Roosevelt on the behest of a soothsaying psychic lady. 

I'm sure there's more and most of these people have very harmful beliefs. The post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy is very strong amongst politicians as a whole - which comes out in various public policies. The entire hysteria against DDT meant that many parts of the developing world were denied the ability to destroy malaria etc. 

I mean, they're all idiots from varying non-scientific professions. Of course they're going to believe in stupid things.

Edit: Here's another article talking about government money wasted on "alternative medicine":

https://www.minnpost.com/second-opi...ernment-funding-alternative-medicine-research



> Even if you're not among the 38 percent of Americans who collectively spend $34 billion each year on alternative medical treatments — things like herbal supplements and visits to acupuncturists and massage therapists — you are paying for those treatments in another way: through your tax dollars.
> 
> *Over the past 12 years, some $1.4 billion in government money went to fund the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), a small offshoot of the National Institutes of Health.
> *
> As reporter Trine Tsouderos notes in an excellent series on NCCAM that ran in the Chicago Tribune last weekend, most of that money ($1.2 billion) went to fund research projects — *investigations into whether inhaling lemon and lavender scents helps heal wounds (it doesn't), for example, or whether coffee enemas assist in the treatment of pancreatic cancer (they don't), or whether massage makes people with late-stage cancer feel better (it does).*
> 
> Of course, relatively speaking, we're not talking about a lot of money here. NCCAM's director, Dr. Josephine Briggs, correctly points out to Tsouderos that her agency receives less than half a percent of NIH's total annual budget.
> 
> But, is that money being well spent? Writes Tsouderos:
> 
> *A Tribune examination of hundreds of NCCAM grants, dozens of scientific papers, 12 years of NCCAM documents and advisory council meeting minutes found that the center has spent millions of taxpayer dollars on studies with questionable grounding in science. The cancer treatment involving coffee enemas was based on an idea from the early 1900s, and patients who chose to undergo the risky regimen lived an average of just four months.
> *
> The spending comes as competition for pubic research is fierce and expected to get fiercer, with funding for the NIH expected to plateau and even drop in coming years.
> 
> "Some of these treatments were just distinctly made up out of people's imaginations," said Dr. Wallace Sampson, clinical professor emeritus of medicine at Stanford University.
> 
> "Lots of good science and good scientists are going unfunded," said Dr. David Gorski, a breast cancer researcher at Wayne State University, who has been a vocal critic of NCCAM. "How can we justify wasting money on something like this when there are so many other things that are much more plausible and much more likely to result in real benefit?"
> 
> NCCAM's Briggs disagrees, of course. Alternative treatments also deserve scientific studies, she told Tsouderos. A member of the center's advisory board, a neurologist who received $25 million from the center to study the effect of ginkgo biloba on dementia (no effect found, by the way), puts it a slightly different way: "I don't know who else would do [these studies] other than NCCAM."
> 
> An inherent conflict
> An argument could be made that NCCAM's existence is necessary if only to disprove the mumbo-jumbo out there in the world of alternative medicine. But there are two problems with this argument. First, even when the studies show overwhelmingly that an alternative treatment doesn't work — such as the disastrous study on treating pancreatic cancer with coffee enemas — few minds are changed. Proponents for that treatment tend to either dismiss or ignore the findings. And patients keep right on flocking to the alternative practitioners who offer the treatment, hoping desperately for a cure.
> 
> Then there's the problem of NCCAM's dual loyalties. Its mission, explains Tsouderos, is to "study alternative therapies and how they could be integrated into conventional treatment." That's a mission, however, with an inherent conflict.
> 
> "They are serving two very different masters," University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Art Caplan told Tsouderos. "At the end of the day, they don't want to turn themselves into ‘the institute for showing complementary and alternative medicine is bogus.' Then no one will support them who is pro-complementary and alternative medicine."
> 
> The role of politics
> Politics has played a very big role in NCCAM's existence — and is likely to continue to do so, as illustrated by two examples from Tsouderos' articles:
> 
> The first involves how NCCAM came into existence:
> 
> NCCAM was conceived not by scientists clamoring to study alternative medicine, but by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, a member of the powerful Senate subcommittee that helps oversee the NIH budget.
> 
> In a 1998 speech, Harkin described watching acupuncture and acupressure ease the pain and violent hiccups of a brother dying of thyroid cancer.
> 
> "These are things I have seen with my own eyes," said Harkin, who also lost three other siblings to cancer. "When I see things like this I ask, "Why? Why aren't these things being researched?"
> 
> A few months latter, NCCAM was created through a dozen or so paragraphs added to a budget bill.
> 
> Another troubling anecdote in Tsouderos' series involves the highly controversial study (partly funded but no longer overseen by NCCAM) on chelation therapy as a treatment for coronary artery disease. This study, called the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT), has received $30 million in taxpayer money. Given chelation therapy's dubious scientific underpinnings, its serious side effects, and the questionable actions and qualifications of many of the doctors originally involved in the study (two of the study's consultants were convicted of federal crimes), the question must be asked: Why did the government fund the study?
> 
> "The answer begins with a powerful politician," writes Tsouderos:
> 
> In 1999, Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., held a congressional hearing titled "Cardiovascular Disease: Is the Government Doing More Harm Than Good? EDTA Chelation Therapy."
> 
> An advocate of alternative medicine, Burton wanted to know why NIH wasn't spending more of its taxpayer dollars studying such treatments.
> 
> He brought the director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Dr. Claude Lenfant, before the committee and pressed him to explain why the institute had not yet studied chelation therapy for coronary artery disease.
> 
> Then he asked proponents of chelation therapy to talk about how effective it was and how the therapy had not been given a fair shake.
> 
> One who spoke was Dr. Theodore Rozema, president-elect of the American College for Advancement in Medicine, the largest organization advocating for chelation therapy.
> 
> In 1978, the state Board of Medical Examiners in North Carolina disciplined Rozema's medical license after learning that in 1976 in Massachusetts, Rozema had pleaded guilty to and was convicted of the charge that he "did knowingly, willfully and feloniously extort by the use of force, violence and fear money," according to board records.
> 
> Medical boards in Illinois, South Carolina and Pennsylvania also disciplined his medical license, according to the North Carolina board. Rozema did not respond to requests for comment.
> 
> After Rozema and others spoke, Burton left officials with the NIH and other agencies in charge of medicine with an unambiguous message: "We are going to be hauling them before this committee on a regular basis — they will get sick of seeing my face before this is over — to make sure that we are not blocking something that is going to save lives."
> 
> In 2001, NCCAM and NHLBI issued a joint request for applications for a maximum $30 million federally funded grant to study chelation in people suffering from coronary artery disease. [TACT's principal investigator, cardiologist Gervasio] Lamas submitted an application that passed review by various NIH panels. TACT was a go.
> 
> You can read all the articles in Tsourderos' series, including her explanation of how she researched the story, on the Chicago Tribune website.


Let's be real here. 

Government and alternative "science" have had a LONG fucking history. It's nothing new. And it won't change in the future. 

It's not like we're voting for educated people here and have never voted for educated people.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reap said:


> Unfortunately, the new wave of anti-science hysteria has caught pretty much most politicians.
> 
> Bernie believes in ancient "Chinese medicine" where tusks are considered to have magical properties.
> 
> Hillary believed that she had a conversation with Eleanor Roosevelt on the behest of a soothsaying psychic lady.
> 
> I'm sure there's more and most of these people have very harmful beliefs. The post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy is very strong amongst politicians as a whole - which comes out in various public policies. The entire hysteria against DDT meant that many parts of the developing world were denied the ability to destroy malaria etc.
> 
> I mean, they're all idiots from varying non-scientific professions. Of course they're going to believe in stupid things.
> 
> Edit: Here's another article talking about government money wasted on "alternative medicine":
> 
> https://www.minnpost.com/second-opi...ernment-funding-alternative-medicine-research
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be real here.
> 
> Government and alternative "science" have had a LONG fucking history. It's nothing new. And it won't change in the future.
> 
> It's not like we're voting for educated people here and have never voted for educated people.


We're voting in people who aren't educated to rule us and the people who whine about the stupidest shit and propose the most asinine of ideas are educated..

We're fucked. :laugh:


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/glenn-beck-dons-maga-hat-i-will-vote-for-trump-in-2020
> 
> "He broke me". :lol Reminds me of one of my favorite moments from 2016:


Link is dead for me, what's the deal and what's the pic about?


----------



## MrMister

yeahbaby! said:


> Link is dead for me, what's the deal and what's the pic about?


Glenn Beck got totally upstaged by Trump. Beck was speaking in favor of Ted Cruz and Trump showed up and the crowd shifted to the future 45th President of the United States of America.


----------



## CamillePunk

Republicans have overtaken Democrats in the generic congressional poll for the 2018 midterms: 

http://polling.reuters.com/#!respon.../PD1:1/dates/20170601-20180523/collapsed/true

Quite incredible given how far ahead Democrats were and how so many people were predicting a Democrat landslide, or #BlueWave given how obviously terrible a president Trump has been. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998990430929801216

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998994392907112448
:banderas


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

CamillePunk said:


> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/glenn-beck-dons-maga-hat-i-will-vote-for-trump-in-2020
> 
> "He broke me". :lol Reminds me of one of my favorite moments from 2016:


"Lookin' like Larry Holmes, flabby and sick" :maury

Loved that Tomi Lahren of all people single-handedly scorched The Blaze simply by jumping ship thanks to him effectively throwing her under the bus.



Reap said:


> Unfortunately, the new wave of anti-science hysteria has caught pretty much most politicians.
> 
> Bernie believes in ancient "Chinese medicine" where tusks are considered to have magical properties.
> 
> Hillary believed that she had a conversation with Eleanor Roosevelt on the behest of a soothsaying psychic lady.
> 
> I'm sure there's more and most of these people have very harmful beliefs. The post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy is very strong amongst politicians as a whole - which comes out in various public policies. The entire hysteria against DDT meant that many parts of the developing world were denied the ability to destroy malaria etc.
> 
> I mean, they're all idiots from varying non-scientific professions. Of course they're going to believe in stupid things.
> 
> Edit: Here's another article talking about government money wasted on "alternative medicine":
> 
> https://www.minnpost.com/second-opi...ernment-funding-alternative-medicine-research
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be real here.
> 
> Government and alternative "science" have had a LONG fucking history. It's nothing new. And it won't change in the future.
> 
> It's not like we're voting for educated people here and have never voted for educated people.


Alternative science: "Seems legit."

Alternative facts: "GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE WITH THAT FASCIST PROPAGANDA REEEE!!!"

Hopefully Teflon Don gives that pissant bureau the treatment it truly deserves. addlin


----------



## Reaper

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> "Lookin' like Larry Holmes, flabby and sick" :maury
> 
> Loved that Tomi Lahren of all people single-handedly scorched The Blaze simply by jumping ship thanks to him effectively throwing her under the bus.
> 
> 
> 
> Alternative science: "Seems legit."
> 
> Alternative facts: "GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE WITH THAT FASCIST PROPAGANDA REEEE!!!"
> 
> Hopefully Teflon Don gives that pissant bureau the treatment it truly deserves. addlin


It's just what opponents can hit each other with. But it's hilarious because pseudoscience has a hold on everyone in some way or the other.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Reap said:


> It's just what opponents can hit each other with. But it's hilarious because pseudoscience has a hold on everyone in some way or the other.


Hey now, Aromatherapy is actually legit (albeit only in the Pokemon games :kappa2).


----------



## yeahbaby!

MrMister said:


> Glenn Beck got totally upstaged by Trump. Beck was speaking in favor of Ted Cruz and Trump showed up and the crowd shifted to the future 45th President of the United States of America.


Ironic, since Beck has apparently ditched the bleating media rightie psycho position he can't get arrested in the street. Or perhaps I should say appropriate.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Just been ruled that Trump blocking people on Twitter is unconstitutional.

I love 2018


----------



## Draykorinee

Alkomesh2 said:


> Just been ruled that Trump blocking people on Twitter is unconstitutional.
> 
> I love 2018


Walking through 2018 so far :garrett


----------



## Draykorinee

And trump just pulled out of the summit. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44242558

I can't even be bothered to go back and drag my previous posts about not counting our chickens, I'll just sit smugly over here with the others who said it.



> "You talk about your nuclear capabilities, but ours are so massive and powerful that I pray to God they will never have to be used," he added.


Little hands at it again.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> And trump just pulled out of the summit.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44242558
> 
> I can't even be bothered to go back and drag my previous posts about not counting our chickens, I'll just sit smugly over here with the others who said it.


Wait, you mean he didn't really achieve all that much at all? Colour me SO surprised. I'm sure this is another one of his master strategies that us regular mortals couldn't possibly understand...


----------



## Draykorinee

RavishingRickRules said:


> Wait, you mean he didn't really achieve all that much at all? Colour me SO surprised. I'm sure this is another one of his master strategies that us regular mortals couldn't possibly understand...


I wonder how many of those who gave Trump all this credit will now attack Trump for cocking it up, or like you said, it'll be taken as 4D chess and when/if they eventually do get a meeting it will all be his genius that got them there.

His appointment of Bolton continues to be a disaster for everyone.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> I wonder how many of those who gave Trump all this credit will now attack Trump for cocking it up, or like you said, it'll be taken as 4D chess and when/if they eventually do get a meeting it will all be his genius that got them there.
> 
> His appointment of Bolton continues to be a disaster for everyone.


Most of those who still support him have proven time and time again that they don't really HAVE real opinions other than cosigning everything he does. I don't expect now to be any different in all honesty. :shrug


----------



## Headliner

If Trump never popped so much cocky shit about this meeting, then there would not be a problem with withdrawing/delaying. But since he's been loud, over excited and somewhat arrogant about this, and his supporters pushing for him to get a nobel prize, it makes Trump and his supporters look like ducks and clowns.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Headliner said:


> If Trump never popped so much cocky shit about this meeting, then there would not be a problem with withdrawing/delaying. But since he's been loud, over excited and somewhat arrogant about this, and his supporters pushing for him to get a nobel prize, it makes Trump and his supporters look like ducks and clowns.


In all honesty I can't think of a time since he entered politics that Trump HASN'T been considered a clown by the vast majority of people outside of America :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

> If Trump never popped so much cocky shit about this meeting, then there would not be a problem with withdrawing/delaying. But since he's been loud, over excited and somewhat arrogant about this, and his supporters pushing for him to get a nobel prize, it makes Trump and his supporters look like ducks and clowns.


He got carried away. Unable to block haters on Twitter anymore and cancelling the historic meeting has not been a good week for him.

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

Vic Capri said:


> He got carried away. Unable to block haters on Twitter anymore and cancelling the historic meeting has not been a good week for him.
> 
> - Vic


Why can he not block people on Twitter? lol


----------



## Vic Capri

Another federal judge abusing his power on behalf of butthurt haters on there.

- Vic


----------



## Crasp

Quite transparently, this summit cancellation was just the result of a paranoid and insecure Trump who, sensing that Kim was on the verge of walking away, wanted to get in there first: "_You_ can't break up with me, because _I'm_ breaking up with _you!_". 

We've seen it before with Trump's dismissal of his businiess council when _they_ were all already walking away.

Trump's fragile ego is quite something.


----------



## MrMister

Miss Sally said:


> Why can he not block people on Twitter? lol


A federal judge ruled it unconstitutional.

It's disappointing but not surprising the Korea thing has deteriorated like it has. It always does. Worst case let's hope it remains in this state like it has for decades, ie doesn't escalate toward actual war.


----------



## Miss Sally

Vic Capri said:


> Another federal judge abusing his power on behalf of butthurt haters on there.
> 
> - Vic


It's Twitter... Wouldn't that kind of set in the motion that nobody could block anyone because somehow blocking on social media is blocking free speech?


----------



## samizayn

World politics reading like petty high school drama, awesome.

In all fairness, the sudden goodwill followed by the sudden deterioration of that relationship makes me imagine it was some kind of stunt on NK's part. To what end I have no idea, but it's the only explanation I can think of.


Miss Sally said:


> It's Twitter... Wouldn't that kind of set in the motion that nobody could block anyone because somehow blocking on social media is blocking free speech?


No, the concern is more the fact that he's a public representative. His job is to carry out the will of the people - it is inappropriate that he then prevent them from communicating with him because he personally doesn't agree. Ordinary citizens have no such obligations.


----------



## MrMister

samizayn said:


> In all fairness, the sudden goodwill followed by the sudden deterioration of that relationship makes me imagine it was some kind of stunt on NK's part. To what end I have no idea, but it's the only explanation I can think of.


Yeah this is kind of how NK operates. It's never gotten quite this close to something good for the world, but they've always said let's talk and it's always deteriorated back to how it's been since the war went cold.


----------



## Miss Sally

samizayn said:


> No, the concern is more the fact that he's a public representative. His job is to carry out the will of the people - it is inappropriate that he then prevent them from communicating with him because he personally doesn't agree. Ordinary citizens have no such obligations.


That's bogus, blocking people on Twitter isn't equal to censorship. Twitter isn't the only way to communicate with the President and acting like an ass on Twitter and getting blocked isn't a violation of Free Speech. Him blocking people doesn't ban them from Twitter and most of the people blocked were obnoxious idiots.

Being a Public Representative doesn't mean you have to take abuse or cannot refuse to talk to someone, Politicians do it all the time and last I checked nobody has had their right to speak taken away. :laugh:


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> It's Twitter... Wouldn't that kind of set in the motion that nobody could block anyone because somehow blocking on social media is blocking free speech?


It's because it's used as part of his political role, so it's not setting that in motionn at all.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Miss Sally said:


> That's bogus, blocking people on Twitter isn't equal to censorship. Twitter isn't the only way to communicate with the President and acting like an ass on Twitter and getting blocked isn't a violation of Free Speech. Him blocking people doesn't ban them from Twitter and most of the people blocked were obnoxious idiots.
> 
> Being a Public Representative doesn't mean you have to take abuse or cannot refuse to talk to someone, Politicians do it all the time and last I checked nobody has had their right to speak taken away. :laugh:


From what I read it was ruled unconstitutional for him to block people "for their political views." Not sure about abuse but that's the angle the lawsuit came in with and that the ruling was based on. Basically, Trump can't be a snowflake whenever a liberal/progressive disagrees with him.


----------



## Miss Sally

draykorinee said:


> It's because it's used as part of his political role, so it's not setting that in motionn at all.


Which is it, is it only he that has to follow this rule or do all Politicians?



RavishingRickRules said:


> From what I read it was ruled unconstitutional for him to block people "for their political views." Not sure about abuse but that's the angle the lawsuit came in with and that the ruling was based on. Basically, Trump can't be a snowflake whenever a liberal/progressive disagrees with him.


If that's the case that's not so bad but.. If you're trolling someone and then get blocked and complain you were blocked because of your views.. That seems like it would create more problems. That's just way to vague. If you're making a valid point or critique that's different.


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> Which is it, is it only he that has to follow this rule or do all Politicians?


All politicians who use an official Twitter account as part of their role.

There is a mute function if you don't want to hear someone, but making it so they can't read what you're saying in an official capacity has been deemed unconstitutional.


----------



## Draykorinee

RavishingRickRules said:


> From what I read it was ruled unconstitutional for him to block people "for their political views." Not sure about abuse but that's the angle the lawsuit came in with and that the ruling was based on. Basically, Trump can't be a snowflake whenever a liberal/progressive disagrees with him.


Yeah, the people who were blocked were not abusing him, they brought a law suit because he blocked them for political views.


----------



## CamillePunk

Yawn. Scott Adams predicted at least one walk-away a month ago. The summit doesn't have to happen at the very first proposed date for it to happen. There's not going to be a war. North Korea is still in a terrible position and needs this. Everyone can calm down and let negotiations happen instead of acting like a frightened chihuahua at the first sign of something going amiss.

I think it's more about people hating Trump so much that they (accidentally?) find themselves rooting against America, but that's neither here or there. The headline is everything is fine and nobody is getting nuked, no matter how much the media wants to drive hysteria. :lol


----------



## AlternateDemise

Miss Sally said:


> That's bogus, blocking people on Twitter isn't equal to censorship. Twitter isn't the only way to communicate with the President and acting like an ass on Twitter and getting blocked isn't a violation of Free Speech. Him blocking people doesn't ban them from Twitter and most of the people blocked were obnoxious idiots.
> 
> Being a Public Representative doesn't mean you have to take abuse or cannot refuse to talk to someone, Politicians do it all the time and last I checked nobody has had their right to speak taken away. :laugh:


You are the President of the United States. You are a representative of the people. If you're going to act you represent them, then you shouldn't be blocking them no matter how "obnoxious" they are. I do agree that there are people who actually are obnoxious that he blocks, but it has also been noted that he has blocked people who just disagree with him, and that's where a line needs to be drawn. The courts can't keep track of every person he decides to block. At this point, it's best to just suck it up and take it for what it is. Again, the man is the President of the United States. If he can't handle trolls and people being assholes over twitter, he shouldn't be the countries President.


----------



## CamillePunk

It's not like people who are blocked by him on Twitter can't see his tweets. :lol Just log out. The fact that this is something that is discussed is hilariously stupid. He's not gonna reply or read your tweets anyway. I can't believe people waste their time with such small-minded stuff like this.


----------



## Miss Sally

AlternateDemise said:


> You are the President of the United States. You are a representative of the people. If you're going to act you represent them, then you shouldn't be blocking them no matter how "obnoxious" they are. I do agree that there are people who actually are obnoxious that he blocks, but it has also been noted that he has blocked people who just disagree with him, and that's where a line needs to be drawn. The courts can't keep track of every person he decides to block. At this point, it's best to just suck it up and take it for what it is. Again, the man is the President of the United States. If he can't handle trolls and people being assholes over twitter, he shouldn't be the countries President.


It's Twitter. There's so many ways to be heard in the country. The entire thing is stupid, so now if he quits Twitter, will a law suit be brought up that he's not reading their Tweets so therefore he must be forced to use Twitter?

It's such a stupid and petty thing. :laugh: I get it but doesn't make it any less dumb.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Miss Sally said:


> It's Twitter. There's so many ways to be heard in the country. The entire thing is stupid, so now if he quits Twitter, will a law suit be brought up that he's not reading their Tweets so therefore he must be forced to use Twitter?
> 
> It's such a stupid and petty thing. :laugh: I get it but doesn't make it any less dumb.


You're missing the point. It's not about hearing people's voices. It's the message that's being sent. Trump blocking people on twitter because they don't agree with his views sends a message that he doesn't respect their freedom of speech. If it was any other person then what ever. But it's the President of the United States. He is the person who has to fight day in and day out for the good of the common people. What kind of message do you think he is sending to these people when he blocks them for having a different viewpoint? 

It's not being petty and it's not stupid. It's the court telling Trump he needs to set a better example and be a better representation of the country.



CamillePunk said:


> It's not like people who are blocked by him on Twitter can't see his tweets. :lol Just log out. The fact that this is something that is discussed is hilariously stupid. He's not gonna reply or read your tweets anyway. I can't believe people waste their time with such small-minded stuff like this.


Again, you're completely missing the point. Don't know how something this simple is flying over your head.

Also, huh? 



CamillePunk said:


> He's not gonna reply or read your tweets anyway.


Read this part out loud to yourself.

If Trump isn't reading these tweets, then how does he know who to block? 

This is what happens when you blindly defend someone and refuse to admit their faults.


----------



## Reaper

I literally lolled.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Yawn. Scott Adams predicted at least one walk-away a month ago. The summit doesn't have to happen at the very first proposed date for it to happen. There's not going to be a war. North Korea is still in a terrible position and needs this. Everyone can calm down and let negotiations happen instead of acting like a frightened chihuahua at the first sign of something going amiss.


Summit Announced: Praise Trump! It was his tough talking and negotiation skills created this incredible development!

Summit Falls Apart: Look these things happen with NK, it's not Trump's fault at all.


I'm surprised Trump hasn't hired The Cartoonist to be part of his special counsel since he appears to know everything, even ahead of time.

I'm sure Adams' gave Trump plenty of credit for agreeing to the meeting in the first place and outlined in great detail how his past 4D chess constructed the whole thing - but he was also smart to give himself an out like any good spin doctor. If it the meeting never happens I'm sure Scotty boy will have great reasons as to why it was never due to Trump at all.

Once again, the guy's 'talents' seem wasted, he needs a cabinet position.


----------



## CamillePunk

AlternateDemise said:


> Again, you're completely missing the point. Don't know how something this simple is flying over your head.
> 
> Also, huh?
> 
> Read this part out loud to yourself.
> 
> If Trump isn't reading these tweets, then how does he know who to block?
> 
> This is what happens when you blindly defend someone and refuse to admit their faults.


He receives countless tweets all the time. The chance he's going to see YOUR particular tweet is extremely low. The chance he's going to reply is even lower. 

I don't blindly defend Trump. My list of grievances with him are long, though not as long as they would be with say HRC or Bernie Sanders. I could post about all the stuff I don't like that he's doing but well, I'd be bored of repeating the same stuff I say about every president. I didn't really sit around and moan about Obama and lord knows I hated much of what he did.

I treat politics as entertainment, which is appropriate when we have an entertainer as the president. And he is so damn entertaining. :lol 

Meanwhile North Korea are still down to talk to the US "at any time, any place". Huh, how about that? :lol The good cop bad cop routine continues, the US continues to have all of the leverage (and Trump the savage takes full advantage, as he should) and people continue to set themselves on fire and cry World War 3 at every perceived bump in the road without waiting to see how things play out. I couldn't be more calm or optimistic myself, given who the president is.


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> Summit Announced: Praise Trump! It was his tough talking and negotiation skills created this incredible development!
> 
> Summit Falls Apart: Look these things happen with NK, it's not Trump's fault at all.
> 
> 
> I'm surprised Trump hasn't hired The Cartoonist to be part of his special counsel since he appears to know everything, even ahead of time.
> 
> I'm sure Adams' gave Trump plenty of credit for agreeing to the meeting in the first place and outlined in great detail how his past 4D chess constructed the whole thing - but he was also smart to give himself an out like any good spin doctor. If it the meeting never happens I'm sure Scotty boy will have great reasons as to why it was never due to Trump at all.
> 
> Once again, the guy's 'talents' seem wasted, he needs a cabinet position.


Reportedly, NK officials were "stunned" that :trump canceled the summit. 

And now they have released a statement essentially begging :trump to un-cancel the summit.

They tried a bluff and bluster maneuver as they have before, their bluff got called and their bluster was met with heavily implied threats from the White House. Now they're retreating to a fall-back position of conciliation. 

I'm surprised you aren't keeping up with developments.


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> Reportedly, NK officials were "stunned" that :trump canceled the summit.
> 
> And now they have released a statement essentially begging :trump to un-cancel the summit.
> 
> They tried a bluff and bluster maneuver as they have before, their bluff got called and their bluster was met with heavily implied threats from the White House. Now they're retreating to a fall-back position of conciliation.
> 
> I'm surprised you aren't keeping up with developments.


Trump Spin Team in full effect > Super spin mode activated. 

It team Trump want to take full credit for the meeting when it was announced and ignore any other players in the field, then accept responsibility when it falls apart. Can't have the cake and eat it too.

Trump should've kept to his word like a man, and stick to his guns irrespective of any 'threats' because that's the sort of tough guy he is. See how easy it is to spin the other way?


----------



## CamillePunk

Scott Adams explains the walk-away (which he predicted a month ago) and perfectly illustrates the hypocrisy of Trump's feckless critics throughout this entire process. :lol

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1ZkKzVXjzmLKv

Remember, when Trump was down to talk to North Korea he was a madman legitimizing a dictator. When he "trusted" the North Koreans to disarm and engage in peace talks, he was a gullible fool. Then the North Koreans disarmed, talked some shit, and he rightfully walked away, recognizing correctly that the US has ALL of the leverage and has zero need to tolerate ANY bullshit from North Korea. The Trump critics once again take up a new position, which is that Trump is an ill-tempered madman threatening the world peace they were against him even trying to work towards in the first place. :lol And now? North Korea is begging to talk to the US again. :lol 

Sure, call it spin. :lol Let's see what happens next, and whose filter on reality proves more accurate.


----------



## Draykorinee

The North Koreans disarmed? No they didn't.

These Trumptons are becoming a laughing stock in here.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/999664188250361856


----------



## yeahbaby!

So Trump pulled out of meeting due to NK potential screwiness and safety concerns, which let's face it is understandable due to NK's track record of crazy threats and back and forth promises. 

However even though they are so unpredicable, we can still trust they've disarmed and are slobbering at the feet of Trump.


----------



## CamillePunk

They aren't unpredictable. It doesn't matter if they're slobbering at the feet of Trump or not. We don't need them. They need us.

Obama made a terrible Iran deal because he didn't care about what was good for America or what was good for the world, he only cared about doing something for his own personal legacy. Trump cares about making good deals for our country. We'll either end up with a good deal or we'll end up with no deal, which is just fine for us, and terrible for North Korea. The same people who blasted him for trying to make a good deal are now blasting him for walking away. These are non-serious, fickle, spineless partisan hacks who don't care about our country or world peace, only attacking President Trump.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/999664188250361856


The sad thing is people actually believe Trump achieved the dismantling of the site. Morons.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CP, keep on drinking that kool-aid dude. Tastes Trumpy. 

'We'll end up with a deal or no deal - but it will still be fine for us' - I'm not even sure Huckabee-Sanders could say that with a straight face? It means literally nothing.


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> The sad thing is people actually believe Trump achieved the dismantling of the site. Morons.


Irrelevant. We've still given up nothing. We still have all of the leverage. Sorry if it irks you if people give credit to Trump on something he wasn't responsible for. Welcome to politics. It's a small-minded, partisan point that you're making.


yeahbaby! said:


> CP, keep on drinking that kool-aid dude. Tastes Trumpy.
> 
> 'We'll end up with a deal or no deal - but it will still be fine for us' - I'm not even sure Huckabee-Sanders could say that with a straight face? It means literally nothing.


Why would ending up with no deal, aka returning to the status quo, not be fine for us? It's what everyone expected to be the reality going forward anyway. North Korea are the ones who need the deal, not us.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Irrelevant. We've still given up nothing. We still have all of the leverage. Sorry if it irks you if people give credit to Trump on something he wasn't responsible for. Welcome to politics. It's a small-minded, partisan point that you're making.


Why am I not surprised that actual facts are irrelevant.


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> Why am I not surprised that actual facts are irrelevant.


Perhaps you're learning.


----------



## AlternateDemise

CamillePunk said:


> He receives countless tweets all the time. The chance he's going to see YOUR particular tweet is extremely low. The chance he's going to reply is even lower.


And yet he is apparently finding the time to still block people who have gone on record to say that it was just for disagreeing with Trump's opinion on a matter. 

That's a problem. 

Again, this isn't about whether or not he sees everyone's tweets. The fact of the matter is, he has in fact blocked people for having a different mindset. The fucking PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES has sent a loud and clear message that if you aren't going to share his same mindset, he isn't going to be bothered with having to listen to what you have to say.

That is a serious problem. A very serious problem. 



CamillePunk said:


> I don't blindly defend Trump. My list of grievances with him are long, though not as long as they would be with say HRC or Bernie Sanders. I could post about all the stuff I don't like that he's doing but well, I'd be bored of repeating the same stuff I say about every president. I didn't really sit around and moan about Obama and lord knows I hated much of what he did.


Alright, so name them. Otherwise this is you doing what every other person in this thread does: claiming they do in fact have issues with Trump and then immediately revert back to kissing his ass at every turn. 



CamillePunk said:


> I treat politics as entertainment, which is appropriate when we have an entertainer as the president. And he is so damn entertaining. :lol


And that's a good thing? 



CamillePunk said:


> Meanwhile North Korea are still down to talk to the US "at any time, any place". Huh, how about that? :lol The good cop bad cop routine continues, the US continues to have all of the leverage (and Trump the savage takes full advantage, as he should) and people continue to set themselves on fire and cry World War 3 at every perceived bump in the road without waiting to see how things play out. I couldn't be more calm or optimistic myself, given who the president is.


:mj4 So now you're gonna try changing the subject to something Trump actually does right?


----------



## Vic Capri

I spoke too soon.

https://www.axios.com/north-korea-well-meet-at-any-time-with-trump-a2c04783-dec3-4615-9ad2-d931965b5e78.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

AlternateDemise said:


> Alright, so name them. Otherwise this is you doing what every other person in this thread does: claiming they do in fact have issues with Trump and then immediately revert back to kissing his ass at every turn.


Anything L-DOPA or DesolationRow complain about I likely have a similar opinion on, assuming it's about policy and not some aesthetic concern, like Twitter or some other public comments or statement. He should be stronger on getting the wall done and cracking down on illegal immigration, shouldn't be appointing neocon warhawks to cabinet positions, and shouldn't be bombing Syria. 



> And that's a good thing?


Considering I don't want any government at all, yes it's a good thing to at least be entertained by whoever's in charge. Relatively speaking.


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> Trump Spin Team in full effect > Super spin mode activated.
> 
> It team Trump want to take full credit for the meeting when it was announced and ignore any other players in the field, then accept responsibility when it falls apart. Can't have the cake and eat it too.
> 
> Trump should've kept to his word like a man, and stick to his guns irrespective of any 'threats' because that's the sort of tough guy he is. See how easy it is to spin the other way?


Again, could you please keep up with the times? 

Your entire pathetic spiel is based on information that is no longer up to date and is thus irrelevant. 

www.news.google.com - here, I hope that helps.


----------



## CamillePunk

Sad to read some of those headlines. Liberal journalists actively rooting against our country and against world peace because we have a Republican government and a president they didn't vote for. :no:


----------



## MrMister

Donald Trump said:


> "Everybody plays games. You know that," he told reporters when asked about the ongoing talks. "You know that better than anybody."


I can't stand this guy but I also really like him. I'm so torn.


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> Again, could you please keep up with the times?
> 
> Your entire pathetic spiel is based on information that is no longer up to date and is thus irrelevant.
> 
> www.news.google.com - here, I hope that helps.


I think you're the one continually triggered by people who call out your precious Trump and Number One USA, unlike your amusing signature.


----------



## virus21

> Seizing on a longtime ambition of many Republicans, President Trump on Friday overhauled rules affecting at least two million federal workers, making it easier to fire them and rolling back the workplace role of their unions.
> Mr. Trump, furthering a goal cited in his State of the Union address this year, signed a series of executive orders affecting disciplinary procedures and contract negotiations and limiting the conduct of union business on government time.
> Andrew Bremberg, the head of the White House Domestic Policy Council, said the president was “fulfilling his promise to promote more efficient government by reforming our Civil Service rules.”
> Past administrations of both parties have argued that Civil Service rules are in need of modernization, but Mr. Trump zeroed in on aspects that create sharp partisan divisions. And the action follows growing acrimony between his supporters and the federal bureaucracy that they portray as the deep state.
> Unions representing government workers were quick to denounce the actions. “This is more than union busting — it’s democracy busting,” J. David Cox Sr., national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal employee union, said in a statement. “These executive orders are a direct assault on the legal rights and protections that Congress has specifically guaranteed.”
> The executive orders come after a series of prominent Republican victories against public employee unions in recent years at the state level and a rollback of Obama-era policies favorable to labor at the federal level.
> In the coming weeks, the Supreme Court will rule on a case, propelled by years of conservative philanthropy, that could end mandatory fees for public-sector unions in more than 20 states, dealing a body blow to union coffers.
> The Trump administration portrayed its new rules as a needed remedy to make a sclerotic work force more efficient and responsive, but Newt Gingrich, who has been an informal adviser to the White House on Civil Service issues, has given a different explanation in the past.
> In an interview last year, when the administration was considering action, Mr. Gingrich, a former House speaker, said that a major impetus was the federal bureaucracy’s ideological opposition to the Trump agenda.
> “When you learned that 97 percent of Justice Department donations went to Hillary Clinton, 99 percent of State Department donations went to Hillary, there are some reasons to believe a substantial number of people don’t want Trump to succeed,” Mr. Gingrich said. “Should the elected president of the United States have the ability to control the bureaucracy that actively opposed him?”
> Federal employees’ unions have typically been active on behalf of Democratic presidential nominees. Mr. Cox’s union announced its endorsement of Mrs. Clinton in the 2016 campaign almost a year before the general election and had previously endorsed Barack Obama.
> Mr. Trump signed three executive orders. The first makes it easier to fire and discipline federal employees, which a senior administration official, who declined to be named on a call with reporters, argued had become a much too lengthy and difficult process. The administration said that it frequently took six months to a year to dismiss a poorly performing employee, followed by an appeals period averaging eight months.
> To streamline the process, the official said, the executive order will give poor performers only 30 days to demonstrate improvement, rather than the current limit of up to 120 days, depending on the agency.
> The official said the administration would also make performance a more important factor than seniority when agencies undertake layoffs.
> The second executive order directs federal agencies to renegotiate contracts with unions representing government employees so as to reduce waste. The anonymous administration official expressed hope that, for example, agencies could stop having to pay expenses on both sides when unions undertake appeals on behalf of fired workers.
> Richard Loeb, a senior policy counsel for the American Federation of Government Employees, said appeals were typically handled by union lawyers not paid by the government.
> The administration said it would also post union contracts online so that Americans could review its efforts to negotiate better deals with government workers.
> The third order aims to cut down on “official time,” in which government workers who have roles in the union, like helping colleagues file grievances, are allowed to perform those roles during normal working hours for which they draw their usual salary. (An analogous concept exists for private-sector unions.) The order limits official time to 25 percent of their hours during the year.
> Administration officials said a subset of federal employees had been able to spend as much as 100 percent of their duty hours on union business, and estimated savings of at least $100 million a year once the order is fully in effect.
> Mr. Bremberg, the White House domestic policy official, said the actions would make good on the president’s call to “empower every cabinet secretary with the authority to reward good workers and remove those that undermine the public trust or fail the American people.”
> The executive order making it easier to fire poor-performing workers was an effort to expand on legislation that Congress enacted last year aimed at the Department of Veterans Affairs, which became embroiled in a scandal in 2014 over the extremely long waits that veterans were enduring for health care.
> According to data collected by the American Federation of Government Employees, more than 1,600 workers have been removed under the provisions of the law passed last year, called the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act. Among those removed were over 200 housekeeping aides, nearly 150 nursing assistants and nearly 100 food-service workers — representing three of the top four positions with the most removals.
> Donald F. Kettl, a professor of public policy at the University of Texas at Austin who is based in Washington, said the number of low-level employees removed suggested the department was not using the legislation to make structural reforms that would improve veterans’ access to care.
> “It makes for a great message,” he said, “but is it really going to solve the problem?”
> Conservatives were quick to voice support for the measures. “Today’s announcement shows a move toward accountability for poor performers and unions while increasing workplace equity for all the dedicated and hard-working government employees who have had to pick up the slack for far too long,” said Kent Lassman, president and chief executive of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market advocacy group.
> But Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, said in a statement that if the administration were truly interested in restoring public trust in the federal government, it should rein in the excesses of some of its senior appointees, not politicize the Civil Service.
> “Instead of trying to erode the rights of federal employees and whistle-blowers, the administration should focus on the abuses of cabinet officials taking charter and first-class flights and buying $31,000 dining sets and $43,000 soundproof booths,” Mr. Van Hollen said.
> Union officials questioned the administration’s use of executive action when Congress had previously addressed the issue through legislation, but administration officials said they were on firm legal ground. They conceded only that legislation was preferable because executive orders can be easily undone by a future president, and because legislation can have potentially broader reach.


http://archive.is/Q3bnK#selection-269.0-441.387


----------



## 2 Ton 21

It's probably obvious based on what I've posted ITT that I'm not a Trump fan, but I agree with a lot of what Norm says here. 






Transcript if you don't want to watch the video.



Spoiler: transcript



QUESTION: Comedy in the time of Trump: Is it more difficult than it was when you were on Saturday Night Live?

NORM MACDONALD: It's more difficult in the time of Trump for good comedians, and it’s way easier for bad comedians. You don’t have a worldview by just saying that you don't like Trump, you know what I mean? That doesn’t count. You can’t just say 'I hate Trump' and that makes you a good person. The Democrats can’t just say ‘I hate Trump’ and that means that I have a position. That’s no position.

So, for idiots, it's an easier time because you go 'well that guy's the idiot, not me.' But if you try to do smart comedy it’s better to stay away from Trump...

CTV: He's being caricatured quite mercilessly on Saturday Night Live by Alec Baldwin. Is that funny to you?

NORM MACDONALD: No. The only reason I don't find it funny is when I was there Darrell Hammond did Donald Trump, that shows how long Trump has been there, that was 20 years ago. Darrel did a softer Trump, I think a lot closer to his real self.

The thing is, if you do an impression of someone, you have to like the person, because you're playing the person and people like themselves. So, you can play someone and have contempt for them at the same time, it doesn't work. I don't like the impression, and I have no political affiliation, I just mean on a comedy level.

CTV: Is Donald Trump funny?

NORM MACDONALD: He's enormously funny and entertaining. Normally with politicians, you need to be humble, to be really funny, and I think that’s why Ronald Reagan was the funniest president that I ever saw because he always had this humility to him. And then there was George W. Bush who I also considered very funny, both with calculation and without. You could laugh at him, but with him too.

I was kind of lost with President [Barack] Obama because people told me he was funny, but to me, he was too self-aware of himself and his position in history and all that… And of course, Hillary [Clinton] couldn't have been more strident. People don’t vote on issues as much as they just vote on who they’d rather have a beer with. And nobody wanted to have a beer with Hillary Clinton.

CTV: Would you want to have a beer with Trump? You say to be funny you have to be humble, but I don’t think Donald Trump is very humble, is he?

No. There's no humility to Donald Trump. Donald Trump is more funny in a way that a WWE wrestler is… I’ve had people that I know that went on Celebrity Apprentice and they said that the first thing that he says is that he’s a bigger celebrity than all of the contestants.

He is a different kind of funny, which is a sort of, self-deluded -- well I don’t know that it's self-delusion… I think it’s just all an act. I don’t think really that Trump ever wanted to be president.

I've seen this happen with comedians too, you start thinking that you’re good because the people that come to see you all like you. But, the reason that they came to see you is because they like you. Politicians and comedians both make that mistake of thinking that they’re much better than they are, because they’re never criticized by the people that don’t like them. That's why social media is so good, because you can see the people that don’t like you at all.

I try to not do comedy about Donald Trump… I try to stay away from it because it's low-hanging fruit and also Trump often times is doing self-parody and nothing looks dumber than if you parody self-parody.



I'm sick of Trump jokes. It's the same as with Bush jokes during his time in office. The Will Ferrell stuff was funny and then after him, maybe even toward the end of his run, it was just low hanging fruit. Just easy, easy jokes. Like in the end credits of Anchorman when they said Brick ended up in the Bush White House. If it came out today it'd be the Trump White House and it would seriously date the joke the way the Bush joke did. I was fine with the Trump jokes for awhile, but there's no creativity to it. Everyone is just mining the same tired ground. Find some new angle.

Especially SNL. They now have the formula down pat. Baldwin phones it in. Kate McKinnon plays some male member of his cabinet/legal team. Then Pence walks in for a creepy Christian closeted gay joke. Then there's one or more celebrity cameos as cabinet/legal team/family member. Quick Melania pop in to show their marriage is a sham. Then an applause line to end the sketch. Queue "Live from New York it's Saturday night". Rinse, repeat. Do something new FFS.


----------



## Draykorinee

Yeah, you don't need to make so many jokes about Trump, just let him talk and hell make enough for a week by himself.


----------



## Tater

People still watch SNL? Wow.


----------



## Tater

This is from a month ago and I just now got around to watching it. Look, we all know who and what Alex Jones is, but I gotta say, his reaction to Trump bombing Syria and this discussion here with Tim Black deserves respect. Of course, we all know Alex Jones is batshit crazy but he is on the correct side of some very important issues and for that, he gets some respect from me.

Also, Megyn Kelly the human herpe was :lmao.


----------



## virus21

Tater said:


> People still watch SNL? Wow.


I guess. Don't know why though.


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak

2 Ton 21 said:


> It's probably obvious based on what I've posted ITT that I'm not a Trump fan, but I agree with a lot of what Norm says here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transcript if you don't want to watch the video.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: transcript
> 
> 
> 
> QUESTION: Comedy in the time of Trump: Is it more difficult than it was when you were on Saturday Night Live?
> 
> NORM MACDONALD: It's more difficult in the time of Trump for good comedians, and it’s way easier for bad comedians. You don’t have a worldview by just saying that you don't like Trump, you know what I mean? That doesn’t count. You can’t just say 'I hate Trump' and that makes you a good person. The Democrats can’t just say ‘I hate Trump’ and that means that I have a position. That’s no position.
> 
> So, for idiots, it's an easier time because you go 'well that guy's the idiot, not me.' But if you try to do smart comedy it’s better to stay away from Trump...
> 
> CTV: He's being caricatured quite mercilessly on Saturday Night Live by Alec Baldwin. Is that funny to you?
> 
> NORM MACDONALD: No. The only reason I don't find it funny is when I was there Darrell Hammond did Donald Trump, that shows how long Trump has been there, that was 20 years ago. Darrel did a softer Trump, I think a lot closer to his real self.
> 
> The thing is, if you do an impression of someone, you have to like the person, because you're playing the person and people like themselves. So, you can play someone and have contempt for them at the same time, it doesn't work. I don't like the impression, and I have no political affiliation, I just mean on a comedy level.
> 
> CTV: Is Donald Trump funny?
> 
> NORM MACDONALD: He's enormously funny and entertaining. Normally with politicians, you need to be humble, to be really funny, and I think that’s why Ronald Reagan was the funniest president that I ever saw because he always had this humility to him. And then there was George W. Bush who I also considered very funny, both with calculation and without. You could laugh at him, but with him too.
> 
> I was kind of lost with President [Barack] Obama because people told me he was funny, but to me, he was too self-aware of himself and his position in history and all that… And of course, Hillary [Clinton] couldn't have been more strident. People don’t vote on issues as much as they just vote on who they’d rather have a beer with. And nobody wanted to have a beer with Hillary Clinton.
> 
> CTV: Would you want to have a beer with Trump? You say to be funny you have to be humble, but I don’t think Donald Trump is very humble, is he?
> 
> No. There's no humility to Donald Trump. Donald Trump is more funny in a way that a WWE wrestler is… I’ve had people that I know that went on Celebrity Apprentice and they said that the first thing that he says is that he’s a bigger celebrity than all of the contestants.
> 
> He is a different kind of funny, which is a sort of, self-deluded -- well I don’t know that it's self-delusion… I think it’s just all an act. I don’t think really that Trump ever wanted to be president.
> 
> I've seen this happen with comedians too, you start thinking that you’re good because the people that come to see you all like you. But, the reason that they came to see you is because they like you. Politicians and comedians both make that mistake of thinking that they’re much better than they are, because they’re never criticized by the people that don’t like them. That's why social media is so good, because you can see the people that don’t like you at all.
> 
> I try to not do comedy about Donald Trump… I try to stay away from it because it's low-hanging fruit and also Trump often times is doing self-parody and nothing looks dumber than if you parody self-parody.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sick of Trump jokes. It's the same as with Bush jokes during his time in office. The Will Ferrell stuff was funny and then after him, maybe even toward the end of his run, it was just low hanging fruit. Just easy, easy jokes. Like in the end credits of Anchorman when they said Brick ended up in the Bush White House. If it came out today it'd be the Trump White House and it would seriously date the joke the way the Bush joke did. I was fine with the Trump jokes for awhile, but there's no creativity to it. Everyone is just mining the same tired ground. Find some new angle.
> 
> Especially SNL. They now have the formula down pat. Baldwin phones it in. Kate McKinnon plays some male member of his cabinet/legal team. Then Pence walks in for a creepy Christian closeted gay joke. Then there's one or more celebrity cameos as cabinet/legal team/family member. Quick Melania pop in to show their marriage is a sham. Then an applause line to end the sketch. Queue "Live from New York it's Saturday night". Rinse, repeat. Do something new FFS.


Trump jokes became old as soon as they started for me. I was a big fan of Cracked.com between 2010 and 2016, they started becoming very political in the later part of that time, well compared to the dick jokes they were well known for, I didn't really mind until the 2016 Elections. I don't think there was a single day during that time where they didn't have something relating to Trump. It was bloody annoying!


----------



## CamillePunk

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/27/politics/us-team-north-korea-summit/index.html

Life comes at you fast, CNN. :lol Things with North Korea are just fine. Imagine my surprise. 

All the people who freaked out over a walk-away in a negotiation. :lol Read a book. I have a recommendation. :trump


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

MrMister said:


> I can't stand this guy but I also really like him. I'm so torn.


Relevant:






:trump


----------



## Stephen90

Tater said:


> People still watch SNL? Wow.


Baldwin doing Trump was funny at first but they really beat it into the ground.


----------



## Vic Capri

Bashing Trump every week is the only material they got.

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> I think you're the one continually triggered by people who call out your precious Trump and Number One USA, unlike your amusing signature.


Sorry not sorry you were wrong :draper2

You jumped to a conclusion and aren't man enough to admit you were wrong so you've decided to go down the salt road and cast aspersions :lmao

Sad!


----------



## virus21

Vic Capri said:


> Bashing Trump every week is the only material they got.
> 
> - Vic


No shit. Modern SNL is some of the cringe worthy crap on TV. Even the short Mad TV revival was better than it.


----------



## Tater

There's a lot of people on the right who are upset over Roseanne getting cancelled who think Bill Maher should be cancelled because he compared Trump to an Orangutan.

My response: fuck Bill Maher.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

I feel bad for the cast & crew of her show but really anyone who said what she did should be fired. And I don't think Maher's comment are remotely the same since there is an entirely racial context behind Roseannne's that does not exist with Maher's. That said Maher is an abhorrent human being,if Conservatives got him fired then nothing of value will be lost


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

draykorinee said:


> Yeah, you don't need to make so many jokes about Trump, just let him talk and hell make enough for a week by himself.


Great job on totally reaffirming what Norm just said in that video. :mj4


----------



## Reaper

Calling someone who CHOOSES to be ORANGE an Orangeutan is nowhere near the same as what Roseanne said. This gets worse when you realize that she was talking about someone who is Half-irani and Half-african american. 

C'mon now. 

Rosanne is not the hill the conservatives need to die on.


----------



## Draykorinee

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Great job on totally reaffirming what Norm just said in that video. :mj4


I'm fine with that.


----------



## rosslyn

Reap said:


> Calling someone who CHOOSES to be ORANGE an Orangeutan is nowhere near the same as what Roseanne said. This gets worse when you realize that she was talking about someone who is Half-irani and Half-african american.
> 
> C'mon now.
> 
> Rosanne is not the hill the conservatives need to die on.


Nice pun.


----------



## Vic Capri

> There's a lot of people on the right who are upset over Roseanne getting cancelled who think Bill Maher should be cancelled because he compared Trump to an Orangutan.
> 
> My response: fuck Bill Maher.


Jimmy Kimmel wore blackface, Stephen Colbert did the Nazi salute, Joy Reid made homophobic remarks, and Bill Maher said the N word.

They all kept their jobs. Funny how that works.

- Vic


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

Jimmy Kimmel did Blackface on a lowbrow cable show in the early 00's,Joy Reid made a homophobic post on a blog when the official stance of both parties in 2008 was pretty homophobic.And Stephen Colbert's Nazi salute was literally a satirical jab at the President who had to prodded into his handlers at condemning Nazi's.Even though Kimmel and Reid stuff is gross none of that is comparable to Roseanne's actions,an unequivally hateful racist comment on twitter in 2018 which is in line with other racist things she said in the past.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

draykorinee said:


> I'm fine with that.


----------



## CamillePunk

People saying Roseanne got punished for thinking she could be as racist as Trump when Trump has literally never done or said anything explicitly racist. :banderas


----------



## Stephen90

Tater said:


> There's a lot of people on the right who are upset over Roseanne getting cancelled who think Bill Maher should be cancelled because he compared Trump to an Orangutan.
> 
> My response: fuck Bill Maher.


Would anybody care if Bill Maher got fired? I sure as hell wouldn't. Liberals on Twitter don't care either.


----------



## Dr. Middy

This is good news, I'm all for this one.

http://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/30/trump-signs-right-to-try-legislation-on-experimental-medicines.html



> *Trump signs 'right-to-try' allowing gravely ill patients to bypass FDA for experimental medicines*
> 
> - President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence had been major supporters of the "right-to-try" legislation, which would bypass drug regulators to give gravely ill patients access to experimental medicines.
> - Proponents say this gives patients hope they would not otherwise have.
> - Critics say the legislation undermines the FDA's authority to regulate drugs and could leave patients vulnerable to medicines that might not work or may even be harmful.
> 
> President Donald Trump signed the controversial "right-to-try" bill into law on Wednesday, which bypasses drug regulators to give gravely ill patients access to experimental medicines.
> 
> The legislation allows patients with life-threatening conditions to ask drugmakers for medicines that have cleared some testing but still haven't been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Previously, patients would need to ask the FDA for access to experimental treatments.
> 
> Trump and Vice President Mike Pence had been major supporters of passing the measure, which proponents say gives patients hope they would not otherwise have. Last week the House of Representatives approved the bill, the same version the Senate passed in August.
> 
> It allows certain patients to ask drugmakers for medicines that have passed Phase 1 of the FDA approval process but haven't been approved yet and are still undergoing testing. Patients must have exhausted other options and be unable to participate in a clinical trial. Drugmakers aren't obligated to give patients the requested experimental medicines.
> 
> Critics say the legislation undermines the FDA's authority to regulate drugs and could leave patients vulnerable to medicines that might not work or may even be harmful. The agency already runs an "expanded access" program where seriously ill patients can apply to gain access to experimental treatments.
> 
> Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has said the agency grants 99 percent of these requests. In a statement Wednesday, Gottlieb said the FDA is ready to implement the "right-to-try" legislation.
> 
> "The FDA is dedicated to achieving the goals that Congress set forth in this legislation, so that patients facing terminal conditions have an additional avenue to access promising investigational medicines," he said.
> 
> While signing the bill Wednesday, Trump said he never understood why passing this bill was hard since it can take years for drugs to undergo clinical trials.
> 
> "Right to try. That's such a great name," Trump said. "Some bills, they don't have a good name. Really. But this is such a great name, from the first day I heard it. Right to try. And a lot of the trying is going to be successful. I really believe that. I really believe it."


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> This is good news, I'm all for this one.
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/30/trump-signs-right-to-try-legislation-on-experimental-medicines.html


Is there any confirmation whether this will prevent idiot parents from their "right to try" fucking pseudoscience on their kids?


----------



## Dr. Middy

Reap said:


> Is there any confirmation whether this will prevent idiot parents from their "right to try" fucking pseudoscience on their kids?


I haven't read anything which mentions that, but hopefully there is a clause that maybe has the discretion of a doctor involved. At least this way, if some parents were to be stupid and say banana leaves are the best cure for their 3 year old dying of cancer or something, a doctor could say that would not be the best course of action given research, or something along those lines.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001706901795721216
this documentary looks lit


----------



## yeahbaby!

> "Right to try. That's such a great name," Trump said. "Some bills, they don't have a good name. Really. But this is such a great name, from the first day I heard it. Right to try. And a lot of the trying is going to be successful. I really believe that. I really believe it."


This is really a great point. Some bills just really don't have a good name. I think I'm beginning to see now.


----------



## Draykorinee

yeahbaby! said:


> This is really a great point. Some bills just really don't have a good name. I think I'm beginning to see now.


So all we need for gun legislation changes is a snappy name for the bill?


----------



## Reaper

This actually does have the potential to be dangerous. I read the bill and it takes power away from the FDA with regards to what can be used as an experimental treatment. It does open up terminally ill children to any one who calls himself a doctor. Previously the system was set so that the FDA would determine what was an appropriate experimental treatment or what was not keeping it at least within the realms of conventional science. Nowz who knows. 

FDA was already approving up to 90% of experimental treatments anyways. 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/13/17113690/right-to-try-laws-congress


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001876672424144896


----------



## rosslyn

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001706901795721216
> this documentary looks lit


I think I've never felt so strongly about anything as much as Hillary supporters felt about her loss. I mean the crowd was a bunch of wailing, crying people. And he's clearly shocked and devastated.


----------



## Vic Capri

President Trump pardoned Dinesh D'Souza.

- Vic


----------



## Nolo King

Mentioned it at work that organizations such as Black Lives Matter and influential artists such as Jay Z don't actually want change in chocolate communities, they instead want their brethren to remain oppressed so they can always be seen "activists" fighting the good fight 

It is so ridiculous that a model famous for a porn tape has more sense than groups or pop stars that claim to be in the best interest of their fellow chocolate brethren


----------



## Draykorinee

Nolo King said:


> Mentioned it at work that organizations such as Black Lives Matter and influential artists such as Jay Z don't actually want change in chocolate communities, they instead want their brethren to remain oppressed so they can always be seen "activists" fighting the good fight
> 
> It is so ridiculous that a model famous for a porn tape has more sense than groups or pop stars that claim to be in the best interest of their fellow chocolate brethren


Chocolate Brethren.:westbrook6


----------



## Headliner

Nolo King said:


> Mentioned it at work that organizations such as Black Lives Matter and influential artists such as Jay Z don't actually want change in chocolate communities, they instead want their brethren to remain oppressed so they can always be seen "activists" fighting the good fight
> 
> It is so ridiculous that a model famous for a porn tape has more sense than groups or pop stars that claim to be in the best interest of their fellow chocolate brethren


That's a disgusting post and it's more disgusting that it's coming from a black man. That's borderline cooning. 

Kim doesn't give a fuck about criminal justice reform. She just wants to get that old lady pardoned. Don't fall for the okie doke. 

Where were you when Black Lives Matter activists, civil rights activists and law enforcement discussed criminal justice reform with President Obama at an open forum at the white house? 

Where were you when Rick Ross, Common, Alicia Keys, Wale, J.Cole, Nicki Minaj, Ludacris, DJ Khalad, Chance, Timberland, Pusha T, Janelle Monae, Busta Rhymes and Kendrick Lamar discussed criminal justice reform and My Brother's Keeper (A mentor program Obama started in 2014 to help troubled young boys of color avoid the streets and get in college) with Obama at the white house? 

Side note, fuck Dinesh D'Souza and fuck anyone who thinks his pardon was deserved.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002189835992469504


----------



## DOPA

@Dr. Middy

I was actually going to post that article which I saw today but you beat me to it :lol.

I think there are some reasonable concerns that should be addressed with the bill itself but overall in principle I'm very much in agreement with you as concerns to right to try. Very much in favour.

Traditionally speaking, whilst it is true that the FDA have in the past prevented dangerous drugs from being on the market, there have been many more cases where medical drugs have either been delayed or outright denied entry to the market because the drug itself did not comply with the FDA's strict regulation despite being completely safe to use. In many cases in the past, it has prevented patients from being able to use medication that would been beneficial to them, in some cases life saving. Unfortunately it has been in the best interests of the FDA to at the very least delay the approval of new medicine to go through all the procedural and very extensive testing because as a government agency, the one thing they want to prevent is a large lawsuit coming towards them from a patient who used a drug that was approved but ended up being unsafe. It is an understandable position to take, particularly officials who of course don't want their reputation to be ruined but the large bureaucracy in the past concerning the FDA has had the negative effect of unnecessarily delaying the approval of medicine which should have been available to patients a long time ago.

That's why I'm in support of the 30+ states that have already legislated some form of right to try. There is going to be a concern that the FDA's role has been removed in this latest bill, a concern that any old quack doctor and/or drug company will be able to approve what are supposed to be experimental medicine which may end up being unsafe. Whether that actually happens or whether it's an overreaction remains to be seen.




DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001876672424144896


Reminder that the Trump administration is openly funding and arming groups like this to oppose Russia in the Baltic's. As well as bulking up NATO forces around that area. Those still propagating the claim that Trump is in cahoots with Russia have no fucking idea what they are talking about. 

Here's the article translated, it's rather disturbing to say the least:

https://ukraina.ru/news/20180529/1020407773.html



> In the Ivano-Frankivsk region, Nazis were honored. Contrary to the decommunization law, which, in addition to the communist law, also prohibits Nazi symbols and propaganda
> 
> This on his Facebook page was reported by the head of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee Eduard Dolinsky .
> 
> "On April 29, 2018, in the village of Sivka-Voynilovskaya in the Kalush district, the memorial plaque was ceremoniously opened by Obersturmfiihrer of the 14th SS Division Galichina, born in the village of Lubomir Makarushka. On the archive photo: Lubomir Makarushka during the service, "Dolinsky wrote.
> 
> "April 29, 2018 in the village of Sivka-Voynilovskaya Kalush district solemnly opened the memorial plaque Obersturmfuhrer 14th SS SS Galichina, a native of the village Lubomir Makarushka. On the archive photo: Lubomir Makarushka during the service."
> 
> Dolinsky also published a video report about the inauguration of the memorial plaque on the school building in honor of Obersturmfuhrer SS Division "Galichina" Lubomir Makarushka.
> 
> "We must remember the heroes who gave their lives for our sake," the presenter said at the ceremony.


----------



## Nolo King

Headliner said:


> That's a disgusting post and it's more disgusting that it's coming from a black man. That's borderline cooning.
> 
> Kim doesn't give a fuck about criminal justice reform. She just wants to get that old lady pardoned. Don't fall for the okie doke.
> 
> Where were you when Black Lives Matter activists, civil rights activists and law enforcement discussed criminal justice reform with President Obama at an open forum at the white house?
> 
> Where were you when Rick Ross, Common, Alicia Keys, Wale, J.Cole, Nicki Minaj, Ludacris, DJ Khalad, Chance, Timberland, Pusha T, Janelle Monae, Busta Rhymes and Kendrick Lamar discussed criminal justice reform and My Brother's Keeper (A mentor program Obama started in 2014 to help troubled young boys of color avoid the streets and get in college) with Obama at the white house?


First of all, I don't care what title you have around here, no person has the right to dictate what I'm supposed to believe based on my pigmentation. Should I also start wearing baggy pants and listen to Cardi B? Please inform me how I'm not measuring up to your standard of blackness.. 

This ludicrous idea that someone who doesn't think the same as them isn't a black is what's causing division in the black community. There is no way the community can evolve if differing opinions can't be discussed in a civil manner. Instead of black people being encouraged to see things from a different perspective, they are pressured into believing they must follow a path of victimization and entitlement because of their skin color. I guess instead of looking up to the achievements of brilliant individuals such as Ben Carson, I am supposed to look up to a football player with a goofy 70's afro who's paid millions of dollars by an "oppressive" system?

Okay, these celebrities have spoken to Obama in the past, but there clearly is a lot of work to be done. It speaks volumes that a supposed "white supremacist" such as Trump was willing to even speak to people who will influence the community.

It baffles my mind how anyone can congratulate anyone for not putting their grievances aside for what they claim matters to them. It's all a political game. The worst case scenario is for them to meet with Trump and a solution to come through. All these people have proven is that it is in their best interest to only meet with a political leader they side with. It never had anything to do with making an actual change. 

Don't worry what I do, it doesn't discredit my point. If any of us had the privilege of meeting one of, if not the most powerful men on the planet to discuss an issue that was important to us, it would be a foolish not to follow through.


----------



## Headliner

Nolo King said:


> First of all, I don't care what title you have around here, no person has the right to dictate what I'm supposed to believe based on my pigmentation. Should I also start wearing baggy pants and listen to Cardi B? Please inform me how I'm not measuring up to your standard of blackness.
> 
> This ludicrous idea that someone who doesn't think the same as them isn't a black is what's causing division in the black community. There is no way the community can evolve if differing opinions can't be discussed in a civil manner. Instead of black people being encouraged to see things from a different perspective, they are pressured into believing they must follow a path of victimization and entitlement because of their skin color. I guess instead of looking up to the achievements of brilliant individuals such as Ben Carson, I am supposed to look up to a football player with a goofy 70's afro who's paid millions of dollars by an "oppressive" system?


Borderline cooning is borderline cooning. It's borderline because it's not direct, but it's definitely slick. Slick=borderline. Suggesting that black people who have vocally stood up for black rights, black issues and have given money to black educational causes and communities actually don't care and want to keep people in_ "chocolate communities"_ oppressed is some ignorant shit a black dude would say around a whole bunch of conservative neckbeard reddit trash for shits and giggles. It's not backed by facts at all. All that other stuff you saying is just random rambling. 



> Okay, these celebrities have spoken to Obama in the past, but there clearly is a lot of work to be done. It speaks volumes that a supposed "white supremacist" such as Trump was willing to even speak to people who will influence the community.
> 
> It baffles my mind how anyone can congratulate anyone for not putting their grievances aside for what they claim matters to them. It's all a political game. The worst case scenario is for them to meet with Trump and a solution to come through. All these people have proven is that it is in their best interest to only meet with a political leader they side with. It never had anything to do with making an actual change.


:mj4 If you think Trump gives a damn about criminal justice reform when his Attorney General literally reversed all of the criminal justice reform efforts of Obama/Holder/Lynch and was possibly the worst pick for Attorney General. If Trump really cared about criminal justice reform then there's no way he would have selected Jeff Sessions as his Attorney General regardless of how loyal Sessions was on the campaign.


----------



## Nolo King

Headliner said:


> Borderline cooning is borderline cooning. It's borderline because it's not direct, but it's definitely slick. Slick=borderline. Suggesting that black people who have vocally stood up for black rights, black issues and have given money to black educational causes and communities actually don't care and want to keep people in_ "chocolate communities"_ oppressed is some ignorant shit a black dude would say around a whole bunch of conservative neckbeard reddit trash for shits and giggles. It's not backed by facts at all. All that other stuff you saying is just random rambling.


Buddy, vocally standing up to black rights issues and giving money to communities/causes that represent individuals from a defective culture can only do so much. 

Black Lives Matter and Meek Mill had an opportunity to plead their case with the freaking PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. I'm not sure how you can't see the magnitude of that. 

Had talks gone well, it would have given these causes an ability to implement actual change. So you're siding with parties that decided to let black communities rot for the next six years just to stick it to the "man". I can't be the only one who sees the stupidity in that.



Headliner said:


> :mj4 If you think Trump gives a damn about criminal justice reform when his Attorney General literally reversed all of the criminal justice reform efforts of Obama/Holder/Lynch and was possibly the worst pick for Attorney General. If Trump really cared about criminal justice reform then there's no way he would have selected Jeff Sessions as his Attorney General regardless of how loyal Sessions was on the campaign.


Trump is plagued by deep state politicians who are trying to undermine him at every turn. It's important to have a team that is loyal rather than rely on people who aren't interested in the publics best interest.

I really would like to have a mature discussion with you, but the constant slurs thrown at me and condescending approach you use to respond indicates a lack of maturity. Besides, I wouldn't want to impede your revolutionary work. Nothing builds up the black community more than using racial slurs against people you disagree. One black fist to you!

Take care!


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> President Trump pardoned Dinesh D'Souza.
> 
> - Vic


Of course he would to please the evangelicals.


----------



## Headliner

Nolo King said:


> Buddy, vocally standing up to black rights issues and giving money to communities/causes that represent individuals from a defective culture can only do so much.


Oh now when I mention actual actions to improve conditions and communities, you say it can only do so much when you previously said they were acting like they cared when they really didn't. :mj4 That's clown shit. 



> Black Lives Matter and Meek Mill had an opportunity to plead their case with the freaking PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. I'm not sure how you can't see the magnitude of that.


Did I not mention BLM meeting with Obama? Someone who actually cared and actually implemented criminal justice reform? Fuck meeting with Trump. There's no reason to meet with a man who has demonized black people several times over. They should meet with members of Congress (Republicans more than Democrats) who have current criminal justice reform legislation in the Senate right now. 



> Had talks gone well, it would have given these causes an ability to implement actual change. *So you're siding with parties that decided to let black communities rot for the next six years just to stick it to the "man". I can't be the only one who sees the stupidity in that.*


Who and what are you talking about? That sounds dumb. 




> *Trump is plagued by deep state politicians who are trying to undermine him at every turn. It's important to have a team that is loyal rather than rely on people who aren't interested in the publics best interest.*
> 
> I really would like to have a mature discussion with you, but the constant slurs thrown at me and condescending approach you use to respond indicates a lack of maturity. Besides, I wouldn't want to impede your revolutionary work. Nothing builds up the black community more than using racial slurs against people you disagree. One black fist to you!
> 
> Take care!


:lol :lol I'm done. You sound like Breitbart/Fox News conspiracy theory warriors right now.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Vic Capri said:


> President Trump pardoned Dinesh D'Souza.
> 
> - Vic


My Dad would have loved to have heard that. He was a fan of his movies.


----------



## Nolo King

Headliner said:


> Oh now when I mention actual actions to improve conditions and communities, you say it can only do so much when you previously said they were acting like they cared when they really didn't. :mj4 That's clown shit.


They had discussions with Obama, but the situation is still dire. This isn't a problem you can fix without ongoing discussions... 

You know exactly what I meant, or maybe you don't. I'm not even sure whether it's arrogance or lack of comprehension skills. 




Headliner said:


> Did I not mention BLM meeting with Obama? Someone who actually cared and actually implemented criminal justice reform? Fuck meeting with Trump. There's no reason to meet with a man who has demonized black people several times over. They should meet with members of Congress (Republicans more than Democrats) who have current criminal justice reform legislation in the Senate right now.


How has he demonized black people?

Disrespecting the flag or disturbing the peace has nothing to do with the black experience. It's foolishness..

You have no actual proof of him demonizing black people specifically.



Headliner said:


> Who and what are you talking about? That sounds dumb.


I am stating that by BLM and Meek Mill deciding not to build a rapport with their leader does the chocolate community no favors. 

I'm sure Trump wants to help, but guys like you unfortunately represent a large portion of blacks because you're influenced by hip hop culture and radical groups such as BLM. The black community is so brain washed and are refusing Trump's help. BLM and agencies like them have the black community by the balls. It's sad.

All lives matter! Break from the conditioning!


----------



## Headliner

Nolo King said:


> They had discussions with Obama, but the situation is still dire. This isn't a problem you can fix without ongoing discussions...
> 
> You know exactly what I meant, or maybe you don't. I'm not even sure whether it's arrogance or lack of comprehension skills.


You got caught trying to downplay and now you want to play the you know what I meant card. Yes, I know exactly what you meant. :mj4


> How has he demonized black people?
> 
> Disrespecting the flag or disturbing the peace has nothing to do with the black experience. It's foolishness..
> 
> You have no actual proof of him demonizing black people specifically.


Disrespecting black NFL players who kneel, calling them SOB's, and suggesting they leave the country if they don't like the new rules along with numerous other assaults toward them is absolutely demonizing them. 

Retweeting a graph of fake black crime stats with a black shadowy figure as the picture, then refusing to apologize for it when Bill O'Reilly confronted him about it, is not only a piece of shit thing to do, but also a way of demonizing black people and it allowed his white nationalist fanbase to be emboldened to demonize. 

Taking out an ad in the newspaper calling for the Central Park 5 to get the death penalty, then refusing to apologize to them decades later when the Central Park 5 were proven innocent and continued to claim they were guilty and if it was up to him, they wouldn't be given any money from the state is demonizing. But yet he's quick to pardon Joe Arpaio, a piece of trash with a long history of racial profiling. 



> I am stating that by BLM and Meek Mill deciding not to build a rapport with their leader does the *chocolate community *no favors.


That shit sounds so corny dude. You sound like the only black dude in a group full of white boys that's trying to fit in and get a laugh so you say corny shit like that. 

They built one with the person who actually cared. 



> I'm sure Trump wants to help, but guys like you unfortunately represent a large portion of blacks because you're influenced by hip hop culture and radical groups such as BLM. The black community is so brain washed and are refusing Trump's help. BLM and agencies like them have the black community by the balls. It's sad.
> 
> All lives matter! Break from the conditioning!


:lmao 

@Clique don't even reply. Just look.

Cooning has consequences. You'll learn eventually. Probably not anytime soon, but eventually.


----------



## AlternateDemise

Nolo King said:


> I really would like to have a mature discussion with you, but the constant slurs thrown at me and condescending approach you use to respond indicates a lack of maturity.


You're really going to say this after making this post?



Nolo King said:


> Mentioned it at work that organizations such as Black Lives Matter and influential artists such as Jay Z don't actually want change in chocolate communities


What serious and functioning adult says "chocolate community" without trying to offend African Americans?


----------



## Goku

Learn to stop identifying with your thoughts (via meditation or whatever technique you use). Then you will experience reality as it actually is and stop caring about these tiny illusions of identity, the idea of you belonging to anything.


----------



## Draykorinee

I really hope our government has the balls to put tariffs on us goods, we didn't start the fire.


----------



## Crasp

Nolo trolling hard as usual I see.


----------



## Stipe Tapped

Dinesh D'Souza is about as milquetoast and beyond reproach as any political commentator out there. He was disgracefully treated by the Obama administration.

Funny how the same people who constantly complain about a double standard in law enforcement have no problem with Dinesh being singled out and maliciously targeted on a stupid law just because he wrote a book with the wrong political slant.


----------



## Nolo King

See, the two gentlemen don't even argue the points, they just attack me personally, "play" stupid on some points, and choose to put their focus on obvious jokey comments I made

I've been called a ****, clown and whatever insult they could come up with to mask their fear of the truth 

They you have another posting telling another poster not to post because that poster can't speak on their behalf

This is the radical left in its purest form


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-metals/u-s-hits-eu-canada-and-mexico-with-steel-aluminum-tariffs-idUSKCN1IW1UY



> *U.S. hits EU, Canada and Mexico with steel, aluminum tariffs*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: length
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Thursday said it was moving ahead with tariffs on aluminum and steel imports from Canada, Mexico and the European Union, ending a two-month exemption and potentially setting the stage for a trade war with some of America’s top allies.
> 
> U.S Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told reporters on a telephone briefing that a 25 percent tariff on steel imports and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum imports from the EU, Canada and Mexico would go into effect at midnight (0400 GMT on Friday).
> 
> “We look forward to continued negotiations, both with Canada and Mexico on the one hand, and with the European Commission on the other hand, because there are other issues that we also need to get resolved,” he said.
> 
> Ross offered little detail about what the EU, Canada and Mexico could do to have the tariffs lifted.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-steel-deadline-1.4685242



> *Canada hits back at U.S. with dollar-for-dollar tariffs on steel, aluminum, maple syrup*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: length
> 
> 
> 
> Canada is countering the United States' move to slap punishing tariffs on steel and aluminum imports by imposing dollar-for-dollar tariffs of its own on everything from steel products to maple syrup.
> 
> Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland said Canada is hitting back with duties of up to $16.6 billion on some steel and aluminum products and other goods from the U.S. — including beer kegs, whisky, toilet paper and "hair lacquers."
> 
> She and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made the announcement at a press conference hours after U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross confirmed the United States is following through on its threat to impose tariffs of 25 per cent on imported steel and 10 per cent on imported aluminum, citing national security interests.
> 
> "This is the strongest trade action Canada has taken in the post-war era. This is a very strong response, it is a proportionate response, it is perfectly reciprocal," Freeland told reporters.
> Chrystia Freeland spoke to reporters in Ottawa on Thursday 0:42
> 
> "This is a very strong Canadian action in response to a very bad U.S. decision."
> 
> The government is soliciting public comments on its plans until June 15. The new Canadian tariffs would kick in July 1.
> 
> Trudeau called the Trump administration's national security argument "inconceivable" and called the tariffs "an affront to the Canadians who died" alongside Americans in battle.
> 
> "We will continue to make arguments based on logic and common sense and hope that eventually they will prevail against an administration that doesn't always align itself around those principles," said Trudeau.
> 
> Before today's announcement of Canada's countermeasures, a senior government source with direct knowledge of the talks said the cabinet committee on Canada-U.S. affairs met Thursday morning to discuss an appropriate response, describing its efforts as "finding a sweet spot."
> 
> The source said the challenge was to come up with a response that makes sense and allows Canada to be a "credible country."
> Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland speaks with Power & Politics host Vassy Kapelos about Canada's retaliation against U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum 8:03
> 
> Exports to the United States represent about 45 per cent of Canadian steel production, according to the Canadian Steel Producers Association. Steel is produced in five provinces, but the industry is heavily concentrated in Ontario.
> 
> U.S. President Donald Trump had granted exemptions on the tariffs to his North American Free Trade Agreement allies and the European Union, but those were set to expire June 1.
> 
> During a call with reporters Thursday morning, Ross said Canada's and Mexico's exemptions were linked to the progress of the NAFTA negotiations, which "are taking longer than we had hoped."
> 
> Trudeau revealed Thursday that he had offered to go to Washington last week to work out NAFTA details with the president, indicating final negotiations were close — but backed out when he got a call from Vice-President Mike Pence telling him that a meeting could only happen if Canada accepted a controversial sunset clause.
> 
> The clause would force all three NAFTA countries to proactively agree — every five years — that they will remain in the trade pact. If they failed to agree, the deal would be killed automatically.
> 
> Trudeau called Pence's offer "totally unacceptable."
> 
> *Mexico, EU to retaliate *
> 
> Mexico responded swiftly with tariffs of its own on U.S. exports of pork bellies, grapes, apples and flat steel, the Associated Press reported.
> 
> The EU also announced it would launch a dispute settlement case at the WTO and impose "rebalancing measures."
> 
> "Today is a bad day for world trade. We did everything to avoid this outcome," said EU Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström.
> 
> "The U.S. has sought to use the threat of trade restrictions as leverage to obtain concessions from the EU. This is not the way we do business."
> 
> Ross tried to deflect suggestions the tariffs would damage ongoing NAFTA talks and the upcoming G7 meetings in Quebec.
> In justifying the tariffs in March, Trump invoked a 'national security' reasoning. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)
> 
> "If any of these parties does retaliate, that does not mean that there cannot be continuing negotiations," Ross said.
> 
> "They're not mutually exclusive behaviours."
> 
> But questions about the tariff announcements did loom over the start of the G7 finance ministers' meeting in Whistler, B.C. Thursday.
> 
> Finance Minister Bill Morneau said the G7 representatives — among them, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin — will strive to work together despite the Trump administration's decision.
> 
> "When we face challenges, we can't get through them without talking," said Morneau. "We're not saying there won't be frictions. We're not saying that we won't have strong words. We're not saying we won't be able to send messages. We need to send messages saying that working together is better than working apart."
> 
> Ross did leave some leeway, saying the U.S. could be flexible.
> 
> "We continue to be quite willing, and indeed eager, to have further discussions," Ross said.
> Security reasoning questioned
> 
> Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said the Trudeau Liberals missed an opportunity to write a tariff contingency plan into the last federal budget, but tempered his criticism by insisting that free trade only works when it is "reciprocal."
> 
> "Conservatives believe in free trade but that free trade has to be reciprocal. It has to go both ways for our workers to benefit from it," he said.
> 
> Canada's procurement minister cast doubt on the U.S.'s national security justification.
> 
> "It is very difficult to fathom that there would be a security risk imposed by Canada on the United States," said Public Services and Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough. She was in Ottawa attending Cansec, Canada's largest annual arms show.
> 
> She said the federal government has "contingency plans" in place to absorb the impact of U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum on defence projects.
> 
> Multi-billion-dollar programs to buy new fighter jets and warships are all heavily dependent on the price of steel.
> U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said Canada's and Mexico's steel exemptions were linked to the progress of the NAFTA negotiations, which 'are taking longer than we had hoped.' (Vincent Yu/Associated Press)
> 
> "We prepare for this kind of thing," said the Delta MP. "There is money set aside, whether it be for tariffs or for interest rate fluctuations, so we can proceed with our defence procurement should there be additional costs associated because of tariffs or other unexpected circumstances."
> 
> *'Not the action of a friend'*
> 
> On Wednesday, Trudeau called Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe, all in regions with large steel and aluminum sectors, to talk about the upcoming decision.
> 
> The Prime Minister's Office said they "all agreed to continue to defend the Canadian steel and aluminum industry from unwarranted tariffs and to stand up for the best interests of all Canadian workers and businesses."
> 
> Wynne called Trump a "bully" and urged the federal government to push back.
> 
> "We need to hit Trump where it hurts — in his wallet," the premier — currently fighting to keep her job in Ontario's provincial election — said Thursday. ​"This short-sighted decision is an attack on Ontario's steel industry and its workers. It is not the action of a friend, an ally or economic partner."
> Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer spoke to reporters in Halifax Thursday 0:36
> 
> She also called on her provincial political rivals to come together to speak with one voice.
> Couillard, whose province is the country's largest producer of aluminum, called the tariffs "illogical."
> 
> "It's a bad decision for the Americans. They're increasing manufacturing and defence industry costs," he said in French.
> 
> Morneau announced late Wednesday that the government would bolster its measures to prevent foreign steel and aluminum from being dumped into the North American market, but it appears to have done little to prevent the U.S.'s punitive duties
> 
> Canada's attempt to thwart the tariffs came in concert with its European allies, who were also trying to stop the U.S.
> Both Trudeau and French President Emmanuel Macron made their cases separately to the U.S administration, while other European officials met with their U.S. counterparts in Paris on Thursday.


Great. Trade wars with China, Canada, probably the EU and Mexico. Can't wait for the costs to be passed on to me. fpalm

Been reading reactions of those in industries that use steel (cars, building etc.) and the tariffs are killing them. The price of steel has gone up so much, so quickly that they now can't get a quote for a price that will last more than a day. How the hell are they supposed to plan out a project that starts two months from now without knowing what the price of steel will be 48 hours from now?

I just don't get how these tariffs are going to benefit anyone besides U.S. steel producers. Everyone that uses steel or aluminum is now paying higher and higher prices and farmers have lost a huge amount of business in overseas markets. 

My real concern is that Trump will dig his heels in and just keep going. Bush at least admitted his fuck up and stopped his steel tariffs after a year.


----------



## CamillePunk

Oof this thread got ugly. Let's all rise above racism and identity politics please. Individualism Trumps all.  


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002544705870159876
Wonderful.  

And the NK summit is back on, for the same date. Imagine my surprise! :lol Spin away, my friends.


----------



## deepelemblues

NK summit is back on.

Same date. June 12. :trump said would be a big mistake not to have a meeting. Says he wants it to be the first in a series of meetings. Talked face to face with the former chief of NK's spies for an hour. Trolls the bitch media by saying the Norks sent him a very nice letter then said he hadn't read it yet :lmao 

Talks between US, Chinese, NK, and SK officials to prepare for the summit never stopped, makes me wonder if :trump canceling the meeting was mostly theater from both sides. Both got to demonstrate that they won't be pushed around and the meeting never was actually off except in the media. Which would be hilarious.

Oh and the NYT bends the knee for the very first time in the :trump presidency

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/...olumn-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-newsQ



The NYT said:


> We ran out of words to describe how good the jobs numbers are


:trump3
:heston

Ranting about race traitors is never a good look btw


----------



## Draykorinee

The South Koreans once again keeping things alive.


----------



## DOPA

This fucking idiot extending his already stupid and failing tariffs on to the EU countries as well as Mexico and Canada fpalm.

Just going to make goods in the steel and aluminum industries that more expensive and hurt consumers in the process. Protectionists have no clue how trade works.


----------



## Robbyfude

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001876672424144896


This is normal in countries like Latvia, Estonia and other countries that were forcefully annexed by communism. The SS volunteers from those countries were fighting for their freedom from Stalin.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas

CamillePunk said:


> Oof this thread got ugly. Let's all rise above racism and identity politics please. Individualism Trumps all.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002544705870159876
> Wonderful.
> 
> And the NK summit is back on, for the same date. Imagine my surprise! :lol Spin away, my friends.


Trump and many of his supporters touting the low %,spent the last few years Obama was President talking about how those number were inflated. Mostly heard from them about how many people are out of the laborforce ,or had 30-38ish hour job's and wages not keeping up with cost of living. It's funny though the shoe being on the other foot Partisan's on both sides are kinda switching each other's arguements about the economy.

Politically feel's like a double edged sword for him, whether Hilary or Trump won the economy is kinda overdue for a recession due to markets forces beyond who is President. The more though he tries to own the economy,the more he is gonna eat it in a recession.


----------



## CamillePunk

They've given out the number that includes those who left the work force as well, it's also gone down a lot.  The Trump economy is great. Well above the figures that the doomsayers (including Barack Obama) were saying were impossible, even. The power of persuasion and positive thinking. (Y)


----------



## deepelemblues

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Trump and many of his supporters touting the low %,spent the last few years Obama was President talking about how those number were inflated. Mostly heard from them about how many people are out of the laborforce ,or had 30-38ish hour job's and wages not keeping up with cost of living. It's funny though the shoe being on the other foot Partisan's on both sides are kinda switching each other's arguements about the economy.
> 
> Politically feel's like a double edged sword for him, whether Hilary or Trump won the economy is kinda overdue for a recession due to markets forces beyond who is President. The more though he tries to own the economy,the more he is gonna eat it in a recession.


That other number is 7.6%, the best in forever

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709


----------



## Tater

Gonna be a lot of finger pointing when the inevitable crash happens.


----------



## Vic Capri

A billionaire businessman taking the economy / stock market to its greatest success in the country's history? Imagine that.

- Vic


----------



## skypod

BoFreakinDallas said:


> had 30-38ish hour job's and wages not keeping up with cost of living.



I've seen this amount of hours mentioned other places. Is 35-40 hours not a full time hours bracket? Even when I do bank applications for customers we consider 30 hours full time though I'd argue 35-37 is the sweet spot for affordable living. I can't imagine working more than 37 hours (if I include lunches it goes to about 40ish a week).


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Trade war: Mexico pork tariff threats push Iowa losses to $560 million*


----------



## CamillePunk

Pork is haram anyway, it is known


----------



## deepelemblues

Tater said:


> Gonna be a lot of finger pointing when the inevitable crash happens.


Waiting for the inevitable crash that never comes since 1848 :heyman6

Charlie Brown and the socialist football. Of course it's obvious that Lucy is a capitalist


----------



## Tater

deepelemblues said:


> Waiting for the inevitable crash that never comes since 1848 :heyman6
> 
> Charlie Brown and the socialist football. Of course it's obvious that Lucy is a capitalist


I'd explain it to you but I don't have any crayons. 1929 says hi.


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak

skypod said:


> I've seen this amount of hours mentioned other places. Is 35-40 hours not a full time hours bracket? Even when I do bank applications for customers we consider 30 hours full time though I'd argue 35-37 is the sweet spot for affordable living. I can't imagine working more than 37 hours (if I include lunches it goes to about 40ish a week).


Yeah isn't the average white collar worker doing about 8 hours a day, like 9 to 5. And if they doing a regular 5 days a week that equals 40 (including breaks). :shrug


----------



## Miss Sally

US has enough capped resources and farm land/oil to not need anyone else's crap. I don't know why we just don't use what we have but guess we have use up everyone else's first.

While trade tariffs are a big deal it is true that the US was getting hosed on nearly all it's trade deals. We're the World's largest consumer.. I think at this point it's a game of chicken, does the US continue to get fucked on trade deals and buying everyone else's stuff or does the US throw it's consumer weight around?


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> US has enough capped resources and farm land/oil to not need anyone else's crap. I don't know why we just don't use what we have but guess we have use up everyone else's first.
> 
> While trade tariffs are a big deal it is true that the US was getting hosed on nearly all it's trade deals. We're the World's largest consumer.. I think at this point it's a game of chicken, does the US continue to get fucked on trade deals and buying everyone else's stuff or does the US throw it's consumer weight around?


Big problem. International competition is an incentive for local produces to keep their prices lower. You cut off international competition and engage in protectionism, you incentivise local produces to raise their prices - not maintain prices as is wrongly assumed that they would do after tariffs. 

Something similar happened with Harley Davison recently that invested the money they got from the tax cuts while still firing 800 people. Of course, right wing twitter has turned into crickets after that was announced. They've moved on to other more pressing things .. obviously.


----------



## Reaper

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/finance/c...-factory-and-rewarded-shareholders/ar-AAxDCQo


> *Harley-Davidson took its tax cut, closed a factory, and rewarded shareholders*
> 
> In September 2017, House Speaker Paul Ryan traveled to a Harley-Davidson plant in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, to tout the Republican tax bill, which President Trump would sign later that year. “Tax reform can put American manufacturers and American companies like Harley-Davidson on a much better footing to compete in the global economy and keep jobs here in America,” Ryan told workers and company leaders.
> 
> *Four months later and 500 miles away in Kansas City, Missouri, 800 workers at a Harley-Davidson factory were told they would lose their jobs when the plant closed its doors and shifted operations to a facility in York, Pennsylvania — a net loss of 350 jobs. Workers and union representatives say they didn’t see it coming.
> *
> *Just days later, the company announced a dividend increase and a stock buyback plan to repurchase 15 million of its shares, valued at about $696 million.
> *
> It’s a pattern that’s played out over and over since the tax cuts passed — companies profit, shareholders reap the benefits, and workers get left out. Corporate stock buybacks hit a record $178 billion in the first three months of 2018; average hourly earnings for American workers are up 67 cents over the past year. Harley-Davidson is an American symbol, and President Trump has trotted it out as an example of business success. But as it’s getting its tax cut, it’s outsourcing jobs and paying shareholders.
> 
> It wasn’t just Ryan who made promises to Harley-Davidson. *Trump in February 2017 met with Harley-Davidson executives and union representatives at the White House. He thanked the company for building in America and predicted its operations would grow.*
> 
> “I think you’re going to even expand — I know your business is now doing very well, and there’s a lot of spirit right now in the country that you weren’t having so much in the last number of months that you have right now,” Trump said. He added that impending changes to “taxing policies,” health care, tariffs, and trade would only make things better.
> 
> The tax cut, at least, came through. The Republican tax bill, which slashes the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent, is giving Harley sizable tax savings this year. The company estimates its effective tax rate — the amount it pays — will be 23.5 percent to 25 percent this year, about 10 percentage points lower than it would have been without the tax bill.
> 
> That’s a significant savings: The company makes about $800 million to $1 billion in pre-tax profit, according to Seth Woolf, an analyst at North Coast Research.
> 
> Just over a month after Trump signed the tax cuts into law, the Kansas City closure was announced. Workers found out when they arrived at the plant that morning: They were kept in the hallway, informed that the factory would be shut, and sent home for the rest of the day without pay. The union had no advance warning, saidGreg Tate, a staff representative for the United Steelworkers District 11, which represents about 30 percent of the Harley-Davidson plant’s workers. (Harley-Davidson and the two unions that represent most of its production employees last year terminated their 22-year partnership agreement.)
> 
> “We really never had any belief that they were going to shut the Kansas City facility down,” Tate said. The announcement was “the first anyone found out about it.”
> 
> The company will cut 800 jobs at the Kansas City plant when it closes by the fall of 2019 and says it expects to add 450 full-time, casual, and contractor positions in its York facility — a net loss of 350 jobs.
> 
> The median household income in York is much lower than in Kansas City, and Tate said that hiring a casual workforce there — temporary workers brought in to boost production during peak season — will be easier and cheaper for Harley.
> 
> “This is a decision we did not take lightly,” Harley said in a statement. “The Kansas City plant has been assembling Harley-Davidson motorcycles since 1997, and our employees will leave a great legacy of quality, price, and manufacturing leadership. We are grateful to them and the Kansas City community for their many years of support and their service to our dealers and our riders.”
> 
> Harley-Davidson is also expanding overseas
> Meanwhile, Harley-Davidson is opening up a plant in Thailand, where it plans to start production later this year. (The company also owns and operates facilities in India and Brazil, and it is closing a facility in Australia.) The company says the Thailand plant isn’t meant to outsource jobs but toboost its international business and avoid tax and tariff burdens. Trump’s proposed steel tariffs could pose a threat to Harley and add an estimated $30 million to its costs, and the European Union has threatened to impose a tariff on the company’s motorcycles in retaliation.
> 
> Union leaders, however, have suggested that the Thailand plant opening and the Kansas City plant closing are tied together.
> 
> “Part of my job is being moved to York, but the other part is going to Bangkok,” Richard Pence, a machinist at the Kansas City plant, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel earlier this month when in Washington as part of a meeting between House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and members of the Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which represents about 70 percent of the Harley-Davidson workers being laid off.
> 
> The Kansas City plant closing will cost Harley up to $200 million through 2019, according to Bloomberg’s estimates, and should result in annual savings of $65 million to $75 million after 2020.
> 
> Tate, from the steelworkers union, suggested the tax savings Harley reaped from the GOP bill might have actually freed up the cash for it to go ahead with the US restructuring plan now. “They have the capital now to move Kansas City, to shut it down,” he said. “All of that money really came from the tax cut plan, so it kind of had the opposite effect of what it was supposed to do.”
> 
> Woolf, the analyst, said he wasn’t sure that was the case. “I think what this reflects is that they’re finally coming to grips with the fact that the US market is contracting,” he said. Harley-Davidson has been struggling in recent years — sales have declined as its core demographic, baby boomers, ages and as millennials shy away from big bikes. The decline has been particularly acute in the US: Harley-Davidson’s motorcycle sales declined 8.5 percent in the United States in 2017 and 3.9 percent abroad.
> 
> The tax cuts let Harley reward shareholders
> Meanwhile, since the tax cut, the company is managing to reward shareholders. Just days after revealing the decision to shutter the Kansas City plant, the company announced a dividend increase and a stock buyback plan to repurchase 15 million of its shares, valued at about $696 million.
> 
> 
> On a call discussing the company’s first-quarter results in April, chief financial officer John Olin indicated that shareholder primacy will continue. “Beyond what we invest in the business, we will return and continue to return all excess cash to our shareholders,” he said. The company this year shut the media out of its annual shareholders meeting.
> 
> Harley-Davidson is one of a string of companies to announce major share buybacks since the tax bill was passed in December. Apple in early May said it would buy back $100 billion of its shares. The tech conglomerate Cisco in February said it would put an additional $25 billion toward a stock buyback. Troubled megabank Wells Fargo in January announced about $22 billion in buybacks. Pepsi announced a $15 billion buyback, Amgen and AbbVie $10 billion, and Google’s parent company Alphabet $8.6 billion.
> 
> Harley-Davidson isn’t the only company to shutter a US plant since the tax cuts were passed in December. The same day Kansas City workers found out their plant was closing, about 900 workers at an Electrolux plant in St. Cloud, Minnesota, found out the facility they were working in would be shutting down too. The Swedish home appliance company will consolidate its freezer production in South Carolina, where Joe Baratta, a representative for International Association of Machinists (IAM) Local 623, told me starting wages are lower.
> 
> He described a recent trip to Home Depot. “I see products that we were building here last year that say ‘Made in China’ with the Frigidaire name on it, they’re already in stores,” he said. “It’s a tough pill to swallow to go into every store in town looking at a product and saying, ‘There’s 150 jobs we lost. There’s another 200 jobs we lost.’”
> 
> *Since Harley-Davidson announced its Kansas City plant closure in January, Trump — who made a big deal of saving jobs at a Carrier plant in Indiana in 2016 — hasn’t had anything to say about it, even when asked. IAM President Robert Martinez Jr. sent a letter to the White House asking him to save the Kansas City facility in March.
> 
> “For decades, hard-working Machinists Union members have devoted their lives to making high-quality, American-made products for Harley,” he wrote, later adding, “America’s working men and women deserve better than being thrown out onto the street. Our nation deserves better.”
> 
> An IAM spokesperson said Martinez met with White House trade adviser Peter Navarro on April 11 about the Harley closure, and he promised to follow up with the company’s CEO. The union had not received an official response from the president.*


Givis us tax braakakess .. aarrgh .. we keep amaerican jarbs aarreghh ... 

Fuck them. 

Of course, "Mr Trump has more important things to do than to talk about a single plant" :mj 

Let the excuses roll in. I'm waiting.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> https://www.msn.com/en-ca/finance/c...-factory-and-rewarded-shareholders/ar-AAxDCQo
> 
> 
> Givis us tax braakakess .. aarrgh .. we keep amaerican jarbs aarreghh ...
> 
> Fuck them.
> 
> Of course, "Mr Trump has more important things to do than to talk about a single plant" :mj
> 
> Let the excuses roll in. I'm waiting.


I think that's something a lot of so-called capitalists don't seem to understand about how the system works. Competition is absolutely necessary to maintain a balance between profits and fair prices for the consumer. Monopolies are what ruins it, without competition you're the one with all the power, why wouldn't you gouge people? With healthy trade from all angles the businesses are kept honest by having to compete for the trade and the consumers are kept happy by the businesses having to woo them into being customers. Excellent.

It's another reason I HATE the austerity policies used by the Conservative Party in the UK, it's just antithesis to a good economy to force people to avoid spending because your austerity policies are driving the cost of living so high. It's really not that difficult either, invest in the economy, help people to trade easier and that's more money being spent, more competitors able to carve their own piece of the pie and more money coming into the government to pay for things. Austerity here is causing the opposite, hard as hell to be a small business person and be successful, nobody's spending money, markets are shrinking as the only people able to survive are the huge companies with massive market share (future monopolies,) the economy struggles, no money to fund anything, utter shit. I shudder to think how much we're going into decline post-Brexit with this "right wing" government...


----------



## yeahbaby!

The clip of Trump saying how nice the letter was for the first minute then saying he hasn't even read it was pure, pure gold and the perfect example of Trumpism. I guess you really can have your cake and eat it too.

Reminds me of Guliani 'reviewing previous facts' in relation to the current facts.


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> US has enough capped resources and farm land/oil to not need anyone else's crap. I don't know why we just don't use what we have but guess we have use up everyone else's first.
> 
> While trade tariffs are a big deal it is true that the US was getting hosed on nearly all it's trade deals. We're the World's largest consumer.. I think at this point it's a game of chicken, does the US continue to get fucked on trade deals and buying everyone else's stuff or does the US throw it's consumer weight around?


I didn't expect this small world view from you.


----------



## Tater

Miss Sally said:


> US has enough capped resources and farm land/oil to not need anyone else's crap. I don't know why we just don't use what we have but guess we have use up everyone else's first.
> 
> While trade tariffs are a big deal it is true that the US was getting hosed on nearly all it's trade deals. We're the World's largest consumer.. I think at this point it's a game of chicken, does the US continue to get fucked on trade deals and buying everyone else's stuff or does the US throw it's consumer weight around?


This is more of an open question to start a conversation and less of a statement of opinion but why exactly is it that the USA *needs* to trade with foreign countries?

Allow me to elaborate further. The idea of running a successful country is the ability to meet the needs of it's people. As it is now, trade with foreign countries is a device of capitalism to enrich those at the very top. We don't have goods made in third world countries because we can't do it here. We do it because of capitalism. We do it because paying cents on the dollar to a worker in a poor country, then shipping those good back into the USA provides more wealth for the owner class. If the USA can put it's people to work creating all the food, houses, clothing, etc. and every other good that we need to sustain ourselves as a society, why should we not do that?

Of course, we'd have to completely redefine what the meaning of money is and we'd have to completely restructure society in a way that grants access to all the needed goods for the people living in that society. But if the goal wasn't the enrichment of the few at the expense of the many, there is no reason why the USA could not accomplish this goal. We have the materials and people needed right here in the country to create everything we need as a society. If we wanted to do it, we could.

Then if we wanted to do a little international trading on the side as a bonus, I would see no problem with that, given that we have constructed a completely self-sustaining society at home first. What I don't think we should be doing is creating a globalist society that puts a dependency of the labor and goods of other countries just to sustain our own.


----------



## Miss Sally

draykorinee said:


> I didn't expect this small world view from you.


That's an issue with how the US is handling things, the US wants better trade for itself, everyone else doesn't want to give up the great deal they got because of the cold war. I've stated before that the US should have redid trade after the Soviets fell.

Right now neither side of the debate want to come to a fair consensus. I agree with Tater's thoughts on the subject, just saying the whole trade issue could get ugly, really fast.

As for what I said about capped resources it's accurate. America actually has one of the best positions on the map when it comes to natural resources and location. My guess is that it's the long game that the people at the top are after, exploit everyone else, use them up and then uncap what we have and sell. Issue is that it will fuck everyone but a few businesses and families by the time the resources even get used.


----------



## Laughable Chimp

Tater said:


> This is more of an open question to start a conversation and less of a statement of opinion but why exactly is it that the USA *needs* to trade with foreign countries?


Comparative advantage.

A contemporary example: China’s comparative advantage with the United States is in the form of cheap labor. Chinese workers produce simple consumer goods at a much lower opportunity cost. The United States’ comparative advantage is in specialized, capital-intensive labor. American workers produce sophisticated goods or investment opportunities at lower opportunity costs. Specializing and trading along these lines benefits each.

Got this from Investopedia because I tried coming up with my own example and I couldn't get it to work and I just went fuck it. 


Its opportunity cost and shit but basically, if China specialized on simple consumer goods and the US specialized on more sophisticated goods and then they trade with each other, they both can get more of both types of goods than if they just relied on themselves.

Ok I've just thought of another example. So I'm really good at making scarves. I can like knit 5 in a day and I do it really cheaply. Thing is, I don't need so many scarves. But I do need chairs. Problem is, I'm really bad at making chairs and I have to redo it a lot and it costs me a lot of money to buy all the materials to keep trying again.

So instead, I go to my buddy who's really good at making chairs. He does it quickly, and he does cheaply and efficiently. But he's really shit at making scarves. So I tell him, "hey, why don't I make scarves for the both of us and you make chairs for the both of us, then we'll trade". He agrees and we both get scarves and chairs cheaper and at a larger quantity than if we made both ourselves.

Now take that, imagine its between two countries and you've got the reason for international trade.

Edit: I've realized my example illustrates more of absolute advantage instead of comparative advantage which is good to explain trading people, not so much between countries.


The key thing is the fact that when you go between countries, we are NOT trading because I am better at making scarves and he is better at making chairs, we are trading because with limited resources, I can make way more scarves than chairs and the reverse is true for my buddy. Slight difference, but significant difference.


----------



## Tater

I got a little behind on my political shows recently due to my injuries, so I'm just now seeing this but they used my fucking tweet on WATJ while Jimmy was guest hosting!!!!!!!!!!! Jimmy agreed with my comment and said it made a lot of sense!!!! :mark: :mark: :mark: :mark:

Time mark 25m.







__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977063161768693760


----------



## Reaper

> [PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT ON THIS POST UNLESS YOU HAVE READ IT AND BASTIAT'S PETITION IN FULL]
> 
> Those folks who believe that tariffs--specifically "retaliatory" tariffs--are good should stop what they are doing and read Bastiat's Candlemaker's Petition immediately [http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html].
> 
> In this satirical petition, Bastiat points out that the domestic candle making industry is being harmed by "a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price." This foreign producer is able to supply domestic consumers with free light, which surely costs jobs in the domestic candle making industry, as well as in those industries which depend on the candle making industry.
> 
> The "foreign producer" is of course the Sun, which produces free light for all domestic consumers at the "expense" of the candle making industry. Bastiat's proposesd solution:
> 
> 'We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, ******, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat....
> 
> First, if you shut off as much as possible all access to natural light, and thereby create a need for artificial light, what industry in France will not ultimately be encouraged?
> 
> If France consumes more tallow, there will have to be more cattle and sheep, and, consequently, we shall see an increase in cleared fields, meat, wool, leather, and especially manure, the basis of all agricultural wealth.
> 
> If France consumes more oil, we shall see an expansion in the cultivation of the poppy, the olive, and rapeseed. These rich yet soil-exhausting plants will come at just the right time to enable us to put to profitable use the increased fertility that the breeding of cattle will impart to the land.
> 
> Our moors will be covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of bees will gather from our mountains the perfumed treasures that today waste their fragrance, like the flowers from which they emanate. Thus, there is not one branch of agriculture that would not undergo a great expansion.
> 
> The same holds true of shipping. Thousands of vessels will engage in whaling, and in a short time we shall have a fleet capable of upholding the honour of France and of gratifying the patriotic aspirations of the undersigned petitioners, chandlers, etc.
> 
> But what shall we say of the specialities of Parisian manufacture? Henceforth you will behold gilding, bronze, and crystal in candlesticks, in lamps, in chandeliers, in candelabra sparkling in spacious emporia compared with which those of today are but stalls.
> 
> There is no needy resin-collector on the heights of his sand dunes, no poor miner in the depths of his black pit, who will not receive higher wages and enjoy increased prosperity.
> 
> It needs but a little reflection, gentlemen, to be convinced that there is perhaps not one Frenchman, from the wealthy stockholder of the Anzin Company to the humblest vendor of matches, whose condition would not be improved by the success of our petition.'
> 
> Bastiat brilliantly proves to his reader that even in the event that a foreign producer provides FREE products to domestic consumers, taking measures to prohibit or tax these products only hurts domestic consumers. By attempting to retaliate against "the ruinous competition of a rival," a nation only hurts its own citizens. Yes, these measure can create employment in a single sector of the economy (in this case: the candle making industry). However, these jobs come at the end of the consumer and always end up making society poorer.
> 
> Bastiat concludes his piece by demanding that the reader accept the full logic of their views on tariffs, namely that banning (or limiting through a tariff) foreign products to promote domestic production is akin to blocking out the sun to promote the domestic candle industry:
> 
> "The question, and we pose it formally, is whether what you desire for [the country] is the benefit of consumption free of charge or the alleged advantages of onerous production. Make your choice, but be logical; for as long as you ban, as you do, foreign coal, iron, wheat, and textiles, in proportion as their price approaches zero, how inconsistent it would be to admit the light of the sun, whose price is zero all day long!"


:clap



Tater said:


> Gonna be a lot of finger pointing when the inevitable crash happens.


Well ... Good thing I have my own home now and Florida is a home steady state. 

There was a REALLY great cartoon I recently saw about how Capitalists have whined over the years over every new policy change/regulation and yet they are consistently getting richer and richer .. So at this point I'm shook once again. I can't help but always come back to the middle ground.

-----


----------



## Tater

Reap said:


> Well ... Good thing I have my own home now and Florida is a home steady state.
> 
> There was a REALLY great cartoon I recently saw about how Capitalists have whined over the years over every new policy change/regulation and yet they are consistently getting richer and richer .. So at this point I'm shook once again. I can't help but always come back to the middle ground.


You'd lost your mind for a bit there, buddy. But I've witnessed your return to sanity. That's why we're back on the communicado page again.

ositivity


----------



## Reaper

Tater said:


> You'd lost your mind for a bit there, buddy. But I've witnessed your return to sanity. That's why we're back on the communicado page again.
> 
> ositivity


:Shrug 

I'm a pendulum that swings back and forth. But that's ok. My views are generally more complex than I project because I have other motivations at times. 

At the end of the day, if you really want to know, I'm here for the social interaction. 

All I _really_ care about is that we're on a giant ball in a massive universe that's dying where all we really care about is our personal comfort and one day we will die


----------



## Draykorinee

I'm joining the middle ground more and more every day. Not because I care what you knobheads think about me but because most of you make some sense with what you say.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

I never left the middle ground, have you seen the crazy bastards to either side of it? Fuck that shit.


----------



## virus21

Oh Bill, this was not a good thing to say for your brand



> President Bill Clinton sat down on CBS "This Morning" today along side his new co-author, James Patterson, to discuss their new thriller The President Is Missing. The story involves a president facing impeachment, which led to President Clinton giving his current opinion on the medi and his view on the ongoing Russian Investigation conducted by special counsel Robert Mueller. Mo Rocca asked point blank, "Do you think that the press has been fair to President Trump?"
> "I think they have tried by and large to cover this investigation based on the facts," Mr. Clinton said. "I think if the roles were reversed – now, this is me just talking, but it's based on my experience! – I think if it were a Democratic president, and these facts were present, most people I know in Washington believe impeachment hearings would have begun already," the 42nd president replied.
> "If there were a Democrat in power right now?" Rocca asked his guests
> "Yes. And most people I know believe that the press would have been that hard, or harder. But these are serious issues," Clinton added.
> Rocca then asked, "You hear from Trump supporters who say, 'You know, the press slobbered all over President Obama, he could do no wrong. And now this guy can do no right. What gives, that there's a kind of whiplash?'"
> "Well, they did treat him differently than other Democrats and Republicans," Mr. Clinton replied. "That was the political press."
> When asked to explain why the media favored Obama, Clinton said, "You know, I don't know. They liked him, and they liked having the first African-American president. And he was a good president, I think. I don't agree with President Trump's assessment of his service." (Emphasis added)
> This is not the first time that President Clinton has noted the mainstream media's biased news coverage of Barack Obama. In the 2008 presidential primaries, Clinton called then Senator Obama's presidential campaign a "fairy tale." Clinton criticized the press for never taking Obama to task for saying he had better judgement than Hillary Clinton because Obama was the only one against the Iraq war from the beginning. This was not true.
> "Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen,” Clinton can be seen saying in the following clip.
> “I pointed out that he had never been asked about his statement in 2004 that he didn’t know how he would have voted on the war resolution,” Bill Clinton said the days after his remarks. “It disproves the argument that he was always against it and everybody else was wrong and he was right. I said ‘So that story is a fairy tale,’ and that doesn’t have anything to do with my respect for him.”


http://archive.is/RSIW9#selection-1451.0-1557.392


----------



## Vic Capri

> Oh Bill, this was not a good thing to say for your brand


Remember when Obama was impeached? Oh, wait...

- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

Vic Capri said:


> Remember when Obama was impeached? Oh, wait...
> 
> - Vic


Sorry why would Obama be impeached?


----------



## Reaper

> *Trump's Proposed Auto Tariffs Would Throw US Automakers and Workers Under the Bus
> *
> President Trump is reportedly considering raising US duties to 25 percent on all imports of automobiles—including SUVs, vans, and trucks—and auto parts, invoking the same national security law recently used to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum. A new PIIE analysis shows that if he did this, production in these industries would fall 1.5 percent and cause 195,000 US workers to lose their jobs over a 1- to 3-year period or possibly longer. The US auto and parts industries would shed 1.9 percent of their labor force.1 The analysis assumes there would be no exemptions for any country (or even for North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] partners, as in the steel and aluminum cases). The potential trade action would affect more than $200 billion in US imports.
> 
> If other countries retaliate in-kind with tariffs on the same products, production would fall 4 percent, 624,000 US jobs would be lost, and 5 percent of the workforce in the auto and parts industries would be displaced (table 1). This second scenario would also hurt US exports of these products more than imports. The aggregate effects on the US economy in either scenario would be small.
> 
> The Department of Commerce initiated a national security investigation on auto and parts products on May 23. Findings and recommendations are due by mid-February 2019 but could be issued much sooner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both scenarios demonstrate how reliant the domestic industries are on imported parts, or intermediate inputs, that are not produced in the United States or that have no easy US-made substitute. Tariffs would raise the cost of these parts and domestic production, which makes products more expensive to consumers and lowers demand for them in the United States and abroad. Consumers could expect to see prices rise for both imported and domestically produced vehicles. Companies would have to decide how much of the additional costs should be passed along to consumers or if they will reduce profits and absorb additional costs.
> 
> It is possible that some automakers may shift production locations to the United States to avoid tariffs. However, such relocation decisions would have to factor in the costs of broken supply chains, investment uncertainties in light of the administration's trade policies thus far, and less demand for products due to higher prices.
> 
> _NOTE
> _1. The 195,000 and 624,000 figures are how many workers would become unemployed in the national economy because of macroeconomic adjustment to the shock. The percent change of employment in the auto and part industries are displaced workers who may find other jobs or be unemployed—the economic model cannot tell which.


https://piie.com/blogs/trade-invest...ed-auto-tariffs-would-throw-us-automakers-and


----------



## RavishingRickRules

OUCH ^ that is not a good look for a supposed "Make <insert country> Great Again" platform politician. That's gonna hurt an awful lot of people if that calculation is right.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> OUCH ^ that is not a good look for a supposed "Make <insert country> Great Again" platform politician. That's gonna hurt an awful lot of people if that calculation is right.


I believe they were right about their prediction that aluminum tariffs would be counter-productive and they have been as local manufacturers used the tariffs to raise their own prices.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> I believe they were right about their prediction that aluminum tariffs would be counter-productive and they have been as local manufacturers used the tariffs to raise their own prices.


I feel extremely bad for the hard-working people in these industries. See this was always my biggest issue with Trump, it had nothing to do with him being "the next Hitler" or anything idiotic like that, it had everything to do with the man being an utter incompetent buffoon. The problem with piss-poor useless politicians is that the working class suffer the most. Everybody's so worried about the middle class they forget that the middle class is a comfortable class, the working class is always the one getting the brunt of all of the idiotic crap politicians pull because they don't have the skills necessary to actually perform their jobs.


----------



## deepelemblues

What happened to the right-wing circle jerk eh :draper2

If only BM would come back, it would bring a tear to his eye :drose

Also :heyman6 at believing any of these analyses, whether they predict glorious revival of American industry via tariffs, or ruinous desolation via tariffs

They're all based on assumptions stacked atop each other like a jenga tower 20 turns in


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> What happened to the right-wing circle jerk eh :draper2


Most of them realised Trump was a fraudster, you're one of the last of your kind.


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> Most of them realised Trump was a fraudster, you're one of the last of your kind.


I prefer to look at results instead of hot air :draper2

And looking at the results, :trump is essentially indistinguishable from every other post-ww2 president and he makes the right people tear their shirts and hair

Like you

You just had to turn a little light hearted joshing, even a bit self deprecating and ironic in a sense, into something churlish and not fun

:trump helped make you this way

So at the end of the day he's still :trump3


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> I prefer to look at results instead of hot air :draper2
> 
> And looking at the results, :trump is essentially indistinguishable from every other post-ww2 president and he makes the right people tear their shirts and hair
> 
> Like you
> 
> You just had to turn a little light hearted joshing, even a bit self deprecating and ironic in a sense, *into something churlish and not fun*
> 
> :trump helped make you this way
> 
> So at the end of the day he's still :trump3


Incorrect. It was fun and the majority would agree with me. All your :trump things can't change that.

My shirts are flawless and my hair is styled with just the right level of panache


----------



## BruiserKC

Tater said:


> You'd lost your mind for a bit there, buddy. But I've witnessed your return to sanity. That's why we're back on the communicado page again.
> 
> ositivity





Reap said:


> :Shrug
> 
> I'm a pendulum that swings back and forth. But that's ok. My views are generally more complex than I project because I have other motivations at times.
> 
> At the end of the day, if you really want to know, I'm here for the social interaction.
> 
> All I _really_ care about is that we're on a giant ball in a massive universe that's dying where all we really care about is our personal comfort and one day we will die





draykorinee said:


> I'm joining the middle ground more and more every day. Not because I care what you knobheads think about me but because most of you make some sense with what you say.





RavishingRickRules said:


> I never left the middle ground, have you seen the crazy bastards to either side of it? Fuck that shit.


Not all of us on the fringes are crazy.  

Trump throws shit out there on a regular basis just to see what sticks. He has no consistent principles or moral base on which to lay a foundation. As a result, he keeps shooting himself in the foot when he does get a leg up. He can't help himself. Look at the tariffs issue. The economy is finally getting back on stable footing and now this is going to screw things up. I'm sure people that love this idea now will grumble when the cost of their six-pack of beer goes up to make up the costs of the aluminum. 

I never thought I would say this about a President, ever. I know I was one of the biggest Obama critics on this site but I know I would have sat down with him if given the chance. If by some wild chance I would be given the chance to sit down with Trump and discuss my concerns I would refuse. Trump does not believe the same things I believe, he provides lip service for it but that's about it. He is destroying the conservative movement in this country but people are not seeing it, either that or they have no choice but to double-down. 

He is the epitome of the Green Day song, "Walking Contradiction." People point out he has Schumer and Pelosi on the defensive...he ran across the aisle to cut deals with them. He complained about spending, but signed an omnibus bill only 2nd to Obama's TARP for money. McCain is a bad person for voting against the repeal bills for Obamacare...those bills were nowhere near repeal. I didn't want repeal on a diet, I wanted full-blown repeal. Forced patriotism is not a good thing, the same people who cheer Trump's anthem stance (pure white noise) would be kneeling in their living rooms if Obama had said the same thing. He rails on the corruption of the Democrats, pure Lenin and Alinsky tactics where he has proven to be corrupt himself. He yells about Crooked Hillary...Mr. President, you were her friend and donor! If they investigate the Clinton Foundation...your name is in the ledger as a donor. I could go on and on. 

There is no hand-wringing, garment-tearing, hair-pulling here. I am sitting back drinking my covfefe and watching the house of cards eventually tumble down. Maybe Trump is holding his own right now, but it's only temporary. For all of you Trumpamaniacs out there, you have fallen for a progressive con man. And if you say, "We don't need your vote to make a difference", remember that come the mid-terms and in '20.


----------



## Vic Capri

500 days of American Greatness! :mark:

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

I saw this today and my first reaction was *Maybe another couple of over-looked reasons for this is Chinese Currency manipulation, and sweatshop labor that gets paid peanuts* ... as well as economies of scale. 

I think I might be turning into an anti-capitalist again. 

Someone save me.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> I saw this today and my first reaction was *Maybe another couple of over-looked reasons for this is Chinese Currency manipulation, and sweatshop labor that gets paid peanuts* ... as well as economies of scale.
> 
> I think I might be turning into an anti-capitalist again.
> 
> Someone save me.


I'm a capitalist, I'm just not sold on the particular brand of capitalism utilised through most of the world right now. I believe we may share a view on this, but I'm personally of the opinion that a lot of the capitalism we see is of the "crony" variety whereby many of the larger companies had complicit governments that enabled them an unfair advantage which has in turn made it more difficult for the small business owner and messed up the entire system. Less competition (because of monopolies) removes one of the fundamental elements of capitalism that makes it a fairer system. Take away the corporate tax breaks (or give them to smaller businesses too if you prefer) and put everybody on a level playing field and things improve. As it stands if everywhere else is like the UK the small entrepreneur with a great product is more often than not bullied out of the market by the corporations and their government pals. If capitalism is done fairly where nobody's getting government assistance in gaining and edge on the competition then the power is more evenly distributed. Workers with rights can fight for a fairer wage or go to the competitor, they're a requirement for the business to function well and talent (as it should) will garner a higher pay. Businesses with a better product and a fairer model to their consumers flourish over businesses with a cheaply made and shitty product. I'm a capitalist as long as capitalism works properly, I believe that generally people are "good" in nature and social responsibility can be a big part of capitalism without ever having to resort to socialism. That's my thoughts anyway. :shrug


----------



## DOPA

@RavishingRickRules Main problem with State or Crony Capitalism is the corporate welfare and the relationship between corporations and the government. Giant handouts in the form of subsidies, tax deductions and loopholes allow those already consolidated in the market to keep a hold of and extend their share. 

Another problem is the bureaucratic and highly complex tax code. The UK has the longest and most complex tax code in the world. It's a field day for tax accountants and lawyers. Big businesses can simply hire those people to go through the tax code and get through as many loopholes as possible to pay little to no tax, allowing themselves of course to keep a hold of more profit. There's simply too many rules, regulations and ways to get tax breaks which actually hurts the small and medium sized business who can't afford to nor have the time to go through the bloated tax system to benefit from it. Common sense regulation is one thing, over-regulation hurts competition and smaller companies.

In an ideal world, the tax code, particularly individual but in this case business tax too, should be something that is small and simple enough for the average joe to understand. Instead it's designed in such a complex manner that only specialized experts who know what to look for understand all the ins and outs. Doesn't benefit no one other than those who can afford to invest the time and capital into taking advantage of it.

I'd scrap the whole thing and start again, but it would never happen :lol.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

DOPA said:


> @RavishingRickRules Main problem with State or Crony Capitalism is the corporate welfare and the relationship between corporations and the government. Giant handouts in the form of subsidies, tax deductions and loopholes allow those already consolidated in the market to keep a hold of and extend their share.
> 
> Another problem is the bureaucratic and highly complex tax code. The UK has the longest and most complex tax code in the world. It's a field day for tax accountants and lawyers. Big businesses can simply hire those people to go through the tax code and get through as many loopholes as possible to pay little to no tax, allowing themselves of course to keep a hold of more profit. There's simply too many rules, regulations and ways to get tax breaks which actually hurts the small and medium sized business who can't afford to nor have the time to go through the bloated tax system to benefit from it. Common sense regulation is one thing, over-regulation hurts competition and smaller companies.
> 
> In an ideal world, the tax code, particularly individual but in this case business tax too, should be something that is small and simple enough for the average joe to understand. Instead it's designed in such a complex manner that only specialized experts who know what to look for understand all the ins and outs. Doesn't benefit no one other than those who can afford to invest the time and capital into taking advantage of it.
> 
> I'd scrap the whole thing and start again, but it would never happen :lol.


I mean, I agree on some points. I personally don't find the tax code overly complicated at all having dealt with it for years (and educated most of my subordinates on how it works and how to understand what you're looking at.) Individual tax codes especially are super simple. The issue for me is that big business (I know, I'm IN big business) doesn't pay close to the same amount as a small business does. If things were fair across the board then corporations would struggle to hold on to those monopolies with as much ease as they do now. In my mind everybody should be taxed fairly in the same way whether that's low or high taxes, they shouldn't be giving huge breaks to big business just because it serves their own interests to do so *cough*Tories*cough*not being remotely subtle*cough*everybody knows it*cough*especially those raised in Tory families*cough* lol. I always find it interesting that there's apparently "no money to fund -x-" and yet there's plenty for Parliamental pay rises, insane expenses, tax breaks for big business, billion pound bungs to extremist parties to stay in power etc. It's all nonsense, I went to Uni with these people, they know exactly what they're doing and they know exactly who's suffering so they can line their pockets whilst claiming "austerity" and that we can't afford things like the NHS which we absolutely can. People fall for it though, I guess it's hard to shake off the master's yoke regardless of how "liberated" we get as a populace. :lol


----------



## DOPA

RavishingRickRules said:


> I always find it interesting that there's apparently "no money to fund -x-" and yet there's plenty for Parliamental pay rises, insane expenses, tax breaks for big business, billion pound bungs to extremist parties to stay in power etc. It's all nonsense, I went to Uni with these people, they know exactly what they're doing and they know exactly who's suffering so they can line their pockets whilst claiming "austerity" and that we can't afford things like the NHS which we absolutely can. People fall for it though, I guess it's hard to shake off the master's yoke regardless of how "liberated" we get as a populace. :lol


As someone who is fiscally conservative, this is something that bugs me to no end, that being the hypocrisy surrounding both the Conservative party in the UK and the Republicans in the US. It amazes me how for example in 2015 (I think I got the year right), the Tories payed out as much as £93 Billion in corporate welfare and yet want to talk about fiscal responsibility. Yeah, I agree in principle about fiscal responsibility but how are you going to make me take you seriously and want to vote for you when you can't even live by your own principles.

Same with the Republican party, A Republican Congress overall majority is going to rack up just as high deficits as Obama did in his first term which I was highly critical of. Meanwhile, they voted for a $140 Billion increase in military spending.....like the US needs it and with the Democrats help mind you whilst stating social security and medicare should be cut. I agree both programs need reform, they are both are becoming unsustainable and are in both massive amounts of debt and unfunded liabilities, but how are people supposed to take you seriously if you can't be consistent?

It's frustrating, and a good thing I'm not a party loyalist :lol.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

DOPA said:


> As someone who is fiscally conservative, this is something that bugs me to no end, that being the hypocrisy surrounding both the Conservative party in the UK and the Republicans in the US. It amazes me how for example in 2015 (I think I got the year right), the Tories payed out as much as £93 Billion in corporate welfare and yet want to talk about fiscal responsibility. Yeah, I agree in principle about fiscal responsibility but how are you going to make me take you seriously and want to vote for you when you can't even live by your own principles.
> 
> Same with the Republican party, A Republican Congress overall majority is going to rack up just as high deficits as Obama did in his first term which I was highly critical enough. Meanwhile, they vote for $140 Billion increase in military spending.....like the US needs it and with the Democrats help mind you whilst stating social security and medicare should be cut. I agree both programs need reform, they are both are becoming unsustainable and are in both massive amounts of debt and unfunded liabilities, but how are people supposed to take you seriously if you can't be consistent?
> 
> It's frustrating, and a good thing I'm not a party loyalist :lol.


it's actually why I hate when people act like we could't easily afford the NHS, we can, it just takes the government to treat everybody fairly. Did you know when it's fully funded the NHS ranks in the top few healthcare systems in the world? We also pay LOADS less than they do in the US model for example. The NHS isn't struggling for any reason other than this current Tory government is piss-poor with money. "Fiscal responsibility" whilst increasing the national debt more than every single left-wing government combined? That's laughable. They're awful at what they do, they go with Austerity rather than driving the economy, deliberate underfunding to line their pockets (and their buddies' pockets in cushty medical contracts with their back-door privatisation) and people are actually buying into the bullshit they're feeding them. Not surprising when so many of them are tax-dodgers in the first place. I could game the system, it's really not hard and I'm in the circles where those things happen with a substantially high income (I paid more in income tax last year than my girlfriend's entire income before deductions) I don't though because I'm not a cheeky cunt.


----------



## samizayn

BruiserKC said:


> For all of you Trumpamaniacs out there, you have fallen for a progressive con man.





Vic Capri said:


> 500 days of American Greatness! :mark:
> 
> - Vic


I greatly enjoyed this juxtaposition.


----------



## Reaper

I'm actually completely relaxed. One thing Trump did was made me more aware of the direct impacts of federal policies on my daily budget so I'm much more aware of what I need to watch out for. 

Btw, from the above example, A TV that takes 508 hours to make pays something like $1200 dollars amongst people who made it. The TV that takes 8 hours to make pays less than $220 bucks. 

Is it really better. Or is it shrinking the market? It's not like a TV was a luxury even in the 60's. Everyone I knew had one back then as well. So how were they able to afford it? 

I don't know. Genuinely asking. In any case that example is so stupid --- but it's the kind of shit that capitalists love tossing at people to confuse them because most people don't sit back and think about what they're being shown. They also compared one of the HIGEST costing TV's with the LOWEST costing TV of today. That's REMARKABLY dishonest. 

The cheapest TV back then was $130 bucks. The cheapest TV today is $150-250 odd. The BEST TVs with the LATEST tech start at around $1000 still. 

Anyways ... Seriously. These people can fuck off with their stupid examples.


----------



## deepelemblues

Somebody swatted the home of ratfaced Lil Hitler David Hogg. He was not there, his family was.

Regardless of the fact that he's a ratfaced Lil Hitler, this is beyond the pale and whoever is responsible should be put behind bars for a long, long time.


----------



## Tater

Reap said:


> I think I might be turning into an anti-capitalist again.
> 
> Someone save me.


If Darth Vader can be saved from the dark side, anybody can be brought back to the light. (Y)



RavishingRickRules said:


> I'm a capitalist, I'm just not sold on the particular brand of capitalism utilised through most of the world right now. I believe we may share a view on this, but I'm personally of the opinion that a lot of the capitalism we see is of the "crony" variety whereby many of the larger companies had complicit governments that enabled them an unfair advantage which has in turn made it more difficult for the small business owner and messed up the entire system. Less competition (because of monopolies) removes one of the fundamental elements of capitalism that makes it a fairer system. Take away the corporate tax breaks (or give them to smaller businesses too if you prefer) and put everybody on a level playing field and things improve. As it stands if everywhere else is like the UK the small entrepreneur with a great product is more often than not bullied out of the market by the corporations and their government pals. If capitalism is done fairly where nobody's getting government assistance in gaining and edge on the competition then the power is more evenly distributed. Workers with rights can fight for a fairer wage or go to the competitor, they're a requirement for the business to function well and talent (as it should) will garner a higher pay. Businesses with a better product and a fairer model to their consumers flourish over businesses with a cheaply made and shitty product. I'm a capitalist as long as capitalism works properly, I believe that generally people are "good" in nature and social responsibility can be a big part of capitalism without ever having to resort to socialism. That's my thoughts anyway. :shrug


Take all of that you just said and replace capitalism with worker owned co-ops. Problem solved. There's no reason why an owner class should be able to sit on their fat asses reaping the rewards of other's hard work. Instead of working for someone else, people should be working for themselves.


----------



## Art Vandaley

I've always been partial to the German system of giving workers voting rights for corporate boards etc.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> If Darth Vader can be saved from the dark side, anybody can be brought back to the light. (Y)
> 
> 
> 
> Take all of that you just said and replace capitalism with worker owned co-ops. Problem solved. There's no reason why an owner class should be able to sit on their fat asses reaping the rewards of other's hard work. Instead of working for someone else, people should be working for themselves.


I disagree, mostly because I think people and their families should have a right to the things they've earned and paid for. I don't think forcibly taking the real estate and companies back from families who worked for those things in the first place is particularly "fair" at all. I'm very much somebody who believes in giving people the chance to carve their own piece of the pie (and as somebody who came from literally the lowest social class in the UK and is now arguably upper-middle class income wise I know it's possible.) If people wish to work hard to better themselves they can, my only problem is with the unfair advantage that corporations are receiving to easily beat out the small business owner/entrepreneur. As long as the system of checks, regulations and taxes is fair across the board then I'm happy. The "owner" class got that way more often than not because a member of their family in the past worked to make it happen, if I condone taking their standing and property from them then I also condone people doing the same with my descendants and frankly I sacrificed a MASSIVE amount so that I could escape my own social class so fuck that.


----------



## Draykorinee

Historically, most of these wealthy families earned and paid for things off the poverty of others.


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> *I disagree, mostly because I think people and their families should have a right to the things they've earned and paid for.* I don't think forcibly taking the real estate and companies back from families who worked for those things in the first place is particularly "fair" at all. I'm very much somebody who believes in giving people the chance to carve their own piece of the pie (and as somebody who came from literally the lowest social class in the UK and is now arguably upper-middle class income wise I know it's possible.) If people wish to work hard to better themselves they can, my only problem is with the unfair advantage that corporations are receiving to easily beat out the small business owner/entrepreneur. As long as the system of checks, regulations and taxes is fair across the board then I'm happy. The "owner" class got that way more often than not because a member of their family in the past worked to make it happen, if I condone taking their standing and property from them then I also condone people doing the same with my descendants and frankly I sacrificed a MASSIVE amount so that I could escape my own social class so fuck that.


Stop and think about the contradiction in your opening sentence in relation to capitalism.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> Stop and think about the contradiction in your opening sentence in relation to capitalism.


There is no contradiction, you just like to ignore the fact that for people to become "owners" in the first place they had to get to the position where they could afford to employ people or buy property. Nobody starts as a huge company with thousands of employees, they build to that point. Should people be paid more fairly? Sure, but that isn't an excuse to take away from somebody who worked damn hard to get to that point in the first place. You act like people from a working class background can't get there, they can, I'm one of them.

Let me put it in more simple terms: I come from an immigrant family in one of the more deprived communities in the North of England. My parents had to work multiple jobs just to tread water and I'm the first of my family to go to University. I sacrificed insane amounts to work hard enough to earn scholarships to private school because there was no way my family could afford them. I then worked even harder and sacrificed even more to get to Cambridge University, whilst working at the same time to help support my family. I then graduated with first class honours from one of the most prestigious Universities in the world and again had to work my arse off to get to the point where I now earn enough to be taxed more than most people from my background's entire family income. I'm supposed to do all that to only get paid the same as somebody who hasn't put a quarter of the effort into their success? Nope. You get what you earn in this life, if people think it's unfair that I earn 4 times as much as they do then they should've put the work in to earn this much. I don't believe it's particularly "equal" or "fair" for everybody to get the exact same income or lifestyle without also having to get the exact same achievements, put in the exact same level of work or have the exact same level of competency. That's not equality, that's punishing the people who DID earn those things in order to support those who either didn't or couldn't.


----------



## Goku

Reap said:


> I think I might be turning into an anti-capitalist again.
> 
> * Someone save me.*


I can try. But only because you asked.

You turn into what you want to be... but you are as you are and it's always undiscovered.



Spoiler: don't click if that makes sense



There is a constant stream of thoughts that arise and subside in the mind. You are not in control of it. You can appear to be in control of it when you focus in on it. I like to draw the analogy of breathing. It's not something you do, it just happens but when you become aware of it, you appear to breathing by your effort. Then you forget about it after a while and it picks back up effortlessly.

Whatever idea appeals to you at any particular time, it is important to take a step back and realize that what actually appeals to you is yourself and you trying to understand yourself in a different way than before.

So be anti-capitalist. Be capitalist. Be whatever. Relinquish the illusion of being in charge of the cultivation of the self. Whatever you identify as today, it will change again tomorrow. As it did yesterday. Maybe.

I didn't want to type all this because whenever I try to put into words any of these ideas, it always sounds strange and new agey, something to do with my language or perhaps english in general (I have not seen anyone explain it all that well to be honest). Besides, it is always better for notions such as these to blossom from within and not be introduced as pure concepts. I suppose in a way it is experiential.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reap said:


> I'm actually completely relaxed. One thing Trump did was made me more aware of the direct impacts of federal policies on my daily budget so I'm much more aware of what I need to watch out for.
> 
> Btw, from the above example, A TV that takes 508 hours to make pays something like $1200 dollars amongst people who made it. The TV that takes 8 hours to make pays less than $220 bucks.
> 
> Is it really better. Or is it shrinking the market? It's not like a TV was a luxury even in the 60's. Everyone I knew had one back then as well. So how were they able to afford it?
> 
> I don't know. Genuinely asking. In any case that example is so stupid --- but it's the kind of shit that capitalists love tossing at people to confuse them because most people don't sit back and think about what they're being shown. They also compared one of the HIGEST costing TV's with the LOWEST costing TV of today. That's REMARKABLY dishonest.
> 
> The cheapest TV back then was $130 bucks. The cheapest TV today is $150-250 odd. The BEST TVs with the LATEST tech start at around $1000 still.
> 
> Anyways ... Seriously. These people can fuck off with their stupid examples.


Funny enough during that time period most TVs were American made, while many people bitch about woah the cost back then! Many people could buy a house, car etc without needing a big College education and being thousands in debt.

The TV change occurred when Japanese companies practiced what is called "Dumping". Basically it's making a good, selling it for far less than it's worth in order to destroy competition. They did this and even with losing money it was a game of attrition that they eventually won.

This also happened with cheap cars etc. The American market went from quality goods priced at what they were worth, made by people within America to cheaply made products made under nefarious means and using less quality parts.

Americans soon became addicted to cheap, that addiction seen the opening of sweat shops, the loss of American jobs, the acceptance of poor quality goods and this over the top consumer culture we have today. People in the those times saved money, bought what they needed. Yes there were loans etc but not the plethora of credit cards that's made most of the country debt slaves. 

Capitalism isn't bad but this toxic form of Capitalism today isn't healthy. It's made us debt slaves and numb to decency. You have people crying about 15 dollar minimum wage, giving jobs to non-whites etc but are willing to overlook this because of their demand for cheap goods is seeing jobs people could have go overseas or major companies using slave labor/sweat shops to keep prices down.


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> *There is no contradiction, you just like to ignore the fact that for people to become "owners" in the first place they had to get to the position where they could afford to employ people or buy property. Nobody starts as a huge company with thousands of employees, they build to that point.* Should people be paid more fairly? Sure, but that isn't an excuse to take away from somebody who worked damn hard to get to that point in the first place. You act like people from a working class background can't get there, they can, I'm one of them.
> 
> Let me put it in more simple terms: I come from an immigrant family in one of the more deprived communities in the North of England. My parents had to work multiple jobs just to tread water and I'm the first of my family to go to University. I sacrificed insane amounts to work hard enough to earn scholarships to private school because there was no way my family could afford them. I then worked even harder and sacrificed even more to get to Cambridge University, whilst working at the same time to help support my family. I then graduated with first class honours from one of the most prestigious Universities in the world and again had to work my arse off to get to the point where I now earn enough to be taxed more than most people from my background's entire family income. I'm supposed to do all that to only get paid the same as somebody who hasn't put a quarter of the effort into their success? Nope. You get what you earn in this life, if people think it's unfair that I earn 4 times as much as they do then they should've put the work in to earn this much. I don't believe it's particularly "equal" or "fair" for everybody to get the exact same income or lifestyle without also having to get the exact same achievements, put in the exact same level of work or have the exact same level of competency. That's not equality, that's punishing the people who DID earn those things in order to support those who either didn't or couldn't.


I'm not trying to discredit the hard work you put in to get yourself into a good position but that is anecdotal in the grand scheme of things. There's a lot of other people who work just as hard but don't achieve the same success as you because the game is rigged. For every success story like yours, there are millions of others who get trampled on by capitalism, regardless of how much work or effort they put in.

You speak of making 4 times as much as someone else. Hey, got no problem with that. However, when a CEO is making hundreds as times as much as their employees, who have to rely on government subsidies just to feed their kids, yeah, kinda got a problem with that. That CEO didn't work 500 times harder than a regular employee. It's due to a capitalistic system that is designed to funnel money to the top.

I'm a libertarian leftist, not an authoritarian leftist. I despise communism just as much as I despise fascism. You don't need a big government to solve the needs of the people. You need people working for themselves instead of working for others.

Take the Mondragon Corporation, for example. It's a hugely successful co-op that employees over 70k people. And it's owned by everyone who works there. Sure, there are higher management that makes more money than lower employees but they have a limit on it. The highest paid management can make no more than 8 times as much as the lowest paid employees. The workers themselves get to decide who that management is.

A capitalist corporation is basically a totalitarian structure. The people at the top make the decisions and you do what they say or else. If you are a believer in democracy, then explain to me why there should be democracy in the public sector but not in the private sector.

Ask yourself this. Do you think we'd have a problem with outsourcing jobs to third world countries if the workers owned the corporations and had a say in their outcomes?

ETA: This is a response to the bolded parted at the beginning. Most of the real power and wealth in this world comes from inherited wealth and/or authoritarianism to acquire. It's Old Money and it goes way back. It didn't come from hard working people like yourself who achieved a moderate amount of success within the rigged system.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> I'm not trying to discredit the hard work you put in to get yourself into a good position but that is anecdotal in the grand scheme of things. There's a lot of other people who work just as hard but don't achieve the same success as you because the game is rigged. For every success story like yours, there are millions of others who get trampled on by capitalism, regardless of how much work or effort they put in.
> 
> You speak of making 4 times as much as someone else. Hey, got no problem with that. However, when a CEO is making hundreds as times as much as their employees, who have to rely on government subsidies just to feed their kids, yeah, kinda got a problem with that. That CEO didn't work 500 times harder than a regular employee. It's due to a capitalistic system that is designed to funnel money to the top.
> 
> I'm a libertarian leftist, not an authoritarian leftist. I despise communism just as much as I despise fascism. You don't need a big government to solve the needs of the people. You need people working for themselves instead of working for others.
> 
> Take the Mondragon Corporation, for example. It's a hugely successful co-op that employees over 70k people. And it's owned by everyone who works there. Sure, there are higher management that makes more money than lower employees but they have a limit on it. The highest paid management can make no more than 8 times as much as the lowest paid employees. The workers themselves get to decide who that management is.
> 
> A capitalist corporation is basically a totalitarian structure. The people at the top make the decisions and you do what they say or else. If you are a believer in democracy, then explain to me why there should be democracy in the public sector but not in the private sector.
> 
> Ask yourself this. Do you think we'd have a problem with outsourcing jobs to third world countries if the workers owned the corporations and had a say in their outcomes?


The thing is though, many of these huge companies and super wealthy people are descended from people like me. If I condone their destruction simply because hundreds of years ago their families were successful and they're now reaping the rewards then why am I working this hard? Should my descendants not reap the benefits of my hard work too? That's my problem with a lot of these arguments, generally, yes these people might very well have gotten wealth(ier) on the backs of their workers, but go back far enough and you get to a hard working person who's ability or talent put their family in that position in the first place. Of course exploitation happens and happened even more in the past, but there still had to be a starting point, very very few people are born into substantial wealth, and even fewer people's families sprang into existence with substantial wealth. The system really isn't as rigged as people make it out to be, I went to elite schools, the commoners still outnumber the nobility by a substantial margin. For every 1 member of the landed gentry at my University there were hundreds who were either working class like me or who's parents or grandparents were. "New Money" vastly outnumbers "old money." I'm sorry, I don't see the "owner" class as some inherent evil at all, I interact with these people daily, they're not some monolithic concept to fight against for me. I have University friends who are so wealthy that they could likely pay everybody in this thread's wages for the next 10 years and not even notice the money's missing, and they give INSANE amounts of money to charity and create more positive utility in the world than pretty much all of the working class people I know combined and it's not even close. This idea that all super-wealthy people are exploitative and corrupt is an utter myth, and it's usually perpetrated by people who've never remotely interacted in those circles. We're in an age where people can become millionaires by posting silly videos on Youtube, this isn't the industrial revolution. Frankly, if "the workers" are so competent why aren't they already fighting to be wealthy instead of accepting their lot in life that's supposedly dictated by this "owner class?" I work for a huge corporation, we don't outsource anything to 3rd world countries, we employ thousands of people within the UK at great wages though. The CEO is substantially wealthy, he comes from a lower-working class background similar to mine though, he has an impressive education, which he earned. He worked in the military and made his way up through the ranks like any working class person would. But he's that "owner class" right? So he got there by exploiting people? Except he didn't, he earned his spot just like many people in his position did. The big problem I have with your stance is this assumption that all the people at the top had it handed to them, they didn't, a significant portion of them just worked their asses off to get to that place. I'm NEVER going to support anything that seeks to take that away from people in favour of people who think they deserve it because they work hard at their job but don't have the talent or fight for the opportunities to get to the top themselves. There's no way to selectively go through this "owner" class and only target the ones who had it handed to them by their familial/class connections (which they got because their ancestors earned their position anyway) and those like me who grafted their entire lives to achieve it.


----------



## virus21

Hey Colbert, how does Bill's dick taste?


> “The Late Show” host Stephen Colbert offered former President Bill Clinton a second chance on Tuesday night after Clinton delivered what many considered “tone-deaf” comments on the Me Too movement and his affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
> “I watched on the ‘Today’ show yesterday morning, I noticed you didn’t enjoy that entire interview,” Colbert told Clinton. “I want you to enjoy this one, but I do want to ask you something.”
> Colbert proceeded to describe the reaction to Clinton’s comments on Monday, in which he told NBC News’ Craig Melvin that he didn’t feel more responsibility or think differently about the affair he had with Lewinsky 20 years ago in light of the Me Too movement. The movement has caused a nationwide reckoning on sexual harassment, assault and power. Instead, Clinton defended his reaction and employed a strategy used by perpetrators of sexual harassment: painting themselves as a victim.
> “My question is: Would you like a do-over on that answer?” Colbert asked. “Do you understand why some people thought that was a tone-deaf response to [Melvin’s] questions about the Me Too movement and how you might reflect on your behavior 20 years ago and how that reflection may change based on what you’ve learned through the Me Too movement?”
> “Absolutely,” Clinton said, before suggesting the editing of the interview made it look like he did not apologize about the affair.
> “I was mad at me,” Clinton said, referencing how his response came off.
> The former president, who appeared on “The Late Show” with The President Is Missing co-author James Patterson, took another stab at responding to the question, though his remarks still fell short of fully acknowledging how his affair with a 22-year-old intern while serving as president can be viewed with respect to the Me Too movement.
> Take a look at Clinton’s response in the video above.


http://archive.is/bL1u2#selection-741.0-909.53


----------



## skypod

On the subject of Clinton, here's him thrashing Chris Wallace in an interview. THIS is how you take on the media and the party but not in a "poor me" way Trump is doing, though it is important to note this is post-Clinton presidency. 







"You set this meeting up, because you're going to get a lot of criticism for this interview because Rupert Murdoch supports my work on climate change. And you came here under false pretenses and said you'd spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise 7 billion dollars and you don't care.....you didn't formulate it in an honest way and because you people ask me questions you don't ask the other side". :sodone


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> The thing is though, many of these huge companies and super wealthy people are descended from people like me. If I condone their destruction simply because hundreds of years ago their families were successful and they're now reaping the rewards then why am I working this hard? Should my descendants not reap the benefits of my hard work too? That's my problem with a lot of these arguments, generally, yes these people might very well have gotten wealth(ier) on the backs of their workers, but go back far enough and you get to a hard working person who's ability or talent put their family in that position in the first place. Of course exploitation happens and happened even more in the past, but there still had to be a starting point, very very few people are born into substantial wealth, and even fewer people's families sprang into existence with substantial wealth. The system really isn't as rigged as people make it out to be, I went to elite schools, the commoners still outnumber the nobility by a substantial margin. For every 1 member of the landed gentry at my University there were hundreds who were either working class like me or who's parents or grandparents were. "New Money" vastly outnumbers "old money." I'm sorry, I don't see the "owner" class as some inherent evil at all, I interact with these people daily, they're not some monolithic concept to fight against for me. I have University friends who are so wealthy that they could likely pay everybody in this thread's wages for the next 10 years and not even notice the money's missing, and they give INSANE amounts of money to charity and create more positive utility in the world than pretty much all of the working class people I know combined and it's not even close. This idea that all super-wealthy people are exploitative and corrupt is an utter myth, and it's usually perpetrated by people who've never remotely interacted in those circles. We're in an age where people can become millionaires by posting silly videos on Youtube, this isn't the industrial revolution. Frankly, if "the workers" are so competent why aren't they already fighting to be wealthy instead of accepting their lot in life that's supposedly dictated by this "owner class?" I work for a huge corporation, we don't outsource anything to 3rd world countries, we employ thousands of people within the UK at great wages though. The CEO is substantially wealthy, he comes from a lower-working class background similar to mine though, he has an impressive education, which he earned. He worked in the military and made his way up through the ranks like any working class person would. But he's that "owner class" right? So he got there by exploiting people? Except he didn't, he earned his spot just like many people in his position did. The big problem I have with your stance is this assumption that all the people at the top had it handed to them, they didn't, a significant portion of them just worked their asses off to get to that place. I'm NEVER going to support anything that seeks to take that away from people in favour of people who think they deserve it because they work hard at their job but don't have the talent or fight for the opportunities to get to the top themselves. There's no way to selectively go through this "owner" class and only target the ones who had it handed to them by their familial/class connections (which they got because their ancestors earned their position anyway) and those like me who grafted their entire lives to achieve it.


Goddamn, man. Use some paragraphs next time.



> Should my descendants not reap the benefits of my hard work too?


Without substantially changing how the system works now, what you're arguing for here is aristocracy. Because that's what the end result is when so much wealth is funneled to the top and stays there generationally. You might want to ask Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette how that worked out for them.


----------



## yeahbaby!

virus21 said:


> Hey Colbert, how does Bill's dick taste?
> 
> http://archive.is/bL1u2#selection-741.0-909.53


Excuse me Mr Virus, I know you like posting stuff and leaving little or no thoughts of your own normally, but care to explain why this is Colbert sucking off Clinton?

Colbert sucking off Clinton would've been refraining from bringing up any of this story in the first place, ignoring Lewinsky and #Metoo etc, and just going with some fluffy piece about life on the golf course and saxophones.

Instead he brought it up, made Clinton face has bad response and remark on it. He actually did the opposite of what you're implying.

What did you want? A hard hitting 'gotcha' journalism piece telling him he's the devil from the host of The Late Show of all places?


----------



## virus21

yeahbaby! said:


> Excuse me Mr Virus, I know you like posting stuff and leaving little or no thoughts of your own normally, but care to explain why this is Colbert sucking off Clinton?
> 
> Colbert sucking off Clinton would've been refraining from bringing up any of this story in the first place, ignoring Lewinsky and #Metoo etc, and just going with some fluffy piece about life on the golf course and saxophones.
> 
> Instead he brought it up, made Clinton face has bad response and remark on it. He actually did the opposite of what you're implying.
> 
> What did you want? A hard hitting 'gotcha' journalism piece telling him he's the devil from the host of The Late Show of all places?


Except that Colbert is giving him a do over on his response. Would a guy like Colbert been so lenient to anyone else?


----------



## Vic Capri

> Somebody swatted the home of ratfaced Lil Hitler David Hogg. He was not there, his family was.
> 
> Regardless of the fact that he's a ratfaced Lil Hitler, this is beyond the pale and whoever is responsible should be put behind bars for a long, long time.


I can't wait for the fluff pieces from opinionated liberal reporters about this!

- Vic


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> Goddamn, man. Use some paragraphs next time.
> 
> 
> 
> Without substantially changing how the system works now, what you're arguing for here is aristocracy. Because that's what the end result is when so much wealth is funneled to the top and stays there generationally. You might want to ask Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette how that worked out for them.


Yes because you're really going to behead the Clintons kay

And yes I'm arguing that everything a family has earned they get to keep unless they have to sell it off themselves. I don't believe in stealing from people who worked hard for something to give it to people who think they deserve the same whilst coasting through life.


----------



## samizayn

RavishingRickRules said:


> Yes because you're really going to behead the Clintons kay
> 
> And yes I'm arguing that everything *a family has earned* they get to keep unless they have to sell it off themselves. I don't believe in stealing from people who worked hard for something to give it to people who think they deserve the same whilst coasting through life.


But it is rare that families earn. Individuals do, more often than not. Especially when it comes to anybody you'd find on a 'world's richest' list.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

samizayn said:


> But it is rare that families earn. Individuals do, more often than not. Especially when it comes to anybody you'd find on a 'world's richest' list.


Ohh so you think that your family don't benefit when an individual in the family is wealthy? You don't think that individual should have the right to give his wealth to his children? Must be one of those people who believes they have a right to other people's hard work then eh?


----------



## samizayn

RavishingRickRules said:


> Ohh so you think that your family don't benefit when an individual in the family is wealthy? You don't think that individual should have the right to give his wealth to his children? Must be one of those people who believes they have a right to other people's hard work then eh?


Of course they benefit. How does that go to mean that they participated in earning it in any way?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

samizayn said:


> Of course they benefit. How does that go to mean that they participated in earning it in any way?


They don't need to, that's the beauty of family. If you ever earn substantial money maybe you'll understand the desire in wanting for your descendants to benefit from it. I support my family keeping my wealth after they die, you support stealing it and giving it to people who couldn't put the effort in to try and earn it for their own families. Cool.


----------



## Crasp

This is a weird possibly off-topic tangent we're on right now but whatevs.

A fair & functional meritocracy is a great idea, but it cant truly exist. Allowing the fruits of ones own labour to be shared by future generations of family is absolutly reasonable. But without checks & balances, it quickly morphs into an aristocracy as it becomes less and less fair/functional for those at the bottom end.

This is no argument for handouts, however; Merely for an equality in opportunity, or as close as can be realistically achieved.


----------



## samizayn

RavishingRickRules said:


> They don't need to, that's the beauty of family. If you ever earn substantial money maybe you'll understand the desire in wanting for your descendants to benefit from it. I support my family keeping my wealth after they die, you support stealing it and giving it to people who couldn't put the effort in to try and earn it for their own families. Cool.


I've no idea why you're inventing ideologies for me instead of responding to the difficult problem I highlighted in your post. It doesn't appear that you would be interested in telling me, but my concern has regardless been voiced if anybody is interested in discussing less emotionally.


Crasp said:


> This is a weird possibly off-topic tangent we're on right now but whatevs.
> 
> A fair & functional meritocracy is a great idea, but it cant truly exist. Allowing the fruits of ones own labour to be shared by future generations of family is absolutly reasonable. But without checks & balances, it quickly morphs into an aristocracy as it becomes less and less fair/functional for those at the bottom end.
> 
> This is no argument for handouts, however. Merely an equality in opportunity, or as close as can be realistically achieved.


I must say I have no idea how the conversation started either :lol

That's what I'm saying too. And I don't see how you would go about getting that equality when what we currently have seems to be so... well, not.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Crasp said:


> This is a weird possibly off-topic tangent we're on right now but whatevs.
> 
> A fair & functional meritocracy is a great idea, but it cant truly exist. Allowing the fruits of ones own labour to be shared by future generations of family is absolutly reasonable. But without checks & balances, it quickly morphs into an aristocracy as it becomes less and less fair/functional for those at the bottom end.


I just don't agree that there SHOULD be a balance built around taking from one family who's members EARNED that wealth to give it to people who DIDN'T earn that wealth. As I've said multiple times, I'm not a socialist. I don't remotely believe that people have a right to take something away from a group where members of that group have earned it. That's infinitely more unfair to me. You make your own way in life, I'm living proof. People who sit around whining about it should put more effort into changing their own lot in life than trying to take it away from people who already did that.


----------



## Crasp

RavishingRickRules said:


> *I just don't agree that there SHOULD be a balance built around taking from one family who's members EARNED that wealth to give it to people who DIDN'T earn that wealth.* As I've said multiple times, I'm not a socialist. I don't remotely believe that people have a right to take something away from a group where members of that group have earned it. That's infinitely more unfair to me. You make your own way in life, I'm living proof. People who sit around whining about it should put more effort into changing their own lot in life than trying to take it away from people who already did that.


And _I_ never argued for such. I just believe in equality of opportuity, so that future children _not_ from a privilaged background at least have a chance of making their own way in life & achieving something.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Crasp said:


> And _I_ never argued for such. I just believe in equality of opportuity, so that future children _not_ from a privilaged background at least have a chance of making their own way in life & achieving something.


They do, I'm from a council estate in Bradford and I now earn a 6 figure salary at a large corporation.


----------



## Crasp

RavishingRickRules said:


> They do, I'm from a council estate in Bradford and I now earn a 6 figure salary at a large corporation.


That's great. And are _you_ a large enough sample size to justify the status quo as it pertains to comparative levels of academic achievement between those who attended a comprehensive (I presume) and those who went to a public school? 

Taken to the extremes, your position would have state-run schools closed, because why should _your_ family help fund the enducation of proles? I assume that _that_ exteme is not one you would argue for. 

It is, at least in my view, quite fair that our children (of whatever background) are afforded an education. Is it unreasonable to argue _for_ that education to be as high quality as possible?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Crasp said:


> That's great. And are _you_ a large enough sample size to justify the status quo as it pertains to comparative levels of academic achievement between those who attended a comprehensive (I presume) and those who went to a public school?
> 
> Taken to the extremes, your position would have state-run schools closed, because why should _your_ family help fund the enducation of proles? I assume that _that_ exteme is not one you would argue for.
> 
> It is, at least in my view, quite fair that our children (of whatever background), are afforded an education. Is it unreasonable to argue _for_ that education to be as high quality as possible?


I worked my ass off so that I could get scholarships to private school because my family couldn't afford them. Every private school in the country offers scholarships and funded places, you just have to work to actually get them. You don't think rich people fund schools for poor people? I paid over £35,000 in income tax last year, how exactly is that less fair than somebody who only earns £16,000 a year only paying a couple thousand? I'm perfectly fine with paying taxes, I do so and am happy for my taxes to be used to benefit everybody in society. 

My issue is that people want to blame it on other people being more wealthy, that's not the issue, everybody should have the right to earn as much as they can to better their lives. The only "issue" I have is when certain elements of the ruling classes manipulate the system so that certain members of that class DON'T pay their fare share, and don't have to pay the same from their corporations as the small business owner. That's how you get "fairness" the rich AND the poor both pay their fair share of contributions, everything gets funded, and the opportunities are there. I support targeting tax dodgers and removing corporate welfare and tax breaks. You do that and we have a fully functioning NHS which is one of the top healthcare services in the world. Programs become fully funded to help the disadvantaged. Capitalism with social awareness is more powerful than socialism will EVER be.


----------



## CamillePunk

Even if the widely-asserted claim by communists that people who work "just as hard" as wildly successful people can end up in poverty through no fault of their own is true (I'M SKEPTICAL), to think it should come down to a matter of who works hard is rather silly. Surely there should be some weight placed on who provides the most value with their work, i.e through being efficient and innovative ("working smart"). Of course this means people who are simply genetically more intelligent have an advantage but, oh well? Why should it be any different? 

On the topic of inherited wealth, the communists or those with socialist redistribution inclinations really need to fuck off. :lol I've inherited jack shit but all I've earned and worked for is for me and my loved ones, and the causes I deem worthy of my investment. You don't get a say. My loved ones earned it through their loyalty and support. Any children (and their descendants) I bring into this world....well, the money will hardly make up for all of that. I hope they have as nice a time as possible, and I'm truly sorry my inability to overcome my biological imperative has put them all in this difficult situation known as existing and experiencing the tragedy of human consciousness. :lol

The real problem with what people call "capitalism" today is the behemoth of the state, ran by human beings who respond to incentives like everyone else who are easily bought and influenced by the economic elite. It's a rigged game. The solution is not to write more rules - the people who write the rules are the ones currently benefiting from the system and they aren't about to penalize themselves for your sake. To the extent that communists or left-libertarians (jesus christ what) want to get rid of the state, I agree. When they start talking about exploitation and fairness though, it's easy to roll your eyes and feel much like you're talking to a child.


----------



## Crasp

RavishingRickRules said:


> My issue is that people want to blame it on other people being more wealthy, that's not the issue, everybody should have the right to earn as much as they can to better their lives. The only "issue" I have is when certain elements of the ruling classes manipulate the system so that certain members of that class DON'T pay their fare share, and don't have to pay the same from their corporations as the small business owner. That's how you get "fairness" the rich AND the poor both pay their fair share of contributions, everything gets funded, and the opportunities are there. I support targeting tax dodgers and removing corporate welfare and tax breaks. You do that and we have a fully functioning NHS which is one of the top healthcare services in the world. Programs become fully funded to help the disadvantaged. Capitalism with social awareness is more powerful than socialism will EVER be.


Well, we're in agreement then. It's the measured spending of those taxes which _are_ (ideally) the checks & balances which prevent the paths for aspirational people who were not born into wealth from being effectively closed.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Crasp said:


> Well, we're in agreement then. It's the measured spending of those taxes which _are_ (ideally) the checks & balances which prevent the paths for aspirational people who were not born into wealth from being effectively closed.


And that's fine, but I fail to see how in any way that argues against "aristocracy" or wealthy upper-middle class families having insane amounts of wealth? Personal wealth isn't a crime, at some point in history somebody had to earn that wealth. The personal wealth of others also doesn't prevent you from earning it yourself. Alan Sugar grew up in a council flat, he's now a Baron. Everybody CAN improve their lot in life, they just have to work hard to do so and stop blaming it on everybody else. As long as everybody works within the same system then capitalism works fine, the issues arrive when people use their political connection to bypass said system. Not all wealthy people fall under that bracket and not all aristocracy do either. I don't sit around whining that part of my income is taxed at double the rate of somebody on minimum wage's income, most of whom don't even pay 20% on theirs because they barely exceed the tax allowance. I'm not sure people even realise that wealthier people pay MORE on their taxes than poorer people do. I earn a lot of money and because of that I'm perfectly happy to pay substantially higher taxes to benefit the people who don't. Like I say, it's not as simple as "blame the rich."


----------



## Crasp

RavishingRickRules said:


> And that's fine, but I fail to see how in any way that argues against "aristocracy" or wealthy upper-middle class families having insane amounts of wealth? Personal wealth isn't a crime, at some point in history somebody had to earn that wealth. The personal wealth of others also doesn't prevent you from earning it yourself. Alan Sugar grew up in a council flat, he's now a Baron. Everybody CAN improve their lot in life, they just have to work hard to do so and stop blaming it on everybody else. As long as everybody works within the same system then capitalism works fine, the issues arrive when people use their political connection to bypass said system. Not all wealthy people fall under that bracket and not all aristocracy do either. I don't sit around whining that part of my income is taxed at double the rate of somebody on minimum wage's income, most of whom don't even pay 20% on theirs because they barely exceed the tax allowance. I'm not sure people even realise that wealthier people pay MORE on their taxes than poorer people do. I earn a lot of money and because of that I'm perfectly happy to pay substantially higher taxes to benefit the people who don't. Like I say, it's not as simple as "blame the rich."


I've yet to blame wealth itself throughout any of this so /shrug. I'm not sure why that aspect of discussion is being raised in response to anything I've posted, so it reads in quite an awkward defensive way.

There are indeed paths from humble beginings to attain wealth for those with the right work ethic and vision (and an array of social factors which can contribute to this). If you consider it a bad thing to want to create an environment where there can be _more_ success stories, then I guess in that respect we're perhaps not on the same page.


Aaaaanyway... That Donald Trump eh?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Crasp said:


> I've yet to blame wealth itself throughout any of this so /shrug. I'm not sure why that aspect of discussion is being raised in response to anything I've posted, so it reads in quite an awkward defensive way.
> 
> There are indeed paths from humble beginings to attain wealth for those with the right work ethic and vision (and an array of social factors which can contribute to this). If you consider it a bad thing to want to create an environment where there can be _more_ success stories, then I guess in that respect we're perhaps not on the same page.
> 
> 
> Aaaaanyway... That Donald Trump eh?


When did I ever say it was a bad thing to create more opportunities for people? I simply stated that blaming it on the wealthy people is idiotic at best. It's mostly non-aristocratic people (politicians) who are responsible for those things, not a blanket class of "wealthy people." You joined in a discussion almost entirely about one group of people arguing that wealthy families shouldn't have their wealth because it might have been earned hundreds of years ago and others (like me) saying that they have every right to their wealth and position in this world. :shrug


----------



## Crasp

RavishingRickRules said:


> When did I ever say it was a bad thing to create more opportunities for people? I simply stated that blaming it on the wealthy people is idiotic at best. It's mostly non-aristocratic people (politicians) who are responsible for those things, not a blanket class of "wealthy people." You joined in a discussion almost entirely about one group of people arguing that wealthy families shouldn't have their wealth because it might have been earned hundreds of years ago and others (like me) saying that they have every right to their wealth and position in this world. :shrug


You seemed to imply that the status quo was working optimally, yourself being a posterboy for its validity. And in arguing that _"you didn't agree that there SHOULD be a balance built around taking from one family who's members EARNED that wealth to give it to people who DIDN'T earn that wealth."_, it _appeared_ to contradict your later statement of support for disadvantaged children being given a leg up out of the tax we pay in the form of various services/schemes. Seems that was all mostly down to incorrect stick-holding procedures though.

Indeed I did join a discussion with quite polarized competing viewpoints. I joined to argue for a reasonable middle-ground - one which I support - as I hadn't realised I _had_ to argue for one extreme or the other. Turns out though that you seem to also subscribe to the middle-ground, which was not apparant to begin with.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Crasp said:


> You seemed to imply that the status quo was working optimally, yourself being a posterboy for its validity. And in arguing that _"you didn't agree that there SHOULD be a balance built around taking from one family who's members EARNED that wealth to give it to people who DIDN'T earn that wealth."_, it _appeared_ to contradict your later statement of support for disadvantaged children being given a leg up out of the tax we pay in the form of various services/schemes. Seems that was all mostly down to incorrect stick-holding procedures though.
> 
> Indeed I did join a discussion with quite polarized competing viewpoints. I joined to argue for a reasonable middle-ground - one which I support - as I didn't realised I _had_ to argue for one extreme or the other.


I don't agree there should be a balance based around taking from one group to give to another as a redistribution of wealth. Taxes paid fairly by every member of society to provide for said society has never been something I've argued against. The thing I'm arguing against is the "anti-aristocracy or inherited wealth" nonsense. And it is NONSENSE. That line of thinking only ever comes from those who've never had success in their family and wants to blame the people who have. If I earn millions in my lifetime, there is nothing wrong with my children retaining those millions after I die. When my children are applying to University I will absolutely use my position as a Cambridge alumnus to try and give them an advantage in their own applications, it's one of the benefits of working as hard as I did to get there in the first place. I don't think there is remotely anything wrong with that.


----------



## Crasp

Proportional taxation "paid fairly by every member of society to provide for said society" _is_ an _indirect_ "balance based around taking from one group to give to another as a redistribution of wealth".


----------



## Reaper

Pretty strong corellation between increase in suicide rates and Red States. 



















https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...-sharply-across-the-country-new-report-shows/


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Crasp said:


> Proportional taxation "paid fairly by every member of society to provide for said society" _is_ an _indirect_ "balance based around taking from one group to give to another as a redistribution of wealth".


And that already happens outside of a few tax dodgers messing up the system, so what's the issue?


----------



## Crasp

RavishingRickRules said:


> And that already happens outside of a few tax dodgers messing up the system, so what's the issue?


Not an issue for me per se, but it's a contradiction in your own stance, as those are both direct quotes from you.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Crasp said:


> Not an issue for me per se, but it's a contradiction in your own stance, as those are both direct quotes from you.


It's not a contradiction you're just choosing to read what you want to read. I flat out stated that the issue I have is with the people who think you need to go beyond that. The people who want to UNFAIRLY punish the wealthy to pay for the unwealthy, because apparently success is a punishable offence.


----------



## Crasp

RavishingRickRules said:


> It's not a contradiction you're just choosing to read what you want to read. I flat out stated that the issue I have is with the people who think you need to go beyond that. The people who want to UNFAIRLY punish the wealthy to pay for the unwealthy, because apparently success is a punishable offence.


But _I'm_ not those people, and it was _me_ you were talking to.

It is _entirely_ a contradiction to say you are _for_ Proportional "taxation paid fairly by every member of society to provide for said society", but are _against_ "a balance based around taking from one group to give to another as a redistribution of wealth". 

The only way it would not be a contradiction is if you were instead arguing for one single flat rate of tax for everyone instead of proportional taxation. 

It's less a case of me choosing to read what I want to read, and more a case of you being against something when it takes a certain form but apparantly _for_ it under a different guise. Proportional taxation IS the redistribution of wealth. It IS the state taking away a larger sum of money from _you_ to help provide more affordable services etc for those who couldn't otherwise afford them. There's no shades of grey here.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Crasp said:


> But _I'm_ not those people, and it was _me_ you were talking to.
> 
> It is _entirely_ a contradiction to say you are _for_ Proportional "taxation paid fairly by every member of society to provide for said society", but are _against_ "a balance based around taking from one group to give to another as a redistribution of wealth".
> 
> The only way it would not be a contradiction is if you were instead arguing for one single flat rate of tax for everyone instead of proportional taxation.
> 
> It's less a case of me choosing to read what I want to read, and more a case of you being against something when it takes a certain form but apparantly _for_ it under a different guise. Proportional taxation IS the redistribution of wealth. It IS the state taking away a larger sum of money from _you_ to help provide more affordable services etc for those who couldn't otherwise afford them. There's no shades of grey here.


So you're arguing with me for agreeing with you? And you think this is something that's worth spending time on? I've clearly stated my position, arguing about semantics is about as interesting as watching Raw. As I've stated numerous times, I'm for paying my taxes, I'm not for "removing the owner class so that the workers who didn't put the effort in to get above their current position in life can take their places." Anything beyond that is arguing for the sake of arguing.


----------



## Crasp

RavishingRickRules said:


> So you're arguing with me for agreeing with you? And you think this is something that's worth spending time on? I've clearly stated my position, arguing about semantics is about as interesting as watching Raw. As I've stated numerous times, I'm for paying my taxes, I'm not for "removing the owner class so that the workers who didn't put the effort in to get above their current position in life can take their places." Anything beyond that is arguing for the sake of arguing.


Semantics are pretty fundimental in establishing a point clearly.

The reason I wanted to stress the significance of the earlier apparent contradiction regarding wealth redistribution, tax & services, is that it needed to be understood before I could elaborate on my actual initial point;

The targeted taxation and subsequent spending is a significant part of the balance which prevents society from snowballing into an aristocracy where actually escaping the lower classes becomes less and less realistic, and crime unavoidably also goes up & up. More astutely applied taxation and redistribution (in the form of schemes & services) would move the balance in a more globally positive direction imo, most notably with regards to investment in schools/educational services. I believe everyone should be entitled to the best education possible. Not only would it bestow more opportunities on the underprivileged, but populism would be far more tolerable if people weren't such idiots, and a better educational framework might solve that.


----------



## FITZ

Reap said:


> Pretty strong corellation between increase in suicide rates and Red States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...-sharply-across-the-country-new-report-shows/


Were the slot machines really lose or something in Vegas?


----------



## virus21




----------



## yeahbaby!

virus21 said:


> Except that Colbert is giving him a do over on his response. Would a guy like Colbert been so lenient to anyone else?


What do you mean lenient? Yes, he used the diplomatic term 'do over' - that's his style that's congruent with the type of show he hosts. The Late Show by definition is meant to be light. It's not meant to some hard hitting Fox or CNN style thing where political figures get totally grilled.

Again, he brought the incident up and made Bill confront it and basically made him admit he was wrong. That's not exactly putting Clinton in the best light is it - when the guy himself admits he was wrong.

Being lenient would've been avoiding the whole thing altogether.

But if there's some similar incidents of him being more hard hitting with Rightie politicians then I'd be happy to see them and admit I was wrong.


----------



## yeahbaby!

RavishingRickRules said:


> When my children are applying to University I will absolutely use my position as a Cambridge alumnus to try and give them an advantage in their own applications, it's one of the benefits of working as hard as I did to get there in the first place. I don't think there is remotely anything wrong with that.


Isn't that a bit of an unfair advantage for them? You got in there on your own steam which is very admirable, why don't you want them to do the same?

What if your kids haven't actually worked as hard as you did - but you still get them in due to your political connection, and that spot gets taken away from someone who actually worked harder than your kid did?

(Look I'm not sure if my example is entirely realistic because I don't fully understand that system, but I think you get my point.)


----------



## RavishingRickRules

yeahbaby! said:


> Isn't that a bit of an unfair advantage for them? You got in there on your own steam which is very admirable, why don't you want them to do the same?
> 
> What if your kids haven't actually worked as hard as you did - but you still get them in due to your political connection, and that spot gets taken away from someone who actually worked harder than your kid did?
> 
> (Look I'm not sure if my example is entirely realistic because I don't fully understand that system, but I think you get my point.)


Am I supposed to care if it's an unfair advantage or something? My kid would be going to one of the absolute best Universities in the world, I couldn't give a flying fuck if that gives them an unfair advantage tbh. :lol


----------



## virus21

yeahbaby! said:


> What do you mean lenient? Yes, he used the diplomatic term 'do over' - that's his style that's congruent with the type of show he hosts. The Late Show by definition is meant to be light. It's not meant to some hard hitting Fox or CNN style thing where political figures get totally grilled.
> 
> Again, he brought the incident up and made Bill confront it and basically made him admit he was wrong. That's not exactly putting Clinton in the best light is it - when the guy himself admits he was wrong.
> 
> Being lenient would've been avoiding the whole thing altogether.
> 
> But if there's some similar incidents of him being more hard hitting with Rightie politicians then I'd be happy to see them and admit I was wrong.


Given the MeToo Hysteria, would he be as diplomatic with someone else? Thats what Im asking. As much as I don't like the Clintons, if he made a gaffe, he made one. Its just funny in this modern climate, especially in the MeToo era, that he was even allowed to.


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> Yes because you're really going to behead the Clintons kay
> 
> And yes I'm arguing that everything a family has earned they get to keep unless they have to sell it off themselves. I don't believe in stealing from people who worked hard for something to give it to people who think they deserve the same whilst coasting through life.


You've been arguing against taking away from one's hard work to give to another when that's not what I've been arguing for in the first place. We don't need wealth redistribution for a healthy society. The problem is in how that wealth is distributed in the first place.

When you argue that it's wrong to steal someone else's hard work, I agree. People like you aren't the problem though. You've achieved a moderate amount of success and I applaud you for that. The problem is people like Jeff Bezos, who has amassed (what is it now, 130 billion dollars?) while his employees are so underpaid that they need government assistance just to feed their kids. The one report that still blows my mind is about the Amazon factory where they parked an ambulance outside to take workers to the hospital when the dropped from heat exhaustion because that was cheaper than air conditioning the factory. The person doing the stealing here is Bezos, not the poor worker who is busting his ass just to survive.

Should people who work harder earn more and be able to share that success with their families? Absolutely. I have nothing against your desire to do that for your own. You seem to be missing the point though. What capitalism has produced is such extreme amounts of wealth imbalance that eventually the system will become so top heavy that it collapses on itself. All you have to do is study history to come to this conclusion. _Every single time_ wealth has become as concentrated as it is now, collapses of society and revolutions happen. Oftentimes they become bloody scenarios. I wasn't suggesting that they would roll out the guillotines for the Clintons but the French Revolution is an apt example of what I'm talking about here. Those at the top took too much for themselves and eventually the people rose up against them.

6, count em, *six* people own more wealth than the bottom half of the entire world, which is 3.5 billion people. They didn't work that much harder than everyone else. They got that much wealth because the system is designed for this end result. This kind of wealth imbalance can't and won't last.



Crasp said:


> This is a weird possibly off-topic tangent we're on right now but whatevs.
> 
> A fair & functional meritocracy is a great idea, but it cant truly exist. Allowing the fruits of ones own labour to be shared by future generations of family is absolutly reasonable. But without checks & balances, it quickly morphs into an aristocracy as it becomes less and less fair/functional for those at the bottom end.
> 
> This is no argument for handouts, however; Merely for an equality in opportunity, or as close as can be realistically achieved.


Exactly.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

How is Bezos stealing though? Because he was clever enough to find a way to become that wealthy? That's not theft. Should he improve his worker's conditions? ABSOLUTELY (which is why I don't believe in "no state" as a well run state can provide protections for workers in situations like that.) Is he stealing from them? Fuck no, he's the guy who had the idea that made him that wealthy. Do you have a right to all of that wealth because you pack items in a shipping plant? Fuck no. This is my problem here, it takes no qualifications, very little effort or preparation to pack boxes. Sure it might be hard work TO pack boxes, but if you want to get paid better, do a job that warrants it. Work harder to get a job that warrants it. I don't believe somebody with no qualifications working a menial job should remotely get paid as much as somebody who bust their ass their entire childhood, paid a fortune for an education and then used that work and education to get themselves in a position where they are more valuable. Here's another example, a telephone operator in the company I work for provides a great service, but to the company that individual isn't actually bringing in a ton of profit. Conversely some of the people who are a rung above me actually make the company millions, their ability and knowledge of the industry (gained through years of service, education and hard work to get beyond the bottom rung) makes TONS of money for the company. Why don't they deserve to get paid a substantial amount more than a customer service telephone operator? Because they both work hard? Sure they both do work hard, but only one of them has the ability to generate millions in income for the business, so why should they be paid the same? One requires significantly more work BEFORE they get the position, it also requires a substantially higher level of competency. You said earlier "why don't the workers get to make the decisions in big corporations?" One very valid answer I think is that the ground-floor workers in many corporation don't have the education or skills TO make the decisions for that company. Tanking a company to give everybody a fair say is not my idea of the best way to run a business. It does sound like a very good way to put thousands of people out of work though.


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> How is Bezos stealing though? Because he was clever enough to find a way to become that wealthy?


If you still cannot comprehend the problem with a system that produces one person with 130 billion while the people who work for him suffer in poverty, there is nothing I can do to help you.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> If you still cannot comprehend the problem with a system that produces one person with 130 billion while the people who work for him suffer in poverty, there is nothing I can do to help you.


If you can't understand that people with more talent/intelligence/capability make more money than people with less of those things then I now understand why your ideas are so full of nonsense.


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak

Reap said:


> Pretty strong corellation between increase in suicide rates and Red States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...-sharply-across-the-country-new-report-shows/


That actually makes sense.... When Trump called many of those places the forgotten parts of the country. And did a big push for those areas after Obama only really helped the Major Coastal states. The dates are 1999 to 2016.... Now if that would change with Trump, I don't know.


----------



## yeahbaby!

RavishingRickRules said:


> Am I supposed to care if it's an unfair advantage or something? My kid would be going to one of the absolute best Universities in the world, I couldn't give a flying fuck if that gives them an unfair advantage tbh. :lol


Given your earlier arguments in which you were apparently the perfect example of the honest, hard working, self sacrificing, rise from the bottom success story - yes I kind've thought you would care somewhat about fairness.

That's cool though, not my place to tell you to care about it.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

yeahbaby! said:


> Given your earlier arguments in which you were apparently the perfect example of the honest, hard working, self sacrificing, rise from the bottom success story - yes I kind've thought you would care somewhat about fairness.
> 
> That's cool though, not my place to tell you to care about it.


Yeah I worked my arse off so that my kids won't NEED to work near as hard. That's kind of how it works. What would you prefer, that I kick my kids out and say "I was working class so despite the fact that I worked so hard to get out of that situation you need to go back to that and start from scratch otherwise it's not fair on everybody else?" Is that what would make you feel better? It doesn't work like that, I worked hard to give my family the advantages, that's how it works. Everybody else can do the same, of course you're probably more interested in whining about other people's successes than earning them yourself, like @Tater who's massively bitter about a self-made man like Bezos becoming the richest man in the world, right? :lol


----------



## Reaper

Stupid_Smark said:


> That actually makes sense.... When Trump called many of those places the forgotten parts of the country. And did a big push for those areas after Obama only really helped the Major Coastal states. The dates are 1999 to 2016.... Now if that would change with Trump, I don't know.


Most of those States have been Red for a while. The other side of the coin is that this also suggests that there is something wrong with the way the Reds are running things as well.

The more I continue to learn, the more I realize just how wrong both parties and their ideologies are. Imo, America needs multiple parties. Power is far too consolidated between both the Repubs and Dems who consistently collude against the people of the country.

I don't need to tell you this. But there is something infinitely wrong with a country that drops a bomb that costs more than the mental healthcare of each person who commits suicide everyday on some random stranger whose name or face you'll never see.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah I worked my arse off so that my kids won't NEED to work near as hard. That's kind of how it works. What would you prefer, that I kick my kids out and say "I was working class so despite the fact that I worked so hard to get out of that situation you need to go back to that and start from scratch otherwise it's not fair on everybody else?" Is that what would make you feel better? It doesn't work like that, I worked hard to give my family the advantages, that's how it works. Everybody else can do the same, of course you're probably more interested in whining about other people's successes than earning them yourself, like @Tater who's massively bitter about a self-made man like Bezos becoming the richest man in the world, right? [emoji38]


Actually... People don't like the idea of inheritance. It's now socially acceptable to demand that there be no inheritance for anyone. In fact, most countries tax inheritance. 

I think our tax structure is even worse than it was when we kicked the Brits out .. over taxes.... Who were kicked out of every country they tried to own .. over taxes... So that the locals could tax themselves.

Might as well have continued to live under Kings and nobles for the society we are on our way to create is merely just a replacement of the Lord and peasant. Just that the kings wear suits and the tax man doesn't even have to knock on your door.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> Most of those States have been Red for a while. The other side of the coin is that this also suggests that there is something wrong with the way the Reds are running things as well.
> 
> The more I continue to learn, the more I realize just how wrong both parties and their ideologies are. Imo, America needs multiple parties. Power is far too consolidated between both the Repubs and Dems who consistently collude against the people of the country.


This is why the middle ground is so good, truth is both sides of the spectrum have good and bad ideas. The best way is to try and combine the good from either side whilst negating as much of the bad as possible. It's also why loyalty to a political party is silly, all it takes is one group of politicians and a party can flip from a good one to a bad one. Whilst it's still not a perfect situation, I'd much prefer a proportional representation system than a first past the post system of government/elections. Trading off different flawed ideologies every time the government changes doesn't seem to be working in either the UK or the USA as far as I can see it. Seems like a perpetual cycle of one party tries to push their idea, then the government changes, spends half their time reversing the things the previous gov did and then starts changing things to their version, rinse and repeat lol.


----------



## CamillePunk

What a cancerous ideology it is to lead someone to look at a man like Jeff Bezos and call him a thief.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> This is why the middle ground is so good, truth is both sides of the spectrum have good and bad ideas. The best way is to try and combine the good from either side whilst negating as much of the bad as possible. It's also why loyalty to a political party is silly, all it takes is one group of politicians and a party can flip from a good one to a bad one. Whilst it's still not a perfect situation, I'd much prefer a proportional representation system than a first past the post system of government/elections. Trading off different flawed ideologies every time the government changes doesn't seem to be working in either the UK or the USA as far as I can see it. Seems like a perpetual cycle of one party tries to push their idea, then the government changes, spends half their time reversing the things the previous gov did and then starts changing things to their version, rinse and repeat lol.


Yes. Unfortunately Trump supporters were hopefully and I suppose naively optimistic that Trump while running on a republican ticket may actually go against the party line which he seemed to be doing. 

Guess not.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> Actually... People don't like the idea of inheritance. It's now socially acceptable to demand that there be no inheritance for anyone. In fact, most countries tax inheritance.
> 
> I think our tax structure is even worse than it was when we kicked the Brits out .. over taxes.... Who were kicked out of every country they tried to own .. over taxes... So that the locals could tax themselves.
> 
> Might as well have continued to live under Kings and nobles for the society we are on our way to create is merely just a replacement of the Lord and peasant. Just that the kings wear suits and the tax man doesn't even have to knock on your door.


Yeah they tax inheritance, which is why I'll die penniless with very wealthy children


----------



## MrMister

I hate Jaime Dimon.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah they tax inheritance, which is why I'll die penniless with very wealthy children


Yeah. My dad has started transferring his wealth to us already. 

That's kinda what it's supposed to be. People need to realize that almost everyone worked hard. My dad was a penniless immigrant after India's partition.


----------



## yeahbaby!

RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah I worked my arse off so that my kids won't NEED to work near as hard. That's kind of how it works. What would you prefer, that I kick my kids out and say "I was working class so despite the fact that I worked so hard to get out of that situation you need to go back to that and start from scratch otherwise it's not fair on everybody else?" Is that what would make you feel better? It doesn't work like that, I worked hard to give my family the advantages, that's how it works. Everybody else can do the same, of course you're probably more interested in whining about other people's successes than earning them yourself, like @Tater who's massively bitter about a self-made man like Bezos becoming the richest man in the world, right? :lol


Not really sure why you're resorting to strawmen and becoming hostile just because I picked you up on what I thought was a contradiction. 

No one said anything about kicking out of your kids on the street, and what I do or don't earn is no business of yours - however for the record I've been working full time for a long time while completing a degree in psychology for the last 4 years, while raising a baby for the last 18 months. So don't cast aspersions on me.

All I did was pick on the *specific example* of using political connections or power or whatever to get your kids over the line in school applications. Something that would be entirely counter to what you yourself did - get in on your own merits. What if you missed out back in the day because some alumni used his connections to get in someone who had worked less hard and had less ability than you? 

But missing out sometimes is just the way it is I guess - meaning maybe hard work and sacrifice doesn't always get you the results you want, because that's the way it is.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> Yeah. My dad has started transferring his wealth to us already.
> 
> That's kinda what it's supposed to be. People need to realize that almost everyone worked hard. My dad was a penniless immigrant after India's partition.


It's why I've always been "anti cheating the system" not "anti wealthy people." I have no real problem paying taxes tbh, and I pay a lot. When the taxes are used properly it benefits all of society, that's cool, I love that. My issue is when people gain an UNFAIR advantage, not a FAIR one. A fair advantage is working hard enough to obtain the social and financial position where you and yours are able to do a lot more with a lot less effort. 

I pay my taxes the same as everybody else, I also use my money for good causes and helping other people get a leg up. I also know people who are so wealthy it's difficult to comprehend who do SO much to help people less fortunate that I couldn't dream of keeping up in a million years. These people also pay taxes and again, are perfectly happy to do so in the system we live in. My issue is with the people who bypass that system, or use politics to get around it, that's when things become unfair. If there's no taxes, then great everybody's treated the same. If there are taxes though everybody should also be treated the same, that's "fair." Interestingly, the middle class does WAY more tax dodging than the upper class in the UK. And yet it's the upper class who are demonised more often than not. 

I don't believe in punishing people for success in order to give an unfair advantage to those who's families didn't achieve that success, or individuals who didn't achieve that success. At the end of the day "Kings and Queens" are just people who had ancestors way cleverer than ours were who started farming when everybody else was still hunter-gathering and put themselves in a position to take control. I have no real problem with that. All wealthy families started somewhere, somebody worked hard or had an idea or a product or whatever that gave them the advantage they EARNED. I truly wonder how many of these people acting like wealth is inherently evil are remotely successful themselves, often they seem more interested in whining about those who did achieve success than achieving it for themselves. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> It's why I've always been "anti cheating the system" not "anti wealthy people." I have no real problem paying taxes tbh, and I pay a lot. When the taxes are used properly it benefits all of society, that's cool, I love that. My issue is when people gain an UNFAIR advantage, not a FAIR one. A fair advantage is working hard enough to obtain the social and financial position where you and yours are able to do a lot more with a lot less effort.
> 
> I pay my taxes the same as everybody else, I also use my money for good causes and helping other people get a leg up. I also know people who are so wealthy it's difficult to comprehend who do SO much to help people less fortunate that I couldn't dream of keeping up in a million years. These people also pay taxes and again, are perfectly happy to do so in the system we live in. My issue is with the people who bypass that system, or use politics to get around it, that's when things become unfair. If there's no taxes, then great everybody's treated the same. If there are taxes though everybody should also be treated the same, that's "fair." Interestingly, the middle class does WAY more tax dodging than the upper class in the UK. And yet it's the upper class who are demonised more often than not.
> 
> I don't believe in punishing people for success in order to give an unfair advantage to those who's families didn't achieve that success, or individuals who didn't achieve that success. At the end of the day "Kings and Queens" are just people who had ancestors way cleverer than ours were who started farming when everybody else was still hunter-gathering and put themselves in a position to take control. I have no real problem with that. All wealthy families started somewhere, somebody worked hard or had an idea or a product or whatever that gave them the advantage they EARNED. I truly wonder how many of these people acting like wealth is inherently evil are remotely successful themselves, often they seem more interested in whining about those who did achieve success than achieving it for themselves. :shrug


I know rich friends. I'm talking Nawab / Sheikh / Prince level rich.

They're so busy self actualizing that they don't talk about people. They talk about ideas. They want the company of others. Material wealth after a certain level gives them diminishing returns so they find other avenues of happiness. 

The persuit of happiness for lower to lower middle class is so intertwined with material wealth only that it makes them much harsher than the rich people I've hung out with.


----------



## CamillePunk

People shouldn't be happy to pay taxes at all. You can use your money for good so much more efficiently and effectively than any state could. My country uses our tax dollars to play merchant of death and fuck up the world. I'm not happy about it at all.


----------



## Reaper

Also, most poor people are shit with money too. I mean, I recently hung out with someone who paid 20 bucks for a sandwich but then didn't have enough money to buy their kids a round of tickets to go play on the rides. Kinda stood out to me because how can a parent eat a sandwich and then deprive their kid of fun when all other kids are having it.

Actually, it works as a parable for government as a whole. :hmmm


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> People shouldn't be happy to pay taxes at all. You can use your money for good so much more efficiently and effectively than any state could. My country uses our tax dollars to play merchant of death and fuck up the world. I'm not happy about it at all.


Who will build the roads and stop signs?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

yeahbaby! said:


> Not really sure why you're resorting to strawmen and becoming hostile just because I picked you up on what I thought was a contradiction.
> 
> No one said anything about kicking out of your kids on the street, and what I do or don't earn is no business of yours - however for the record I've been working full time for a long time while completing a degree in psychology for the last 4 years, while raising a baby for the last 18 months. So don't cast aspersions on me.
> 
> All I did was pick on the *specific example* of using political connections or power or whatever to get your kids over the line in school applications. Something that would be entirely counter to what you yourself did - get in on your own merits. What if you missed out back in the day because some alumni used his connections to get in someone who had worked less hard and had less ability than you?
> 
> But missing out sometimes is just the way it is I guess - meaning maybe hard work and sacrifice doesn't always get you the results you want, because that's the way it is.


And when you become more successful from gaining your degree, potentially becoming quite wealthy if you're in psychology, will you not use that better position in life to give your child an easier ride than you had? 

Of COURSE my children won't have to struggle the way I did in life, that's WHY I worked so hard in the first place. Do you honestly think I wouldn't have chosen for my own journey to be easier? There's nothing romantic about growing up poor and having to claw and scratch your way to the top. It sucks ass. If I hadn't gone to Cambridge because somebody else took the place? Cool, I would've gone to Oxford, or Manchester, or any number of other top UK Universities (or American ones tbh I nearly studied out there) because I worked that hard that I had offers from every University I applied to. 

There is no straw man, you tried to act like I'd be somehow "wrong" in giving my kid an advantage that others couldn't - I'm telling you straight that there's nothing wrong in that, that's one of the reasons I achieved the success in the first place. That's not an "unfair" advantage, I worked for that advantage. I'm nothing special, anybody could do what I did if they wanted it enough and worked for it enough. If people don't achieve that, that's not unfair, maybe they weren't talented enough, or didn't work hard enough, there's no luck involved in doing what I did. I earned everything, nothing was handed to me. Does that mean I wouldn't have taken some handouts to get there easier? Fuck no, I would've LOVED somebody to make things easier for me. Thankfully my kids have that, me.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> People shouldn't be happy to pay taxes at all. You can use your money for good so much more efficiently and effectively than any state could. My country uses our tax dollars to play merchant of death and fuck up the world. I'm not happy about it at all.


Whilst I agree with you to a point, there is also the fact that a significant number of people in the world ARE selfish, and won't provide for society. I don't particularly agree with the way taxes are used or the governments using them all of the time, but (and this is my pessimist side speaking) I have no problem really in having a system where everybody pays their share into a pot and that pot is used to improve the place I live (which is all taxes are really.) Now, I'd be much happier if there weren't a number of people being allowed to bypass that system. Like I say, I just think everybody should get the same shake of the stick, if I pay taxes, you pay taxes, everybody pays taxes (assuming they earn money.) If nobody pays taxes? Great. I honestly don't particularly miss the money I'm paying, and as you say it'd be spent on improving things anyway. :shrug


----------



## yeahbaby!

RavishingRickRules said:


> And when you become more successful from gaining your degree, potentially becoming quite wealthy if you're in psychology, will you not use that better position in life to give your child an easier ride than you had?
> 
> Of COURSE my children won't have to struggle the way I did in life, that's WHY I worked so hard in the first place. Do you honestly think I wouldn't have chosen for my own journey to be easier? There's nothing romantic about growing up poor and having to claw and scratch your way to the top. It sucks ass. If I hadn't gone to Cambridge because somebody else took the place? Cool, I would've gone to Oxford, or Manchester, or any number of other top UK Universities (or American ones tbh I nearly studied out there) because I worked that hard that I had offers from every University I applied to.
> 
> There is no straw man, you tried to act like I'd be somehow "wrong" in giving my kid an advantage that others couldn't - I'm telling you straight that there's nothing wrong in that, that's one of the reasons I achieved the success in the first place. That's not an "unfair" advantage, I worked for that advantage. I'm nothing special, anybody could do what I did if they wanted it enough and worked for it enough. If people don't achieve that, that's not unfair, maybe they weren't talented enough, or didn't work hard enough, there's no luck involved in doing what I did. I earned everything, nothing was handed to me. Does that mean I wouldn't have taken some handouts to get there easier? Fuck no, I would've LOVED somebody to make things easier for me. Thankfully my kids have that, me.


Okay man, I hear you. I guess the difference in our argument is I tend to think it is an unfair advantage and you don't. That's fine, let's just agree to disagree. 

I haven't done what you obviously have, so I understand why it's close to your heart. And Look you've got a point, maybe I would do the same sort of thing for my kid.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

yeahbaby! said:


> Okay man, I hear you. I guess the difference in our argument is I tend to think it is an unfair advantage and you don't. That's fine, let's just agree to disagree.
> 
> I haven't done what you obviously have, so I understand why it's close to your heart. And Look you've got a point, maybe I would do the same sort of thing for my kid.


That's why we put all that work in in the first place right? It's not all about our own individual benefit, you want to provide for you AND yours? If I helped get my child into Cambridge and they graduated with a good degree the advantage in life that gives them is actually huge. Maybe it's not right but simply having your degree from that University means you can walk into good positions at prestigious companies. Going to that University means your schoolmates are future CEOs, politicians and powerful people. I went to school with actual nobility, those contacts are priceless when you're out in the real world. Given a choice I'm always going to choose my children growing up with as many advantages as possible, not fewer. I'm giving them the start my parents couldn't give me, and I worked for it. I don't see what's unfair in that if I'm being honest. Everybody has the power to improve their standing in life, sure, some will be able to do it more than others (like me being able to do more than my father did) and it's infinitely harder to do it the lower down you start, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to start higher up on the ladder - it just means that somebody fought to give you that head start. Jeff Bezos was born poor to a teenage mother and he's one of the richest men in the world, I'm not sure he should be demonised for that personally. :shrug


----------



## MrMister

That shrug emote is my new "imo" 

that thing gets me pretty gotten to


----------



## Draykorinee

But seriously though, paragraphs.


----------



## MrMister

You guys have gone on for pages and I don't think here has been one instance even close to merit a banning much less a warning.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

MrMister said:


> You guys have gone on for pages and I don't think here has been one instance even close to merit a banning much less a warning.


Is there usually? I thought this thread was always pretty good for back and forth discussions, well at least once the birthday_massacre wars were over :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

RavishingRickRules said:


> Is there usually? I thought this thread was always pretty good for back and forth discussions, well at least once the birthday_massacre wars were over :lol


I think its a combination of things, Reap and I get on well now, but we had a toxic start where both of us could have been banned multiple times. BM was a very opinionated person, I agreed with most of his stuff but he just pushed things too much. A lot of vocal Trump fans are now at best indifferent or have flat out switched to a more anti-trump but still conservative position due to Trumps inability to drain the swamp, stand against the neocons, constant childish rants etc. The anti-trump posters no longer go 'but Russia' and most Trumpers don't go 'but Hilary'.

Trumps presidency is not without merit though, the economy and jobs are so far in one of the best places its been in and he could play major part in NK at least playing a little ball with other countries.

This thread hasn't been toxic for quite some time and there seems to be some understanding of everyone's position and little foibles. I mean, who doesn't love a Trump gif ladened Deepemblem post?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> I think its a combination of things, Reap and I get on well now, but we had a toxic start where both of us could have been banned multiple times. BM was a very opinionated person, I agreed with most of his stuff but he just pushed things too much. A lot of vocal Trump fans are now at best indifferent or have flat out switched to a more anti-trump but still conservative position due to Trumps inability to drain the swamp, stand against the neocons, constant childish rants etc. The anti-trump posters no longer go 'but Russia' and most Trumpers don't go 'but Hilary'.
> 
> Trumps presidency is not without merit though, the economy and jobs are so far in one of the best places its been in and he could play major part in NK at least playing a little ball with other countries.
> 
> This thread hasn't been toxic for quite some time and there seems to be some understanding of everyone's position and little foibles. I mean, who doesn't love a Trump gif ladened Deepemblem post?


Fair. I don't actually come in the thread as much as I used to tbh, seems like everywhere I go it's just people bitching about politics and it's getting beyond tedious. I enjoy it more now than I did when it was just BM and the right-wing contingent going apeshit at each other though. I do like that people have finally realised that it's not "trumptard or libtard with nothing in between" if I'm honest. Discussion is always more fun when people realise that everybody has their own opinions and stances and it's not just 2 armies of extremist nutjobs waging some weird war over which bunch of dickheads in politics they support like bizarre footy teams. :lol


----------



## Reaper

I've grown a lot over the last few months. 

I went back to pop - Psychology and indulged in some self growth.

The results are showing :goku


----------



## Goku

Reap said:


> I've grown a lot over the last few months.
> 
> I went back to pop - Psychology and indulged in some self growth.
> 
> The results are showing :goku


what did you learn?


----------



## Vic Capri

Facebook finally listened to conservative users and has gotten rid of Trending News. No more liberal propaganda against our President on the side of this social media platform!

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

Goku said:


> what did you learn?


I'm impulsive, and don't think before getting into arguments. Winning an argument seemed more important to me than actually learning anything of value, the core motiviation behind my interest in politics is to fight boredom instead of having an interest in politics for moralistic reasons.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ok, now this is just genius.... Queen Donald 


















































































:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> Facebook finally listened to conservative users and has gotten rid of Trending News. No more liberal propaganda against our President on the side of this social media platform!
> 
> - Vic


Does that mean that we can get rid of Fox News and breitbart then too?


----------



## MrMister

RavishingRickRules said:


> Is there usually? I thought this thread was always pretty good for back and forth discussions, well at least once the birthday_massacre wars were over :lol


Well there is more tl;dr per post than usual. That increases the chances. :shrug :lol

The regulars in this thread have always been good about disagreeing and keeping it just light hearted banter, you are correct.


----------



## Reaper

I think it's more like the indifference and resignation is showing.


----------



## skypod

Deleting a twitter account helps get out of a lot of the Trump bumble.

I sort of envy and feel sorry for Americans at the same time. I haven't uttered Theresa May's name in the pub for months. Our political discussions aren't heavy but they're usually more about policy and the UK/Scotland divide more than anything. I'm betting every American has had to say Donald Trumps name multiple times a day for two years now.

At the same time I think a lot of Americans are learning about the political process now, more than ever before because someone who doesn't have the largest IQ and a big mouth is making everything public. It's like presidency for dummies and a lot of people will hopefully leave this term better informed. Politics in the UK feels like it runs much more quietly in the background, which is both an advantage and disadvantage. 

People who aren't sophisticated (myself included) are left out of the process, but Jesus Christ I can't explain how much better it feels mentally :lmao


----------



## Vic Capri

Okay, this is funny!

- Vic


----------



## God Of Anger Juno

RavishingRickRules said:


> Ok, now this is just genius.... Queen Donald
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


.omg lmfaoo priceless.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Vic Capri

President Trump's press conference following the G7 Summit

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

Vic Capri said:


> President Trump's press conference following the G7 Summit
> 
> - Vic


The comments section. My Jesus


----------



## virus21

> Mitt Romney addressed a closed-door tech summit in Utah on Thursday, telling the room he thinks President Donald Trump -- the man he once called a “phony” and a “fraud” -- will “solidly” win re-election in 2020, reports said.
> Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, now running for a U.S. Senate seat in Utah, told a group of GOP donors that Trump will “easily” be the party’s nominee and go on to beat his Democratic rival, Politico reported.
> "I think that not just because of the strong economy and the fact that people are going to see increasingly rising wages, but I think it's also true because I think our Democrat friends are likely to nominate someone who is really out of the mainstream of American thought and will make it easier for a president who's presiding over a growing economy," Romney said.
> Trump throws his support behind Romney's Senate bid; reaction and analysis from Fox News contributor Jessica Tarlov and Kevin McCullough, conservative radio talk show host.
> Romney was a vocal critic of Trump during the 2016 presidential primaries, urging Americans to vote for U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. The former governor also recently revealed he didn’t cast his November vote for Trump, choosing instead to write in his wife Anne’s name.
> Romney’s criticism of Trump has cooled since launching his own Senate bid earlier this year following the announcement of U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch’s retirement. The two rivals have appeared to embrace each other, with the president giving his “full support” for Romney’s Senate candidacy in February.
> Utah Senate candidates, state Rep. Mike Kennedy, R-Alpine, left, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney shake hands at the beginning of a Senate Republican primary debate, Tuesday, May 29, 2018, in Provo, Utah. (Scott G Winterton/The Deseret News via AP, Pool)
> Utah Senate candidates, state Rep. Mike Kennedy, R-Alpine, left, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney shake hands at the beginning of a Senate Republican primary debate, May 29 in Provo, Utah. (The Deseret News via AP)
> The 71-year-old Romney is favored to win Utah's GOP nomination in a runoff on June 26 against state Rep. Mike Kennedy, with whom he sparred at a debate last week.
> Other dignitaries expected to appear at the three-day Utah Technology Innovation Summit include House Speaker Paul Ryan, billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., in addition to actor Seth Rogen, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz and former Domino's Pizza CEO Patrick Doyle.


http://archive.is/SbA6t#selection-1365.0-1473.329


----------



## MrMister

Trump's approval rating is up to 44%. This puts him on par with Saint Obama in 2010 and Saint Reagan in 1982.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/07/trump-poll-approval-rating-630365



> Trump’s 44 percent approval rating matches those of former Presidents Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan in June of 2010 and 1982, respectively, midterm years in which their parties suffered significant electoral defeats in the House.


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak

Some people here in China cosplayed as Kim and Trump :lol

Well a friend on wechat posted that. Not sure if it's in China lol still funny

It's in South Korea... And it's old too why am I only seeing this now? :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

Trump definitely has more support than his approval rating would indicate. Much like people were hesitant to say they would vote for him (the "shy Trump supporter" phenomenon that I correctly predicted would see Trump well out-perform 2016 election projections), I imagine there are people who don't want to say that they support him. If you live in the wrong part of the country (either coast) and that gets out you can really be targeted with some nasty behavior.

I really don't see him losing in 2020...should he decide to run. The main things people care about are going well, immigration is still largely unresolved but the Democrats are basically for open borders so that's no alternative for any mildly conservative voter, and the Democrats just have absolutely no one on deck. They put all their eggs in the Clinton basket and it backfired bigly.


----------



## Draykorinee

Good to see the G7 summit went about as well as we'd expected.


----------



## virus21

> HBO host Bill Maher said Friday that he is "hoping for" an economic collapse because that is the only way the president's opponents can "get rid of Trump."
> 
> Maher first asked guest Shermichael Singleton to asses the current economy under President Trump.
> 
> "It is going well," Singleton answered. "For now."
> 
> "Thank you, that’s my question,” Maher added. “I feel like the bottom has to fall out at some point, and by the way, I’m hoping for it."
> 
> "I think one way you get rid of Trump is a crashing economy. So please, bring on the recession. Sorry if that hurts people, but it’s either root for a recession or you lose your democracy.”
> 
> The economy appears to be improving under President Trump despite his ongoing trade war with both China and U.S. allies.
> 
> Earler in June, the unemployment rate fell to 3.8 percent, a 50-year low.


https://web.archive.org/web/20180609131349/https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bill-maher-is-hoping-for-an-economic-collapse-so-he-can-get-rid-of-trump-sorry-if-that-hurts-people



> WASHINGTON — President Trump called on the world’s leading economies on Friday to reinstate Russia to the Group of 7 nations four years after it was cast out for annexing Crimea, once again putting him at odds with America’s leading allies in Europe and Asia.
> The president made the suggestion to reporters at the White House just before leaving for Canada to attend the annual meeting of the G-7, a gathering that already was promising to be crackling with tension over trade, Iran and Mr. Trump’s sharp-edged approach to foreign leaders.
> “Russia should be in this meeting,” Mr. Trump said. “Why are we having a meeting without Russia being in the meeting? And I would recommend — and it’s up to them, but Russia should be in the meeting, it should be a part of it. You know, whether you like it or not, and it may not be politically correct, but we have a world to run and the G-7 — which used to be the G-8, they threw Russia out. They should let Russia come back in because we should have Russia at the negotiating table.”
> Russia joined the group in the 1990s after emerging from the wreckage of the Soviet Union, making it the G-8, but its armed intervention in its neighbor Ukraine in 2014 and seizure of the Crimean peninsula angered other major powers. The remaining members, led by President Barack Obama, expelled it in a sign of global resolve not to let international borders be redrawn by force.
> The notion of readmitting Russia to the world’s most exclusive club reflected the unusually friendly approach that Mr. Trump has taken to Russia since becoming president, a policy at odds with both Republicans and Democrats in Washington as well as leaders in Europe.
> Mr. Trump offered no specific reasoning for why Russia should be let back in even though it retains control of Crimea and has not lived up to an international agreement to end its intervention in eastern Ukraine.
> American intelligence agencies have concluded that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia personally authorized an operation to intervene in the 2016 American presidential election with the goal of helping Mr. Trump win. Mr. Trump has heatedly denied any collusion with Russia, although his son, son-in-law and campaign chairman met with Russians on the promise of receiving incriminating information about his opponent from the Russian government.
> Mr. Trump relishes his role as a disrupter of the established international order and was already at odds with his counterparts in the group. He spent Friday skirmishing with the leaders of Canada and France over trade and then abruptly announced that he would skip the end of the session in Quebec on Saturday.
> Britain, Germany and other members of the G-7 were unlikely to go along with Mr. Trump’s suggestion, but he won support from Italy. “I agree with President @realDonaldTrump: Russia should return to the G8,” Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte wrote on Twitter in Italian. “It is in everyone’s interest.”
> American foreign policy veterans, on the other hand, said the president’s suggestion underscored his isolation.
> Image
> President Trump spoke to reporters before leaving the White House on Friday.CreditTom Brenner/The New York Times
> “President Trump has placed himself on the wrong side: with the autocrats, the corrupt, and the anti-Americans, who look to Vladimir Putin as a natural ally,” said Daniel Fried, a former career diplomat who oversaw sanctions on Russia after its Ukraine intervention. “Such language will dismay America’s friends and embolden our adversaries.”
> The president’s comment came during a typically freewheeling discussion with reporters on the South Lawn of the White House that touched on a wide variety of domestic and foreign matters.
> Among other things, he said he planned to issue more pardons soon, including possibly one for Muhammad Ali, the boxing legend who was convicted of draft evasion during the Vietnam War but later cleared by the Supreme Court.
> While so far he has used his clemency power mainly for celebrities or cases brought to him by celebrities, he said he hoped to use it soon for a wider selection of applicants. “We have 3,000 names,” he said. “We’re looking at them. Of the 3,000 names, many of those names really have been treated unfairly.”
> He reflected on his commutation this week of Alice Marie Johnson, a 63-year-old drug convict whose case was brought to his attention by Kim Kardashian West. “I would get more thrill out of pardoning people that nobody knows,” he said. “Like Alice yesterday. I thought Kim Kardashian was great because she brought Alice to my attention. Alice was so great. The way she left that jail and the tears and the love that she has with her family, I mean, to me that was better than any celebrity that I can pardon.”
> The president said it was too early to talk about pardons for some of his associates caught up in the different investigations now targeting him and his team, but once again insisted that he could pardon himself if he chose to, an assertion debated by legal scholars.
> “I’m not above the law,” he said. “I never want anybody to be above the law. But the pardons are a very positive thing for a president. I think you see the way I’m using them. And yes, I do have an absolute right to pardon myself. But I’ll never have to do it because I didn’t do anything wrong. And everybody knows it.”
> He also came to the defense of Scott Pruitt, his embattled head of the Environmental Protection Agency, although he did not rule out replacing him. Mr. Pruitt has come under fire even from some Republicans for living in a condominium tied to a lobbyist, flying first class, surrounding himself with a large security contingent and using E.P.A. staff to conduct personal business for him.
> “Scott Pruitt is doing a great job within the walls of the E.P.A.,” Mr. Trump said. “We’re setting records. Outside he’s being attacked very viciously by the press. I’m not saying that he’s blameless, but we’ll see what happens.”
> The president raised more questions about the health of his wife, Melania, who was out of public view for several weeks following what was described as an embolization procedure to treat a benign kidney condition. She is not accompanying him to Quebec.
> “First lady is great,” he told reporters. “She wanted to go. Can’t fly for one month, the doctors say. She had a big operation. That was close to a four-hour operation. And she’s doing great. Right there. You know what? She is a great first lady.”
> What Mr. Trump described sounded more serious than a typical embolization, which doctors say would normally take about 90 minutes and is generally an outpatient procedure.
> Mr. Trump’s advocacy for Russian membership in the G-7 was in keeping with his against-the-grain attitude toward Moscow. He has repeatedly spoken in flattering terms about Mr. Putin of Russia and pushed for closer relations.
> During a telephone call after Mr. Putin’s re-election, widely deemed a sham by the rest of the world, Mr. Trump congratulated him on his victory even though his staff had written “DO NOT CONGRATULATE” on a briefing document. He also suggested that he would invite Mr. Putin for a summit meeting at the White House, to the chagrin of policymakers who have been trying to isolate Russia.
> At the same time, in recent months, Mr. Trump has allowed other members of his administration to voice sharp criticism of Russia and, however reluctantly, authorized sanctions in response to its intervention in the 2016 presidential election and cyberattacks. He ordered the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats and the closure of its consulate in Seattle after the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain.
> But he privately complained that he was being pushed to do more than he wanted. When Nikki R. Haley, his ambassador to the United Nations, announced that new sanctions would be imposed on Russia for supporting Syria’s use of chemical weapons against its own people, Mr. Trump publicly contradicted her and refused to authorize the move.
> In speaking with reporters on Friday, Mr. Trump insisted that he has been tough on Moscow, even more than Hillary Clinton would have been had she won the 2016 election. “I have been Russia’s worst nightmare,” he said. “If Hillary got in — I think Putin is probably going, man, I wish Hillary won.”
> The Kremlin spokesman, Dmitri Peskov, speaking with Russian journalists accompanying Mr. Putin on a trip to China, expressed indifference to the idea of Russia being readmitted to the G-7. “We are putting emphasis on different formats,” Mr. Peskov said.
> Mr. Putin was visiting Beijing ahead of a a weekend summit in the Chinese port city of Qingdao of leaders of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a group comprising China, Russia and Central Asian states that was set up by Beijing in 2001 as an alternative to American-dominated groups like the G-8.
> Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, a research institution, said Russian authorities would be foolish to take Mr. Trump’s proposal seriously.
> “The president’s nature is so mercurial that it would be wrong for Russia to become an instrument in Trump’s unpredictable statements,” Mr. Trenin said, noting that, outside the White House, there is no support in the United States for any rapprochement with Russia.
> “The G-8 belongs to a certain era and that era is over,” he added. “That project has failed. The integration of Russia into the Western system is over.”


http://archive.is/sPein#selection-287.0-515.152



> The NYPD police union this week honored heroic members of the force who stopped recent tragedies -- and most were Irish cops.
> Ironic isn’t it at a time when Mayor de Blasio is specifically omitting outreach to the Irish community in the latest notifications about the NYPD entrance exam in the name of diversity.
> Last year a $54 million campaign to widen the base of the department was announced.
> The press release stated there will be a “particular focus on African American, Asian, Jewish, Muslim, women and LGBTQ applicants," according to the request for proposals released last October. No Irish or Italian, for generations the backbone of the NYPD, need apply was the clear message.
> ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW
> Nothing wrong with diversity but a lot wrong with singling out the Irish community for no efforts at recruitment. It’s politically correct bullcrap, frankly.
> Read More: NYPD - No Irish Need Apply seems to be the new reality
> It’s a slap in the face for the Irish, the linchpins of the best police force in the world.
> It's New York’s loss. Officer Ryan Nash and Kevin McGinn were among four cops who stopped an ISIS suicide truck driver who plowed his truck into civilians injuring 20 and killing eight at Halloween 2017.
> Ryan Nash
> 2
> Ryan Nash
> “They rushed there in their radio cars, they rushed there by foot — some even left their families at home and rushed into work because we knew we were under attack again, so we say that word and that phrase quite easily, but it’s true: We do rush towards that danger, and we do it, once again, for folks we don’t even know,” Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association president Patrick Lynch said during the annual “Finest of the Finest” ceremony in Manhattan.
> Upon arrival, Nash shot ISIS madman Sayfullah Saipo thereby saving many more lives.
> “The award is very nice. I’m very honored, I’m humbled. It’s given from other police officers, which is really big. It’s a good part of this job that we get to salute the other officers that were involved in stuff and really show some respect there,” said Nash a five-year veteran.
> Read More: The NYPD, while proudly Irish American, should embrace diverse outreach as well
> Also honored was officer Matthew McGrath who got a call about a choking baby.
> Rushing to the scene he could not figure out what was making the baby choke but he knew he couldn't wait for an ambulance. He placed the baby in his patrol car and drive like lightning to Bellevue Hospital and saved the baby’s life with his quick action.
> ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW
> McGrath said he was “very honored” to receive the award.
> “I’m more happy that the baby was able to survive,” he said. “I’m very honored that the baby is actually doing well.
> 
> NYPD Honors Its ‘Finest Of The Finest’ At Annual Awards Ceremony https://t.co/iRbvc7qldm
> — CBS New York (@CBSNewYork) June 8, 2018
> 
> “The baby is doing very well and the baby has no problems after the incident,” he said. “[The parents] just thanked me for everything that I did, you know, and they really appreciate that I got there very quickly and was able to get the baby to the hospital so quick.”
> The baby's sitter Benjamin-Williams has pleaded “not guilty” in the ongoing case of attempted murder, for stuffing parts of a towel down the child’s throat.


http://archive.is/rH8o2


----------



## CamillePunk

> "Sorry if that hurts people, but it’s either root for a recession or you lose your democracy.”


:Trump


----------



## Tater

I tend to agree with Trump on this issue. Russia should be at the G-7, making it the G-8 again.

Also, this bullshit about Russia "jacking" Crimea and attacking poor wittle Ukraine... if you believe that's the entire story as to how it went down, you have been propagandized by Western MSM.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1004782276113203201
Senhor Testiculo is exactly what this thread needs right now. :lmao


----------



## deepelemblues

Tater said:


> I tend to agree with Trump on this issue. Russia should be at the G-7, making it the G-8 again.
> 
> Also, this bullshit about Russia "jacking" Crimea and attacking poor wittle Ukraine... if you believe that's the entire story as to how it went down, you have been propagandized by Western MSM.


Russia isn't socialist anymore, you don't have to reflexively defend their imperialism


----------



## virus21

> As many as 40 state-level Democratic parties may have been involved in a scheme to funnel as much as $84 million to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, a campaign finance lawyer contends.
> Dan Backer, an attorney based in Virginia, has filed a lawsuit alleging that a plan was in place to circumvent campaign contribution limits set by the federal government, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.
> “You had individuals giving $300,000,” Backer told the newspaper Friday. “They’re not doing it because they care about Nevada’s or Arkansas’ state party. They’re doing it to curry favor with and buy influence with Hillary Clinton.”
> Nevada’s Democratic Party may become the latest pulled into a federal lawsuit that Backer has filed, the paper reported. Backer represents the Committee to Defend the President, a pro-Donald Trump political action committee that initially lodged a complaint in December with the Federal Election Commission, the report says.
> Backer told the paper he filed his lawsuit because the FEC failed to meet a deadline for taking action.
> He said the Hillary Victory Fund reported transferring more than $1.7 million to the Nevada Democratic Party between December 2015 and November 2016. But the party reported receiving only $146,200, which it transferred to the DNC.
> The remaining $1.6 million was sent by the Hillary Victory Fund to the Nevada party and received by the DNC and never appeared on the Nevada party’s reports, Backer contends.
> But Nevada's Democratic Party disputed Backer's claims.
> “This is nothing more than a bogus political stunt feebly designed to distract from vulnerable Republicans’ disastrous agenda,” Helen Kalla, a spokeswoman for the Nevada Democratic Party, told the Review Journal.
> In Idaho, Democrats allegedly contributed $1.6 million to the plan in a series of 13 transactions, the Idaho Statesman reported.
> Hillary Clinton smiling for the camera © Provided by Fox News
> But local party officials might have been unaware of how the money was being handled, the paper reported.
> It is "reasonably possible the Idaho State Democratic Party had no prior knowledge of, or control over, these transfers because they were handled entirely by HVF, the DNC, HFA, [Hillary Victory Fund, Democratic National Committee, Hillary for America] and/or their treasurers," states the 101-page complaint that Backer’s group filed in December, the Statesman reported.
> The Idaho Democratic Party did not respond to the newspaper’s request for a comment.
> In Delaware, the state Democratic Party received $2.4 million from the Hillary Victory Fund over 11 transactions, then transferred roughly the same amount to the DNC, WXDE-FM radio reported.
> The handling of cash in Delaware “doesn’t pass the sniff test,” Backer told the station.
> But Jesse Chadderdon, executive director of the Delaware Democratic Party, called Backer’s lawsuit “yet another blatant example of hypocrisy from Donald Trump and his cronies.”
> “Let’s be clear, this is nothing more than a Beltway political stunt,” Chadderdon told the station, “led by the pro-Trump PAC 'The Committee to Defend the President,' one that's simply designed to distract Delaware voters.”


http://archive.is/ABFu8


----------



## RavishingRickRules

:lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

Praying for the structural integrity of that table

Last thing we need is that whale falling on our God Emperor :trump


----------



## Tater

deepelemblues said:


> Russia isn't socialist anymore, you don't have to reflexively defend their imperialism


It's like you're in a one man competition with yourself to say the most retarded thing possible.


----------



## Miss Sally

MrMister said:


> Trump's approval rating is up to 44%. This puts him on par with Saint Obama in 2010 and Saint Reagan in 1982.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/07/trump-poll-approval-rating-630365


44%? That's pretty good, from how the media talks it would be at 4%.

Also kind of scary how Mahr would like to see a crash simply because he doesn't like Trump. This kind of thinking is why we're stuck in the mess of Politics. People would rather burn things down because they don't want to work with others. Wish people would stop this kind of thinking.


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> 44%? That's pretty good, from how the media talks it would be at 4%.
> 
> Also kind of scary how Mahr would like to see a crash simply because he doesn't like Trump. This kind of thinking is why we're stuck in the mess of Politics. People would rather burn things down because they don't want to work with others. Wish people would stop this kind of thinking.


A tiny part of me wants Brexit to be an utter disaster, but most of me is thinking that would fuck me and my family over for a good decade. But the brexiteers will be insufferable just like Trump voters were.


----------



## Tater

Miss Sally said:


> 44%? That's pretty good, from how the media talks it would be at 4%.
> 
> Also kind of scary how Mahr would like to see a crash simply because he doesn't like Trump. This kind of thinking is why we're stuck in the mess of Politics. People would rather burn things down because they don't want to work with others. Wish people would stop this kind of thinking.





draykorinee said:


> A tiny part of me wants next to be an utter disaster, but most of me is thinking that would fuck me and my family over for a good decade. But the brexiteers will be insufferable just like Trump voters were.


If you have any basic comprehension of late stage capitalism and economics, you know that the next collapse is not a question of if, only when.

The real question is what people will do about it when it happens. My guess is that they will continue trying to prop up a dying system and they'll keep doing that until they no longer have any choice in the matter.

Humans fear change. That is a basic fact. Evolving from where we are now to where we need to be is going to be a difficult transition, to say the least.


----------



## DOPA

44% approval rating for Trump, essentially being on par at this point with both Obama and Reagan is a damn miracle all things considered. Especially because the majority of the MSM barring Fox News of course have been largely against Trump all the way through......except when it matters of course. Not to mention a good number of his political decisions and positions have been unpopular overall.

I tend to agree with @CamillePunk that to a certain extent, there are probably quite a number of closeted Trump supporters who won't openly voice their support for the president considering how volatile and hostile some people have been towards Trump supporters. It's died down a little bit, as inevitably it would with time but it's still there.

I'm also going to be throwing in an early prediction and it largely depends on what the Democrats do the next two years. But I'll tell you one thing, if they keep going down the same trajectory as they are now then I'd say get ready for a 2nd term for Trump. Why do I say this? One of the biggest untold stories of the last election was that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats failed to excite the Democratic base. The big turnout for Obama in 2008 and 2012 did not materialize for Hillary Clinton for a number of different reasons which we all know why. Turnout was lower in 2016 than the previous two years, Trump for example actually got less votes than Mitt Romney did in Ohio and still won the state. Democrats decided to stay home when Hillary was on the ballot, there was nothing there for them.

And the Democrats are continuing to snub their base two years later, not learning a damn lesson from 2016. The two big issues thus far where the Democrats have snubbed their progressive base is the increased intervention in the middle east where the majority of them actually supported Trump, some wishing he did it sooner and went further whilst the biggest critics in the MSM came from Tucker Carlson and Tomi fucking Lahren of all people. Both at Fox, not a peep from the other networks. The other issue is DACA, where I do not at all agree with the Democratic position of a clean DACA bill with no immigration reform whatsoever but they completely folded and caved to Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans on this issue. Not only a slap in the face to their base but also the immigrants they were supposed to be defending.

If they run another corporate Democrat like a Corey Booker or even someone like Elizabeth Warren, a fake progressive who can easily be exposed then they are likely to get smashed again in 2020. If they had any sense, they'd run someone like Tulsi Gabbard. But they won't because they are stupid and are subservient to outside interests. Paid opposition indeed.


----------



## CamillePunk

Predicting a Trump win in 2020 is hardly bold. :lol The only way I don't see him winning is if he decides not to run. Which wouldn't shock me.


----------



## deepelemblues

Tater said:


> It's like you're in a one man competition with yourself to say the most retarded thing possible.


:heston

The socialist continues to reach levels of salt production once thought impossibru



Tater said:


> If you have any basic comprehension of late stage capitalism and economics, you know that the next collapse is not a question of if, only when.
> 
> The real question is what people will do about it when it happens. My guess is that they will continue trying to prop up a dying system and they'll keep doing that until they no longer have any choice in the matter.
> 
> Humans fear change. That is a basic fact. Evolving from where we are now to where we need to be is going to be a difficult transition, to say the least.


Is it still animal abuse if the horse has been dead for almost 30 years? 

Is it still whistling past the graveyard if the graveyard was full of loser socialists, pinkos, fellow travelers, and outright commie bitches so they paved over it and put up something useful and profitable, like a combination drive through JP Morgan Chase & Co. office / cocaine dealership or something?


----------



## DesolationRow

:mark: It's Summitmania in Singapore! :mark:

Love :trump or hate :trump this is a genuinely historic moment.


----------



## CamillePunk

I would hate to be one of the people who continuously mock Scott Adams given how he's predicted the development of this Trump-North Korea situation with such incredible accuracy. :lol Add yet another notch to his belt. Meanwhile his critics are still struggling understanding the _past_, let alone perfectly reading the present or predicting the future with any accuracy.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Predicting a Trump win before we even know the Democratic candidate is hubris.


----------



## deepelemblues

Alkomesh2 said:


> Predicting a Trump win before we even know the Democratic candidate is hubris.


a bunch of old men yelling at clouds and a bunch of shrill old harpies aint gonna beat :trump

and that's all they got right now

better hope that economy slows down or nobody's beating :trump period


----------



## Vic Capri

Wow...

- Vic


----------



## Art Vandaley

deepelemblues said:


> a bunch of old men yelling at clouds and a bunch of shrill old harpies aint gonna beat :trump
> 
> and that's all they got right now
> 
> better hope that economy slows down or nobody's beating :trump period


I know its become Republican kayfabe that Trump won 2016 in a landslide, but he didn't, he got smashed in the popular vote and just about squeezed in on the electoral college against quite literally the least popular democratic presidential candidate in history. 

Conversely he has united the Republican party behind him which will make a big difference come 2020, but will also hurt his ability to appear as an independent. Being attacked by Republicans in 2016 was a double edged sword in a way, but overall I'm counting it as an advantage for Trump that he won't have to deal with it this time around.

A competent/popular male Democratic candidate has a very good shot at winning. 

They probably won't preselect one though.


----------



## deepelemblues

Alkomesh2 said:


> I know its become Republican kayfabe that Trump won 2016 in a landslide, but he didn't, he got smashed in the popular vote and just about squeezed in on the electoral college against quite literally the least popular democratic presidential candidate in history.
> 
> Conversely he has united the Republican party behind him which will make a big difference come 2020, but will also hurt his ability to appear as an independent. Being attacked by Republicans in 2016 was a double edged sword in a way, but overall I'm counting it as an advantage for Trump that he won't have to deal with it this time around.
> 
> A competent/popular male Democratic candidate has a very good shot at winning.
> 
> They probably won't preselect one though.


i dont know why youre talking about 2016 

it has nothing to do with what i said

simple :fact is that it is very hard to unseat an incumbent and almost impossible to do so if there is low unemployment and consistent economic growth through election day 

if the economy maintains its present course it is very hard to see who could beat the president 

hate to break it to you but there are no competent/popular male democrats

nor female ones 

the most popular left-wing politician in the country is an 80 year old unpleasant senile fool who is not even a democrat technically speaking and who couldn't beat the most unpopular politician in a generation in the 2016 primaries. plus as his CNN debates with zodiac killer lion ted cruz showed, he's completely incapable of defending his ideas when challenged 

i almost hope BernieOld does get the nomination this time, the savaging he would take from :trump would put the democratic party on a saner course away from their idiotic embrace of socialism. although any of the names bandied about as candidates right now other than joe biden would result in a 1984-style stomping, so maybe BernieOld doesnt have to be put through the humiliation

any of them will do


----------



## CamillePunk

That higher taxes/open borders/Trump is Hitler platform tho :lol


----------



## Art Vandaley

deepelemblues said:


> i dont know why youre talking about 2016
> 
> it has nothing to do with what i said


The results of 2016 are relevant to predicting the results of 2020.



> simple :fact is that it is very hard to unseat an incumbent and almost impossible to do so if there is low unemployment and consistent economic growth through election day


Normally yes, but the normal rules don't necessarily apply to Trump, also there is plenty of time for those figures to move. 

Trumps popularity is out of whack compared to economic performance of the country far more than most presidents. 



> if the economy maintains its present course it is very hard to see who could beat the president
> 
> hate to break it to you but there are no competent/popular male democrats
> 
> nor female ones


Obama was still effectively unknown and unheard of in 2006, and only rose to prominence during the primary campaign. 

That there isn't anyone obvious now is meaningless, there could easily be someone of Obama level quality could pop into the picture at a moments notice. 



> the most popular left-wing politician in the country is an 80 year old unpleasant senile fool who is not even a democrat technically speaking and who couldn't beat the most unpopular politician in a generation in the 2016 primaries. plus as his CNN debates with zodiac killer lion ted cruz showed, he's completely incapable of defending his ideas when challenged
> 
> i almost hope BernieOld does get the nomination this time, the savaging he would take from :trump would put the democratic party on a saner course away from their idiotic embrace of socialism. although any of the names bandied about as candidates right now other than joe biden would result in a 1984-style stomping, so maybe BernieOld doesnt have to be put through the humiliation
> 
> any of them will do


Sanders v Trump would be a hilarious campaign, but yeah Trump'd win that one.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Good luck to President Trump in Singapore. Hopefully this is the beginning of fruitful negotiations. They have said that only Nixon could go to China. Perhaps we shall one day say that Only Trump could make a deal with North Korea.


----------



## Draykorinee

Never thought I'd be praising these two utter dickheads but they looked congenial enough in that handshake. My problem is Trump seems to act like a massive baby if anyone says anything bad, look at the g7 meet where he's all happy and shit, then someone says something and he's all rage quit. Same with the original NK summit he 'cancelled', he's actually manipulated the situation well and made NK to look like they begged for it. 

He's got every chance of winning in 2020 because most people ignore him being a massive tool shitposting on Twitter like a Muppet etc because the economy is good and he's not done anything that has had disastrous consequences yet.

Plus, who the fuck are the democrats putting forward? There isn't a single name on the tip of my tongue that could challenge Trumpism, even if it is just hubris and lies.


----------



## BruiserKC

Two years is an eternity in the political world. If the economy tanks, Trump will be a one-term President. It's too early to predict. Right after the first Persian Gulf War Bush 41 was riding high with 90% approval ratings. Less then two years later he was defeated by a little known governor from Arkansas. 

I'm not ready to hand Trump the Nobel Prize, but at least this is a start and if it works out could be big towards peace. 

Now, there are a lot of moving parts involved. China will still hold a lot of sway over little brother on the Korean Peninsula and won't take too kindly to Kim getting too cozy with the West. Are there people within Kim's regime that could potentially see him as selling out (the way some Soviet leaders saw Gorbachev) and decide he needs to go. How do we verify denuclearization? We don't have inspectors there and there are no direct links of communication other then the backdoor ones we've seen in the last few months. 

So, it's a start, but don't get it twisted as there's a long way to go.


----------



## Vic Capri

North Korea has agreed on signed documentation to get rid of nuclear weapons. In return when they come through on their end of the bargain, sanctions will be lifted and they will receive food, medicine, and technology to advance their country. They also agreed to return the remains of US soldiers from the Korean War.

President Trump thanked Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and China for helping in this very delicate process. He also said Otto Warmbier got the ball rolling on these peace talks so his death was not in vain. 

Love our President or hate him, this was a great day for the world.

- Vic


----------



## UniversalGleam

got to hand it to trump tbh, people said he would be utterly useless and hes at least managed to achieve an historical move that others havnt which quite frankly is amazing considering this is donald trump of all people.

great news for the world and hopefully the people of north korea. Hopefully we can see the end of north korea as it was.


----------



## DOPA

Incredible.


----------



## Draykorinee

He could have fucked it up but he didn't. Credit to Trump, he didn't get them to the table but he did what he had to once the South Koreans had got Kim there.


----------



## Nolo King

I have such a warm feeling when I watch that footage

Can't wait to come to work and hear how people react to the news

It's an amazing time we live in


----------



## MrMister

This was all Trump. Good start. Hopefully this leads to a united Korea one day.


----------



## Reaper

If we didn't have government, who would fix muh roads? 


Dominoes. Hold my beer.


----------



## deepelemblues

Alkomesh2 said:


> The results of 2016 are relevant to predicting the results of 2020.


nope

because...



> Normally yes, but the normal rules don't necessarily apply to Trump, also there is plenty of time for those figures to move.
> 
> Trumps popularity is out of whack compared to economic performance of the country far more than most presidents.


...because you can't have it both ways, either the normal rules are predictively relevant or not

and of course it is, his media coverage is 90% negative and extremely overwrought. just like it is always is for prominent republican politicians

*if republicans were covered by the media and popular culture the way democrats are, democrats would never win the presidency and would likely never come within shouting distance of a house or senate majority. it is astounding that republicans are even competitive considering the negative way they are portrayed in the vast majority of news and entertainment the public consumes*



> Obama was still effectively unknown and unheard of in 2006, and only rose to prominence during the primary campaign.
> 
> That there isn't anyone obvious now is meaningless, there could easily be someone of Obama level quality could pop into the picture at a moments notice.


2004 is when obama burst onto the scene

not 2006

and no, there couldnt easily be someone of obama level quality who could pop into the picture at a moment's notice. that isnt what happened with obama. after his 2004 DNC speech he was the man to anyone in the democratic party who was not in the pocket of the clintons. not 2006. he was being groomed to run for the presidency for four years

obama level quality today = :trump landslide anyway. :trump was elected because people in the midwest who had reliably voted democratic for 2-3 decades, including voting for obama twice, wanted to repudiate obama and erase the shitty job he did as much as possible



> Sanders v Trump would be a hilarious campaign, but yeah Trump'd win that one.


well bernieold would have a rage induced apoplexy in the first debate so yeah he wouldnt win


----------



## Vic Capri

> Incredible.


The Haters September 2017: President Trump is going to get us all killed!

The Haters June 2018: Why is President Trump being diplomatic to Kim JongUn?!!

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

DOPA said:


> Incredible.


And these clowns wonder why people are losing their trust Journalists. 

You used to get the News to be caught up on events, maybe get a few opinions and now it's just propaganda based on how the Journalist feels.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

Maybe it's just me, but, I am shocked no one else seems to be suspicious of how easy this was. North Korea hates America, it's been a long time thing...how one day NK suddenly decides to be friends, what the fuck, how are people not feeling weird about this? You don't hate someone for decades, create/test weapons that will blow them away, and then suddenly get a random soft heart. I bet Kim was laughing inside as he shook hands with Trump. He's gonna get the upgraded supplies he needs to attack, that's just awesome. Better computers and shit. Peace? Hahahaha, yeah, because North Korea has always been about making peace with America, amirite?


Kim hates his own fucking people, he wont hesitate to fuck the States over, there wont be any military there, either, as they apparently agreed to pull all US troops out.



I will be shocked if peace really happens, but, I am one suspicious cunt on this one.

I do not hate Trump, I like a lot of what he does, but, at the same time, we have to think of the leaders he is getting along with....a lot of corrupt, murdering fucks. Meanwhile, he's fighting with Canada, one of America's closest allies.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

KanyeRodman presidential ticket? :bryanlol


----------



## yeahbaby!

A historic moment indeed having the Prez of the USA and one of the Kim Jong dicators shaking hands at a meeting and coming to an agreement. Well done to Trump and team who apparently went through it smoothly.

Still, even for the most glass-half-full optimist it must leave a bad taste in the mouth knowing what a murderous dictator KJU is, and how far away an actual agreement or 'deal' actually will be regarding de-nuclearisation etc.

But as we know regardless of the details it's going to be 'the best deal ever' and completely foolproof when it comes to inspecting NK nuclear sites etc unlike the Iran 'worst deal ever'.

BTW I don't think Trump will run again in 2020, he'll have MAGA by then and made the best deals in mankind's history, plus deep down we know being Prez is just too damn hard so I don't know why anyone would want to go the full 8 years.


----------



## deepelemblues

Catalanotto said:


> Maybe it's just me, but, I am shocked no one else seems to be suspicious of how easy this was. North Korea hates America, it's been a long time thing...how one day NK suddenly decides to be friends, what the fuck, how are people not feeling weird about this? You don't hate someone for decades, create/test weapons that will blow them away, and then suddenly get a random soft heart. I bet Kim was laughing inside as he shook hands with Trump. He's gonna get the upgraded supplies he needs to attack, that's just awesome. Better computers and shit. Peace? Hahahaha, yeah, because North Korea has always been about making peace with America, amirite?
> 
> 
> Kim hates his own fucking people, he wont hesitate to fuck the States over, there wont be any military there, either, as they apparently agreed to pull all US troops out.
> 
> 
> 
> I will be shocked if peace really happens, but, I am one suspicious cunt on this one.
> 
> I do not hate Trump, I like a lot of what he does, but, at the same time, we have to think of the leaders he is getting along with....a lot of corrupt, murdering fucks. Meanwhile, he's fighting with Canada, one of America's closest allies.


Kim is fucking desperate because his country is straight fucked unless the world (aka the United States) eases up.

The food situation is very bad, not as bad as it was in the mid 90s but not far off. 

The economy which was already shit has gone even more shit. 

If that wasn't the case none of this would be happening.


----------



## Miss Sally

I don't trust the North Korean Government, Kim is a horrible person.. but he might realize it's better to get aid from the US.

NK sits on vast amounts of resources which they've sold to China, NK lacks the skills needed to full tap it's potential and the Chinese will not help without fleecing them.

It would be better to work with the US, be able to sell what you have at a higher price and become rich. He's never going to take over Korea anyways. It will also keep the Chinese in check as the US will not let them cut off a resource.


----------



## CamillePunk

The difference between how Trump treats Trudeau and how he treats Kim Jong Un comes down rather simply to whether or not they are giving Trump what he wants. People seem to forget that just a few short weeks ago Trump was threatening to annihilate North Korea from the face of the Earth if they kept acting up. :lol Trump makes being against him deeply uncomfortable and rewards people when they go along with what he wants. That's his style and always has been, an d always will be (it works for him so there's no reason to change just because some people don't understand or don't agree with it). He'll go back to showering Macron with praise once their interests line up again. He'll go back to threatening Kim Jong-Un if he goes against him. This is one of the most predictable things about Trump. The idea that he's an unstable madman who just does random shit or has knee-jerk reactions is nonsense. The idea that he is against democracy or has an affinity for dictators is an example of confirmation bias-induced short-term memory and lazy, one-variable-thinking.

I'm actually not surprised or feeling like any of this is surreal. The more I've learned about Trump the more I expect acts of exceptional competence that defy what is normally considered possible in politics. There's never been anyone with his skillset before. Common wisdom in this arena is virtually worthless, because Trump is an extremely rare individual.

Btw, just because I recognize that he's extremely skilled doesn't mean I agree with what he's doing.  I'm quite far from Trump politically (although much closer to him than say, the Democratic Party or the communist "alt-left"). I do commend him on pursuing peace though. We're in total agreement on this issue.


----------



## Slickback

:HA Another W


----------



## yeahbaby!

'Punchy' lol. 'Shots to the head' even better. Pretty hilarious takedown I have to say. Has Trump only ever seen Raging Bull though?

For the record, I think De Niro and similar should sit down and shut up if they don't have anything constructive. It's people like him that strengthen the Trump base and raise his approval rating, because Trump supporters feel like the media and 'Hollywood' etc is against them so they rebel against that.


----------



## DesolationRow

CamillePunk said:


> The difference between how Trump treats Trudeau and how he treats Kim Jong Un comes down rather simply to whether or not they are giving Trump what he wants. People seem to forget that just a few short weeks ago Trump was threatening to annihilate North Korea from the face of the Earth if they kept acting up. :lol Trump makes being against him deeply uncomfortable and rewards people when they go along with what he wants. That's his style and always has been, an d always will be (it works for him so there's no reason to change just because some people don't understand or don't agree with it). He'll go back to showering Macron with praise once their interests line up again. He'll go back to threatening Kim Jong-Un if he goes against him. This is one of the most predictable things about Trump. The idea that he's an unstable madman who just does random shit or has knee-jerk reactions is nonsense. The idea that he is against democracy or has an affinity for dictators is an example of confirmation bias-induced short-term memory and lazy, one-variable-thinking.


Indeed... The concern for the dealings between the North Korean and U.S. governments voiced repeatedly in this thread is not to be dismissed, for geopolitically certain matters pertaining to the balance of power on the Korean peninsula may continue to take a long time. Having said that, the alacrity with which positive developments have proceeded is doubtless encouraging at this juncture as Pyongyang's situation with food is nearing complete regression to the worst of the 1990s. The chief difference between Donald Trump and his predecessors is not that "he is against democracy or has an affinity for dictators" but rather that he possesses an almost starkly sober understanding of the limitations of democracy, and therefore a deep and entirely earned suspicion of the largely unchallenged--until Trump's ascendancy as presidential candidate--viewpoint of Washington, D.C.'s democratists, as it were. Trump's foreign policy is hardly flawless but at least he recognizes the folly of, say, George W. Bush, whose quasi-messianic crusading on behalf of democracy, which, at Bush and neocons' urging, resulted in massive victories in the Middle East for the likes of Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq, Hamas and Hezbollah among Palestinians and Lebanese, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and autocrats and despots from the Far East to the Middle East and beyond.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Maybe it's just me, but, I am shocked no one else seems to be suspicious of how easy this was. North Korea hates America, it's been a long time thing...how one day NK suddenly decides to be friends, what the fuck, how are people not feeling weird about this? You don't hate someone for decades, create/test weapons that will blow them away, and then suddenly get a random soft heart. I bet Kim was laughing inside as he shook hands with Trump. He's gonna get the upgraded supplies he needs to attack, that's just awesome. Better computers and shit. Peace? Hahahaha, yeah, because North Korea has always been about making peace with America, amirite?
> 
> 
> Kim hates his own fucking people, he wont hesitate to fuck the States over, there wont be any military there, either, as they apparently agreed to pull all US troops out.
> 
> 
> 
> I will be shocked if peace really happens, but, I am one suspicious cunt on this one.
> 
> I do not hate Trump, I like a lot of what he does, but, at the same time, we have to think of the leaders he is getting along with....a lot of corrupt, murdering fucks. Meanwhile, he's fighting with Canada, one of America's closest allies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kim is fucking desperate because his country is straight fucked unless the world (aka the United States) eases up.
> 
> The food situation is very bad, not as bad as it was in the mid 90s but not far off.
> 
> The economy which was already shit has gone even more shit.
> 
> If that wasn't the case none of this would be happening.
Click to expand...

With Kim's nuclear testing site buried in an earthquake and China not having his back anymore, he lost his game of chess with Trump.

- Vic


----------



## BruiserKC

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018...clearization-plan-or-intensify-sanctions.html

I like the idea to really see where Kim stands. Is he truly serious about denuclearization or is it mere lip service? The agreement that he signed with the President is no different really then a similar one his father signed in 2005. 



Vic Capri said:


> With Kim's nuclear testing site buried in an earthquake and China not having his back anymore, he lost his game of chess with Trump.
> 
> - Vic


Kim has other sites for nuclear testing ready to go at a moment's notice. He has the infrastructure for his program still pretty much intact. As for China, they are still very much looking after little brother and in no way have they come anywhere close to abandoning NK. They are watching what happens very carefully. If it came down to military action against NK and its nuclear weapons program, they will automatically take NK's side as will Russia. 



Catalanotto said:


> Maybe it's just me, but, I am shocked no one else seems to be suspicious of how easy this was. North Korea hates America, it's been a long time thing...how one day NK suddenly decides to be friends, what the fuck, how are people not feeling weird about this? You don't hate someone for decades, create/test weapons that will blow them away, and then suddenly get a random soft heart. I bet Kim was laughing inside as he shook hands with Trump. He's gonna get the upgraded supplies he needs to attack, that's just awesome. Better computers and shit. Peace? Hahahaha, yeah, because North Korea has always been about making peace with America, amirite?
> 
> 
> Kim hates his own fucking people, he wont hesitate to fuck the States over, there wont be any military there, either, as they apparently agreed to pull all US troops out.
> 
> 
> 
> I will be shocked if peace really happens, but, I am one suspicious cunt on this one.
> 
> I do not hate Trump, I like a lot of what he does, but, at the same time, we have to think of the leaders he is getting along with....a lot of corrupt, murdering fucks. Meanwhile, he's fighting with Canada, one of America's closest allies.


Cue posters here accusing Cat of being a member of the Deep State in 3...2...1 :lol 

You are right, though. It took Reagan and Gorbachev 3 meetings ( one in Reykjavík where Reagan walked away from the table) to come up with an agreement to reduce nuclear stockpiles. Kim's grandfather and father made agreements and broke them. I would hope we will see peace on this front, but I know I'm very careful of trusting this man. Meeting with the leader of the free world now gives KJU a sense of legitimacy. 

As for how he approaches our allies/enemies, it's how Obama operated for 8 years. Granted, Obama was more of a college professor lecturing our allies and trying to bow deeper to our enemies but it's almost the same thing. The world becomes even more confused about where we stand. Again, unpredictability was the calling card of the Trump campaign, but in the Presidency we need to know where the President stands on all issues. We shouldn't have to guess.


----------



## CamillePunk

The world knows exactly where the US stands. America first.  I think you're the one that's confused.


----------



## DOPA

Kaizen said:


> :HA Another W


:HA. There are definitely times I love Trump's shitposting.


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> The world knows exactly where the US stands. America first.  I think you're the one that's confused.


Trump slaps tariffs on our allies, then goes to the G-7 summit and says he wants no tariffs. Last year during the non-repeal repeal Obamacare debacle he tweeted three different stances in 36 hours. He has done the exact same thing Obama has done...alienated Our friends and emboldened our enemies. 

My goalposts have never changed but his Trumpamaniacs’ have moved more than a Madden challenge. I am willing to hold him accountable which many of his supporters have chosen not to do. No confusion here.


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> Trump slaps tariffs on our allies, then goes to the G-7 summit and says he wants no tariffs.


Because our allies have tariffs on us. :lol There's nothing contradictory or hypocritical there at all and a 3rd grader could understand why. Jesus Christ. :lol


----------



## RavishingRickRules

I think it's good that Kim signed an agreement, that's somewhat a step in the right direction. I'm just not going to be remotely shocked if he turns around cartoon villain style and breaks it complete with an "aha! look we tricked them" moment because he really is that silly a person. His entire family are total wackadoodles to be honest, nobody should be remotely surprised if this goes pear shaped because he's irrational to fuck and so were his predecessors. It's like Scientologists, at times they can seem like fairly reasonable and ok people but then you remember they pay thousands of dollars to find out that L. Ron Hubbard is a spectacularly bad space opera writer and "the big secret" reads like one of the most unimaginative and derivative piece of garbage known to man...and they CARRY ON PAYING. That's how Kim's family is with their own self-importance, they might at times seem like normal-ish people capable of reasonable conversations and agreements but they've long since bought into their own cult of personality and bullshit they tell their people, they're completely 100% outside the box batshit motherfucking crazy. The hardest part in any of this will be keeping a retarded crazy person from going back on his agreements because he's just nuts, nobody would be at fault, he is VERY likely to just turn around and spaz out and fuck it all up so people should be prepared for that to happen regardless.


----------



## Draykorinee

DOPA said:


> :HA. There are definitely times I love Trump's shitposting.


There's a real sense of irony accusing a guy of having a low IQ and then not being able to use the correct use of too. Not that spelling and grammar are indicative of IQ but you're basically saying this person is stupid and then showing yourself to a bit a bit dopey.


----------



## Reaper

The Kims do this song and dance every few years to have some sanctions removed. And then continue to run the country like the dictator he is. 

Real change would be saving 22 million people from the cult. 

Not some fat bastard signing a piece of paper that is quite literally garbage considering that what was achieved yesterday was simply an official acknowledgement of a well known fact that a nuclear country that didn't have nukes said that they won't develop nukes because they have failed to develop nukes and recently lost their entire nuclear site. 

I don't even know what the hell the circle jerk self-applause is about at all. It's like people looking at dog poop and thinking it's gold.

If ANYTHING, Kim proved himself to be the MOST SHREWD politician in the world where he took a well known failure and turned it into a MASSIVE success for himself.


----------



## Goku

draykorinee said:


> There's a real sense of irony accusing a guy of having a low IQ and then not being able to use the correct use of too. Not that spelling and grammar are indicative of IQ but you're basically saying this person is stupid and then showing yourself to a bit *a bit dopey*.


*DOPA


----------



## Miss Sally

I still think this whole thing is a power play to get access to metal from NK. I'm not 100% sure but there is some reasoning behind it.

Also I'm not sure why people are upset about working with Dictators, we're the US, we install Dictators all the time, sell weapons to everyone and drone strike Weddings. It's not like Trump is the only guy to do this.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Miss Sally said:


> I still think this whole thing is a power play to get access to metal from NK. I'm not 100% sure but there is some reasoning behind it.
> 
> Also I'm not sure why people are upset about working with Dictators, we're the US, we install Dictators all the time, sell weapons to everyone and drone strike Weddings. It's not like Trump is the only guy to do this.


I like your theory with the metals, it'll be interesting to see what trade comes out of this. 

And although I sympathise with the dictator point, the North Korean dictatorship is worse than most.


----------



## Hoolahoop33

The U.S. and U.K. also supported Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia, even years after he had been ousted and it became clear how monstrous it had been. Sadly I think only a slow liberalisation of North Korea can ameliorate the conditions of ordinary citizens. Hopefully, we are seeing the beginning of that process.


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> Because our allies have tariffs on us. :lol There's nothing contradictory or hypocritical there at all and a 3rd grader could understand why. Jesus Christ. :lol


It’s Trump doing one thing then changing his mind. He does it regularly. Pragmatic thought is one thing and we reserve the right to change our minds now and then. However this is not the case here. He caught wind on how people will be hurt by his tariffs and deal with paying the extra costs on products. This is why we need consistency and we’re not getting it from the WH. 

Of course I understand all you will get out of this is “He’s criticizing Trump!” It’s OK.


----------



## Vic Capri

Happy birthday to The Big Cheese!

- Vic


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1006527165016559616
:lol


----------



## deepelemblues

Oh look a comment from one of the leaders of the Democratic Party that will be totally ignored, when there would be a national crisis if the Republican dogcatcher from Bumfuck County, North Dakota (population 600), said it.

Don't look at the double standard!


----------



## virus21

They say pimping ain't easy. And yet it gets you into government.
http://archive.is/tqKiA


----------



## Lady Eastwood

deepelemblues said:


> Kim is fucking desperate because his country is straight fucked unless the world (aka the United States) eases up.
> 
> The food situation is very bad, not as bad as it was in the mid 90s but not far off.
> 
> The economy which was already shit has gone even more shit.
> 
> If that wasn't the case none of this would be happening.


Yeah, I know the general state of NK is absolute trash, I particularly remember reading an article with pictures that showed the differences in North and South Korea, the electricity situation, how far behind North Korea's computers are, that kind of stuff. The picture that really stood out for me is one that captured a dull, unhappy North Korea and across the water was bright and happy South Korea.

I am no expert, I may be missing a million facts here, but, for one, Kim looks well fucking fed LOL I can't imagine the North Korean government being low on anything, however, I can absolutely see that the people are definately being deprived of a good life in just about every way possible.

I think this is just a smart plot to get money and then do whatever they want with it. I honestly can't imagine the government allowing any of their people to have money and means to survive a better life. If you can't get a haircut that is any different than the 28 choices they provide you with, I can't see them giving people any money, or, if anything, will just give them a pathetic amount.

Everyone has hope, I think most people of sane mind would like to see peace finally happen here, but, I just personally can't see this 'friendship' and sudden agreement to stop doing something (weapons) that they have been doing forever. You don't just wake up one day and randomly decide to stop testing nuclear weapons and shooting off rockets with the hope they will be able to go far enough to nail the USA.

Again, I could just be massively uneducated about everything, but, my mind can't accept that this whole thing is genuine.


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> Oh look a comment from one of the leaders of the Democratic Party that will be totally ignored, when there would be a national crisis if the Republican dogcatcher from Bumfuck County, North Dakota (population 600), said it.
> 
> Don't look at the double standard!


You KNOW I'm a dense guy my dear Deepem but what exactly should the outrage be over this - I'm not sure I even understood what she said exactly but I'll try below.

What I took from is it's bad that evangelical leaders are praising this policy as humanitarian (when it can can result in kids being taken away from parents), so it's a terrible hypocritical thing in her eyes because of the pain it causes people.


----------



## Tater

Just in case anyone forgot, Jeff Sessions reminded everyone today that he's a retarded cunt who still believes in fairy tales.


----------



## Miss Sally

Alkomesh2 said:


> I like your theory with the metals, it'll be interesting to see what trade comes out of this.
> 
> And although I sympathise with the dictator point, the North Korean dictatorship is worse than most.


It came to me when I think DROW posted an article about NK and it's vast resources and having the manpower but not the equipment to extract it all. So China has been fleecing NK for their resources.

With steel tariffs popping up I figure the US may lift sanctions and beat out China to gain access to that metal on the cheap thus negating the steel tariffs. 

If I had the money I'd invest on this happening, it's not 100% because it would need NK to fall into line but if it does this is what I expect to happen!


----------



## yeahbaby!

Tater said:


> Just in case anyone forgot, Jeff Sessions reminded everyone today that he's a retarded cunt who still believes in fairy tales.


What do you expect from a 1500 year old man. He was raised with old fashioned principles.


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> You KNOW I'm a dense guy my dear Deepem but what exactly should the outrage be over this - I'm not sure I even understood what she said exactly but I'll try below.
> 
> What I took from is it's bad that evangelical leaders are praising this policy as humanitarian (when it can can result in kids being taken away from parents), so it's a terrible hypocritical thing in her eyes because of the pain it causes people.


Asking "why isn't there an uprising" is the kind of imprecise language that would never get a pass if a Republican said it.

As to this policy, parents are separated from their children every time they are arrested or incarcerated, for a longer or shorter period of time, depending. Happens hundreds if not thousands of times every single day. Wonder how much pain that causes people.

Don't recall Democrats or the Chamber of Commerce crying big crocodile tears about that any time lately. Perhaps because they don't actually give a fuck about children being separated from their parents because their parents broke the law, all it is is cynically tugging at the public's heartstrings for the purpose of turning public opinion against enforcement of the country's immigration laws. 

So why should I give a fuck if illegal aliens who are parents are separated from their children when they get arrested? That's what happens to anyone and everyone who is a parent if they are taken into custody. They're reunited when the parent is released from custody. 

In the case of illegal aliens, they'll be reunited too. When they get deported.


----------



## CamillePunk

Hey maybe if people who want to migrate here illegally think we're monsters who will laugh gleefully as they are separated from their children they won't want to come here anymore. Win-win.

Here's a Breitbart article about a Hannity interview of Trump, a combination bound to "trigger the libs". :lol

.........................../big-government/2018/06/13/trump-to-hannity-north-korea-deal-must-be-approved-by-congress/

Breitbart is banned on here? That's hilarious. :lmao


----------



## Vic Capri

> Breitbart is banned on here? That's hilarious.


A certain person in this thread made it that way. Imagine my shock. 

- Vic


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Imagine actually caring that one of the biggest fake news outlets on the planet is banned? :lmao


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Imagine actually caring that one of the biggest fake news outlets on the planet is banned? :lmao


If it's fake and everyone thinks it's fake, then why ban it? Banning tends to legitmize things in a way. 

Marketplace of ideas ensures that bad ideas have a way of delegitmizing themselves.


----------



## CamillePunk

RavishingRickRules said:


> Imagine actually caring that one of the biggest fake news outlets on the planet is banned? :lmao


I judge each article on its individual merit.  

I also don't care that it's banned, I just find it exceedingly amusing. :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

:heston

It is so unused that when people find it is censored they're like 'what huh oh well that's silly whatever'

The paranoia and fear runs so deep :heyman6


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> A certain person in this thread made it that way. Imagine my shock.
> 
> - Vic


Gotta love how Trump supporters run to their Breitbart and Fox News.


----------



## deepelemblues

Stephen90 said:


> Gotta love how Trump supporters run to their Breitbart and Fox News.


They run to Breitbart so much that it's linked here like once every six months :lmao


----------



## DOPA

I find it highly amusing that Breitbart got censored on here :lol.

I wonder if InfoWars and Fox have also been censored :hmm. I'm pretty sure Fox hasn't at least.

At least we know the Root will never get censored on here :HA.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-13/fcc-said-to-plan-rule-change-before-court-can-upend-sinclair-bid



> *FCC Eyes Vote on Ownership Rules Key to Sinclair Deal*
> 
> The Federal Communications Commission’s chairman is said to be planning a vote next month on limits to how many TV stations a company can own, rules he has said are too restrictive and that could factor into Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc.’s planned purchase of Tribune Media Co.
> 
> FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is poised to schedule a July 12 vote on altering rules that cap broadcasters’ reach at 39 percent of the national audience, according to two people briefed on the plan, who who spoke on condition of anonymity because the proposal hasn’t been made public.
> 
> A vote next month could head off a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Washington that is considering a challenge to part of the existing rules. The case threatens to push Sinclair over the existing national ownership cap if it buys Tribune.
> 
> Proposals from Pai, an appointee of President Donald Trump, are all but certain to pass with votes from the Republican majority he leads. Pai hasn’t publicly recommended a new limit and details of his proposal could not be learned.
> 
> Sinclair’s odds of winning approval would get a boost if the FCC votes to raise or end the 39 percent cap, Matthew Schettenhelm, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst, said in a note Thursday. Such a move by the FCC could convince the court not to decide its case, he said.
> 
> Sinclair rose 45 cents, or 1.4 percent, to $32.35 at 9:43 a.m. New York time, and Tribune jumped 86 cents, or 2.3 percent.
> 
> Sinclair told the FCC its proposal to buy Tribune’s 42 stations and sell others would leave it reaching almost 59 percent of the national audience. That share shrinks to less than 38 percent when counting just half the audience for some stations, as the FCC now allows, using a counting methodology that is under court challenge, Sinclair said in a filing.
> A National Presence
> 
> The acquisition would leave Sinclair with more than 200 stations and give the Maryland-based broadcaster known for its conservative views a national presence, with stations in major cities such as New York and Los Angeles.
> 
> If the FCC abandons the special counting technique that discounts the audience of former UHF stations and chooses a new limit under 59 percent, Sinclair could be forced to sell more stations than it currently proposes, Gigi Sohn, a former Democratic FCC official and critic of the deal, said in an interview.
> 
> Any limit above 39 percent would itself draw a court challenge, Sohn said. “That’s going to be appealed right away,” she said.
> 
> Whether the FCC may let companies count just half the audience is under challenge before the Court of Appeals, where judges who questioned the technique during an April hearing are expected to issue a decision during July or August. A decision disallowing the technique would leave a combined Sinclair-Tribune above the limit.
> 
> Sinclair Chief Executive Officer Chris Ripley told investors May 9 that he expects the court will affirm the counting rule. If not, Ripley said the decision could be appealed. He also discussed the FCC’s consideration of changes to the national ownership limit.
> 
> The agency in December asked whether to retain or change the national limit, and the discounted audience-counting, without saying how it wanted to rule. Pai, a skeptic of media ownership rules, has long called for raising the national cap, for instance in 2013 saying that step is “long overdue.” The agenda for the July 12 meeting is to be made public on June 21, and Pai’s under no obligation to include the national cap.
> 
> Tina Pelkey, an FCC spokeswoman, declined to comment.
> 
> In filings at the FCC, some broadcasters have argued for raising the limit to 50 percent.
> Sinclair asked the FCC to eliminate the cap. Rebecca Hanson, senior vice president for Sinclair, declined to comment.
> 
> The audience-counting rule in question was eliminated by a Democratic FCC chairman in 2016. It was a relic of days when UHF stations -- broadcasting on channels 14 and higher -- used signals that didn’t reach as far as stations assigned lower-numbered channels. That disadvantage has disappeared as broadcast technology changes.
> 
> Pai reinstated the discount in April of last year. Sinclair proposed its deal the following month.
> 
> The case is Free Press v. Federal Communications Commission, 17-1129, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (Washington).


----------



## virus21

> San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz infamously picked a fight with President Trump in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria last year, the storm that devastated Puerto Rico. The official death toll was 64, but Gov. Ricardo Rossello suggested the actual number is higher. President Trump signed a $36.5 billion aid package for the nation. Some of the aid took awhile to get to its destination. Cruz took aim at the White House in those months, accusing the U.S. government of turning its back on them.
> Some of her messages were indirect. She wore a "Nasty Woman" shirt on CNN, in reference to Trump's insult for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign. Others were not blatant, like when she said Trump "speaks out of both sides of his mouth."
> 
> "On the one hand, he says he wants to help Puerto Rico. On the other hand, he imposed a 20% income tax on every good and service that comes from Puerto Rico into the United States. On the one hand, he says we will be with you for the long run. And on the other hand, the [Food and Drug Administration] is trying to convince pharmaceutical companies to leave Puerto Rico," she told Amanpour.
> "He says he cares and he came here and threw paper towels at us," she continued, referring to Trump's visit to the city of Guaynabo in October. "And on the other hand, he doesn't provide his administration with a clear set of goals to help Puerto Rico."
> 
> The media ate it up. She was invited on late night talk shows to continue her tirade against the president. She expanded her criticism to weigh in on his policies.
> Thankfully, when the two did eventually meet in Puerto Rico, they put a ceasefire on their war of words.
> Cruz may be the hypocritical one here. New reports suggest that corruption in San Juan prevented critical supplies from reaching Hurricane Maria victims. The FBI is investigating suppliers and Cruz's administration.
> 
> According to a local news report from El Vocero de Puerto Rico, the FBI is investigating several suppliers for alleged corruption in San Juan.
> It says the investigation was launched after former procurement director Yadira Molina filed a lawsuit claiming she faced punishment for reporting illegal activities to the local comptroller. The investigation has since grown to include several contractors.
> “On February 21, Molina sued the city council after reporting alleged acts of corruption in the shopping division in the town hall under the administration of Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz Soto,” the report says.
> The complaint states that Molina was blocked from her right “to report wrongdoing in her capacity as a private citizen, not as a public employee.” It says she was retaliated against for reporting an allegedly rigged system and was fired for attempting to report corruption, and includes other additional claims.
> 
> Until she and her staff are cleared of wrongdoing, perhaps she should withhold judgment of Trump's leadership style.


http://archive.is/MqubD#selection-1451.0-1565.116


----------



## virus21

Heard Manafort was put in prison for tampering.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> If it's fake and everyone thinks it's fake, then why ban it? Banning tends to legitmize things in a way.
> 
> Marketplace of ideas ensures that bad ideas have a way of delegitmizing themselves.


Well, I can understand it to a point. Perhaps whoever responsible was trying to look out for those few people who aren't bright enough to realise they're being manipulated by blatant lies and falsehoods by a company that should have "news" removed from their product because of false advertising. One would hope that the general public would see through the bullshit with ease, but that hasn't proved to be the case so far. :lol


----------



## Tater

Reap said:


> If it's fake and everyone thinks it's fake, then why ban it? Banning tends to legitmize things in a way.
> 
> Marketplace of ideas ensures that bad ideas have a way of delegitmizing themselves.





RavishingRickRules said:


> Well, I can understand it to a point. Perhaps whoever responsible was trying to look out for those few people who aren't bright enough to realise they're being manipulated by blatant lies and falsehoods by a company that should have "news" removed from their product because of false advertising. One would hope that the general public would see through the bullshit with ease, but that hasn't proved to be the case so far. :lol


I kinda agree with Reaper on this one. Yes, Breitbart is fake news but at the same time, banning sites is a very slippery slope. The better alternative is to educate people, so they know fake news when they see it, rather than banning sites deemed fake news, regardless of how fake their news may be.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> I kinda agree with Reaper on this one. Yes, Breitbart is fake news but at the same time, banning sites is a very slippery slope. The better alternative is to educate people, so they know fake news when they see it, rather than banning sites deemed fake news, regardless of how fake their news may be.


Oh don't get me wrong, in typical situations I'd 100% agree with you, but have you tried educating these people? I struggle to even get a coherent sentence out of most people who buy into the Breitbart hype, I'd be impressed if somebody could educate them if I'm honest as they don't seem to be particularly capable of learning from the wealth of information available that shows how utterly retarded most of what they think about the world is. :shrug


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> Oh don't get me wrong, in typical situations I'd 100% agree with you, but have you tried educating these people? I struggle to even get a coherent sentence out of most people who buy into the Breitbart hype, I'd be impressed if somebody could educate them if I'm honest as they don't seem to be particularly capable of learning from the wealth of information available that shows how utterly retarded most of what they think about the world is. :shrug


I get where you're coming from but you'd be surprised how many Trumpists agree with my line of libertarian leftist thinking when I have real conversations with them. Remember, I was born n raised in Alabama, the heart of Trump country. I still talk to friends and relatives who fall into the so-called "deplorables" basket. Regular, every day people are still willing to have conversations and see the world for how it truly is. You just gotta give them the chance.

My own mother, who voted for Jeff Sessions, just the other day told me she was disgusted with his behavior. My mother is about as far a right wing conservative Christian as you can get. Yet, when I discuss the topics in detail with her, more often than not, even if she initially disagrees with me, she usually ends up understanding and mostly agreeing with me.

Yeah, some of them might be brainwashed by the Breitbarts of the world. You don't reach those people by banning their fake news outlets. You reach them by having real conversations with them and bringing facts with you. As Reaper said, the marketplace of ideas ensures that bad ideas have a way of delegitmizing themselves.


----------



## Draykorinee

I'm happy for people to share Breitbart, at least that way you know they're dense enough to read it and can therefore ignore most of what they say.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> I get where you're coming from but you'd be surprised how many Trumpists agree with my line of libertarian leftist thinking when I have real conversations with them. Remember, I was born n raised in Alabama, the heart of Trump country. I still talk to friends and relatives who fall into the so-called "deplorables" basket. Regular, every day people are still willing to have conversations and see the world for how it truly is. You just gotta give them the chance.
> 
> My own mother, who voted for Jeff Sessions, just the other day told me she was disgusted with his behavior. My mother is about as far a right wing conservative Christian as you can get. Yet, when I discuss the topics in detail with her, more often than not, even if she initially disagrees with me, she usually ends up understanding and mostly agreeing with me.
> 
> Yeah, some of them might be brainwashed by the Breitbarts of the world. You don't reach those people by banning their fake news outlets. You reach them by having real conversations with them and bringing facts with you. As Reaper said, the marketplace of ideas ensures that bad ideas have a way of delegitmizing themselves.


Like I say, it's GREAT in theory, in practice I've never seen it work out that way with this current crop of people. Even something as simple as pointing out that an article is made up and showing the proof is met with "yeah of course the libtard media wants you to think that your [sic] an idiot! whats wrong snowflake?! libtard, libtard, leftist, snowflake, leftist, libtard, leftist, triggered, snowflake <robot malfunctions>" People can feel free to bang their head against the wall if they like, I prefer to just accept these people are idiots and treat them as such. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> I'm happy for people to share Breitbart, at least that way you know they're dense enough to read it and can therefore ignore most of what they say.


I stopped reading Brietbart around the time it broke out that Milo was being finded by supremacists or something related to Brietbart. 

That said, I never bothered to find out the details of what happened then, but someone feel free to fill me in.

Then again, I was done with politics those days anyways and I'm actually kinda done already.


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> Like I say, it's GREAT in theory, in practice I've never seen it work out that way with this current crop of people. Even something as simple as pointing out that an article is made up and showing the proof is met with "yeah of course the libtard media wants you to think that your [sic] an idiot! whats wrong snowflake?! libtard, libtard, leftist, snowflake, leftist, libtard, leftist, triggered, snowflake <robot malfunctions>" People can feel free to bang their head against the wall if they like, I prefer to just accept these people are idiots and treat them as such. :shrug


Having principles is important, even if they don't always work out in your favor. I'm a free speech absolutist. It doesn't matter what they are saying. They should have the right to say it without censorship.

ETA: And you fucking suck for making me defend Breitbart.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> ETA: And you fucking suck for making me defend Breitbart.


:lmao

Don't get me wrong, I'm all far everything being shared from the most ridiculous (TheOnion, Breitbart, Daily Fail, Sun etc) through to the most credible of sources around. I'm just not going to care that much that fake news sites are banned, it's generally irrelevant to me as a person.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Come on, now that's funny :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

What is fake or incorrect about the Breitbart article I linked? :mj


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> What is fake or incorrect about the Breitbart article I linked? :mj


Irrelevant, why are you continuing to use a "news" site as a source of information when not only have they been shown to flat out make up stories but one of their editors has admitted they make shit up to push their political agenda? If a place has no credibility in general it's irrelevant when they tell some vague resemblance of fact. Going to Breitbart for news is like going to a gardner to fix your plumbing. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

RavishingRickRules said:


> Irrelevant, why are you continuing to use a "news" site as a source of information when not only have they been shown to flat out make up stories but one of their editors has admitted they make shit up to push their political agenda? If a place has no credibility in general it's irrelevant when they tell some vague resemblance of fact. Going to Breitbart for news is like going to a gardner to fix your plumbing. :lol


I already said why. The combination of Breitbart and Hannity was too fun and potentially triggering not to share. :lol I was preempted though.

I didn't know one of their editors said they made up stories. Can you provide a source on that? That's CNN/ABC/MSNBC/NYT/WaPo/HuffPo levels of bad if true.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> I already said why. The combination of Breitbart and Hannity was too fun and potentially triggering not to share. :lol I was preempted though.
> 
> I didn't know one of their editors said they made up stories. Can you provide a source on that? That's CNN/ABC/MSNBC/NYT/WaPo/HuffPo levels of bad if true.


It was a while back, I'll have to do a search tomorrow see if I can find it. Approaching 4am here and I'm hitting the hay soon after finishing some reports I'm not supposed to be doing because I'm off sick recovering from shoulder surgery :lol


----------



## virus21

> Austria demanded clarification from neighboring Germany on Saturday of reports that its spy agency snooped for several years on nearly 2,000 targets in the Alpine nation, including companies and ministries.
> Austrian President Alexander Van der Bellen said "spying among friendly states is not just unusual and unwanted. It is unacceptable." Austria and Germany are both members of the European Union.
> He and Chancellor Sebastian Kurz were responding to reports in the Der Standard newspaper and the Profil magazine about a list of alleged targets in Austria of Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, between 1999 and 2006. It reportedly included most major companies and banks in Austria, as well as phone numbers at the chancellery and various ministries in Vienna.
> Kurz noted there were suspicions a few years ago of German intelligence activity in Austria and suggested that was partly responsible for German laws subsequently being tightened to prevent such activities. He acknowledged that an Austrian investigation at the time didn't reach any conclusions on the spying because Germany didn't cooperate, but said prosecutors will revisit the matter now "if there is new information."
> Kurz said Austria has contacted German authorities following the news reports and is asking who was spied on and when the surveillance ended.
> "We want to have certainty that (the surveillance) ended, and if data were saved our request is of course for it to be deleted," he told reporters. But he said "we have no indication at present that the surveillance was continued" after 2006.
> Armin Schuster, the chairman of the German parliament committee that oversees the intelligence service, told Germany's Funke newspaper group that the panel is already looking into whether the allegations are new or part of what was already known in 2015, when the BND faced allegations that it may have helped the United States spy on Europeans.


http://archive.is/izS7C#selection-1959.1-1983.346



> One of the most important stories of the week is that special counsel Robert Mueller issued a dramatic warning that Russia is now waging an aggressive attack against our midterm elections.
> In a filing to a U.S. District Court in Washington this week, in his prosecution of Russian nationals and entities charged with attacks against the presidential election in 2016, Mueller warned that similar Russian attacks are occurring today against our midterms.
> The elections are fast approaching. The Mueller investigation is rapidly advancing. The Russian attacks against midterm election are aggressively continuing. The attacks against Mueller from President Trump and his supporters are now escalating.
> ADVERTISEMENT
> While these events unfold, there is now excruciating pressure on two key suspects in the scandal: former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former Trump lawyer and “fixer” Michael Cohen.
> 
> Manafort and Cohen face potentially dire legal consequences. There is a significant possibility that Manafort, Cohen or both will reach plea bargain deals with the feds. With the breaking news that Manafort’s bail is being revoked and the judge is sending him to jail pending his trial, the pressure on him to make a deal will reach white-hot intensity.
> There is high drama surrounding Manafort and Cohen and high probability that a historic and decisive moment is fast approaching if they cut a deal with Mueller.
> Here is the playing field in the Russia scandal as midterm elections approach:
> Mueller, a decorated Marine and skilled prosecutor with impeccable credentials, has escalated his public warnings about the Russian attack against the midterms. Donald Trump, the beneficiary of the Russian attack against the 2016 election, has escalated his political war against Mueller, who investigates the Russian attack.
> Democrats are fiercely united in support of Mueller and have seen their midterm prospects increase in recent polling data and election results. Republicans are bitterly divided over the Mueller investigation.
> Some Republicans, such as Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), fiercely support Mueller. Others, such as House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (Calif.) and Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, are waging a relentless political war against Mueller and the investigation. A third group of Republicans privately admires Mueller and deplores the Russian attacks against America, but is terrified of alienating the Trump base before a midterm.
> The erratic machinations of Giuliani, who increasingly acts as the class clown of the Trump defense team, have had the effect of slowing down the investigation. This will prove disastrous to Republican midterm prospects. Giuliani’s maneuvers bring the crescendo of events in the Russia scandal closer to the crescendo of events in midterm voting.


http://archive.is/d4Kxo#selection-3065.0-3331.347
Of course they are. Because they can't admit that they are shit. And can Mueller even comment on this?


----------



## deepelemblues

This is about the silliest topic with some of the most cringe statements ever made here


----------



## MrMister

CamillePunk said:


> I already said why. The combination of Breitbart and Hannity was too fun and potentially triggering not to share. :lol I was preempted though.
> 
> I didn't know one of their editors said they made up stories. Can you provide a source on that? That's CNN/ABC/MSNBC/NYT/WaPo/HuffPo levels of bad if true.


CBS doesn't even get a mention because Dan Rather destroyed their credibility years ago:brady6


----------



## CamillePunk

I forgot CBS existed. I haven't watched their network in so freaking long.

I have a feeling the Democrats are going to need to lean on that Russian election meddling narrative hard once again this year. :lol There's no way Americans aren't relating to Nancy Pelosi's "Unemployment is irrelevant" or "Lower taxes are bad" or "MS-13 rapists and murderers are divine" platform. It's GOTTA be the Russians.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

@CamillePunk http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/20/media/breitbart-alex-marlow-roy-moore/index.html this is what I was talking about, it was actually from December last year. I know you're not a fan of CNN but I can't find anywhere that Marlow's disputed or rebutted the interview so seems pretty legit. :shrug


----------



## FITZ

CamillePunk said:


> I forgot CBS existed. I haven't watched their network in so freaking long.
> 
> I have a feeling the Democrats are going to need to lean on that Russian election meddling narrative hard once again this year. :lol There's no way Americans aren't relating to Nancy Pelosi's "Unemployment is irrelevant" or "Lower taxes are bad" or "MS-13 rapists and murderers are divine" platform. It's GOTTA be the Russians.


It is a better message than what they were going with for the presidential election. 

Complaining about the tax cut won't work. Even if it does help the rich more than the middle class at the end of the day if you have a job you've noticed more money in your paycheck every week. I have. Complaining about the tax cut to people that are getting more money in the their pay checks won't get them anywhere. 

And if you were unemployed and now aren't you're probably not going to be swayed by trying to downplay that. I can guarantee that that Republicans are going to find tons of constituents that are going to talk about how they were out of work and thanks to the Republicans and Trump they found work. 

Russian collusion might replace racism as the reason to vote democrat though.

It's not the message they need to get people to vote. It's a message that doesn't effect people personally. Now if the democrats get Bernie out there to run and he promises to make college free for all Americans AND cancel all federal student debt than there's a message people are going to get behind. Fuck, I'm voting for him if he says he's forgiving my $140,000 in debt. Every parent sees an incentive to vote for him and every working American with a college education with debt has an incentive. That's the message that gets support and wins. 

Trump had a message that appealed to a lot of people and it's why he's the president. He told people he was going to get back the jobs that their communities had been losing for decades. It resonated and he got really strong support from rural America.


----------



## CamillePunk

RavishingRickRules said:


> @CamillePunk http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/20/media/breitbart-alex-marlow-roy-moore/index.html this is what I was talking about, it was actually from December last year. I know you're not a fan of CNN but I can't find anywhere that Marlow's disputed or rebutted the interview so seems pretty legit. :shrug


I was hoping it wasn't that article because I already read it and it doesn't support your claim. He admits to biased reporting to push a political agenda, which is what virtually every news publication does. That's not the same as just making up stories. That would be like writing entire articles based on "sources say" only for the entire thing to be utterly debunked days or weeks later, which is what several mainstream left-leaning publications in the US have been caught doing. :lol I'll still link to them though if they have a fair article up I want to share. It's whatever.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> I was hoping it wasn't that article because I already read it and it doesn't support your claim. He admits to biased reporting to push a political agenda, which is what virtually every news publication does. That's not the same as just making up stories. That would be like writing entire articles based on "sources say" only for the entire thing to be utterly debunked days or weeks later, which is what several mainstream left-leaning publications in the US have been caught doing. :lol I'll still link to them though if they have a fair article up I want to share. It's whatever.


I guess we have a different take on it. I read that they deliberately pushed a false narrative over sexual abuse allegations in order to pre-empt any potential allegations that may harm Trump - so basically, flat out admitting they're a propaganda machine. That combined with the numerous flat out falsified reports (church burning down in Germany, "no go zones" in the UK etc the list is LONG) gives them next to no credibility in my eyes. They're basically TheCanary for the right-wing. It's all subjective I guess.


----------



## CamillePunk

I prefer honest propaganda machines to dishonest ones, I suppose.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> I prefer honest propaganda machines to dishonest ones, I suppose.


Whereas I consider them ALL worthless


----------



## CamillePunk

RavishingRickRules said:


> Whereas I consider them ALL worthless


So let's ban them all then instead of just the right-wing ones. :lol

(My actual preference is not to ban any sites and let people think for themselves, of course)


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> So let's ban them all then instead of just the right-wing ones. :lol
> 
> (My actual preference is not to ban any sites and let people think for themselves, of course)


As I said in earlier discussion, I'm all for everything being posted, I'm just not remotely going to be upset when blatant fake news sites are banned because it doesn't really affect me in any way. I genuinely feel like people waste so much of their energies getting annoyed and upset by every tiny little thing they perceive as a slight these days. Especially those of a more partisan persuasion who seem incapable of letting go of their bizarre little war over which side of assholes who're fucking them over is better. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

I didn't really see anyone get annoyed over it though?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Melania Trump voices opinion on immigration, calls for a country that ‘governs with the heart’*

https://www.news.com.au/finance/wor...t/news-story/2754ab1cf118f9ea1825e2c941c7dd96



> US FIRST Lady Melania Trump has hit back at her husband’s hard line approach to immigration as she called to end the policy of separating children from their parents.
> 
> Mrs Trump’s statement comes after nearly 2000 children were found to have been separated from their families at the US-Mexico border across a six week period.
> 
> Her spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said the first lady believes “we need to be a country that follows all laws,” but also one “that governs with heart”.
> 
> Ms Grisham said Mrs Trump “hates to see children separated from their families” and hopes “both sides of the aisle can finally come together to achieve successful immigration reform”.
> 
> According to a Department of Homeland Security spokesman, between April 19 and May 31, 1,995 children were separated from 1,940 adults who were being held by US border patrol.
> 
> The tough approach means adults who try and cross the border face custody and even criminal prosecution for illegal entry.
> 
> The policy has seen minors locked up in detention centres and kept away from their parents, but the spokesman insisted minors were held in decent conditions.
> 
> “We have some of the highest detention standards in the world for children,” he said.
> 
> About 1500 boys are being held in a former Walmart supermarket in Texas, and the government is erecting tent structures near the border to house the increasing number of migrant children, including unaccompanied minors, in custody.


Melania busting out!


----------



## Miss Sally

RavishingRickRules said:


> Whereas I consider them ALL worthless


Honestly they all are. I mean we've seen CNN post outright lies and edited videos, half truth etc. All of them do it. Hell the Young Turks is named after a group that committed genocide and it gets a pass. :laugh:

I mean is Buzzfeed banned etc? I remember someone linking stuff from The Root, I found some articles on racism to be very good and then a click later was questioning if the site was the Onion because some of the stuff was so absurd.

Here's my list..

FOX - Corporate Breitbart
CNN - "Left" Corporate Breitbart
CBS - Irrelevant Breitbart
MSNBC - Political TMZ Breitbart
ABC - "We're "Left" we promise! But our Parent Corporation is shady as fuck Breitbart"
The Young Turks- We're named after racist genocidal manics and we're still a bit racist Breitbart
The Root - Black Breitbart
HuffPro - Hipster my only exposure to non-whites is eating at ethnic restaurants and my one black college friend but I'm totally woke Breitbart
Guardian - Whatever the Right says we say opposite even if it's going against common sense Breitbart
Jezebel - Political Lesbian Breitbart 
Salon - Kiddy Diddlers aren't so bad we secretly support NMBLA Breitbart
Politico - Let's see how we can cause more division Breitbart
NYT - We don't check our facts or sources but we're totes legit Breitbart
WaPo - We're as Politically aware as a drugged out porn star getting a money shot Breitbart

The list.. is endless! :laugh:


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Miss Sally said:


> Honestly they all are. I mean we've seen CNN post outright lies and edited videos, half truth etc. All of them do it. Hell the Young Turks is named after a group that committed genocide and it gets a pass. :laugh:
> 
> I mean is Buzzfeed banned etc? I remember someone linking stuff from The Root, I found some articles on racism to be very good and then a click later was questioning if the site was the Onion because some of the stuff was so absurd.
> 
> Here's my list..
> 
> FOX - Corporate Breitbart
> CNN - "Left" Corporate Breitbart
> CBS - Irrelevant Breitbart
> MSNBC - Political TMZ Breitbart
> ABC - "We're "Left" we promise! But our Parent Corporation is shady as fuck Breitbart"
> The Young Turks- We're named after racist genocidal manics and we're still a bit racist Breitbart
> The Root - Black Breitbart
> HuffPro - Hipster my only exposure to non-whites is eating at ethnic restaurants and my one black college friend but I'm totally woke Breitbart
> Guardian - Whatever the Right says we say opposite even if it's going against common sense Breitbart
> Jezebel - Political Lesbian Breitbart
> Salon - Kiddy Diddlers aren't so bad we secretly support NMBLA Breitbart
> Politico - Let's see how we can cause more division Breitbart
> NYT - We don't check our facts or sources but we're totes legit Breitbart
> WaPo - We're as Politically aware as a drugged out porn star getting a money shot Breitbart
> 
> The list.. is endless! :laugh:


Pretty accurate I'd say, you did forget the Daily Fail, Express and the Sun all 3 of which are far more ridiculous than the Guardian will ever be and post as many retractions as they do honest stories. Then there's the Mirror which is a whole different type of garbage rag. For GOOD right-wing takes on the news I personally go with The Times in the UK every time, that's a quality newspaper. For the left-wing/centre-left view the Independent is PROBABLY the best of the larger ones because they're completely non-partisan politically and will happily slam both sides, but they do also have a few writers who verge on the sensationalist at times. Financial Times is also a solid and non-partisan news outlet who've thrown support just about everywhere on the spectrum, they go with who they believe are the strongest rather than adhere to a political stance. There are good news outlets around I think, it just takes wading through rivers of shit to find them. :lol


----------



## DOPA

The Daily Mail and the Guardian these days are just as bad as each other honestly :lol. The Guardian has gone to shit the last 5 years, terrible paper. The Independent aren't that great either, they are a little better than the Guardian but they've posted a number of clickbait articles and ones which are deliberately misleading. Express has gotten terrible mainly because of the sensationalized articles round Brexit (and I support Brexit :lol ). I've heard the Observer are decent as far as left leaning publications go but I've not read enough to confirm.

The Times, The Telegraph and the FT seem to be the best news outlets British wise. Most of the time they seem on point, you still see a bad article every now and then like with all outlets but their track record is more good than bad. If not, you can't go wrong with Reuters which I have as an app on my phone now believe it or not. They write some good articles mostly.

Sorry to say but pretty much every Mainstream American centric outlet is trash for the most part :lol.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

DOPA said:


> The Daily Mail and the Guardian these days are just as bad as each other honestly :lol. The Guardian has gone to shit the last 5 years, terrible paper. The Independent aren't that great either, they are a little better than the Guardian but they've posted a number of clickbait articles and ones which are deliberately misleading. Express has gotten terrible mainly because of the sensationalized articles round Brexit (and I support Brexit :lol ). I've heard the Observer are decent as far as left leaning publications go but I've not read enough to confirm.
> 
> The Times, The Telegraph and the FT seem to be the best news outlets British wise. Most of the time they seem on point, you still see a bad article every now and then like with all outlets but their track record is more good than bad. If not, you can't go wrong with Reuters which I have as an app on my phone now believe it or not. They write some good articles mostly.
> 
> Sorry to say but pretty much every Mainstream American centric outlet is trash for the most part :lol.


Observer's basically "The Guardian on Sunday" mate haha, I'd say it's not the most credible of places to go. I'm not as keen on the Telegraph as the Times if I'm honest, whilst the news is mostly good they feel a little stuck in the past to me, maybe I'm too young I don't know, but it feels very much like an "old man paper" to me. The Express is utter garbage though, has been forever, not just since Brexit. It really is the paper of choice for closed-minded bigoted old people. It's their version of the Sun. In fact even my vehemently right-wing upper-middle/upper-class friends from Uni used to take the piss out of the Express constantly for how ridiculous and over-the-top they are. Not sure I'd go round telling people you supported Brexit though but, seriously harms your credibility now all of those experts you were sick of listening to have been vindicated hundreds of times over :grin2: :lol


----------



## Tag89

daily star is unbiased, intellectual journalism IMO

eagerly awaiting the exclusive christopher corpse interview with them


----------



## Martins

DOPA said:


> The Independent aren't that great either, they are a little better than the Guardian but they've posted a number of clickbait articles and ones which are deliberately misleading.
> 
> Sorry to say but pretty much every Mainstream American centric outlet is trash for the most part :lol.


Man, I have the exact opposite opinion. I can still find some properly informative, well-researched articles in The Guardian (which tbf does not happen often...), but I fucking hate The Independent. The clickbait articles I believe amount to much more than "a number", it's awful. The Guardian's pretty much lost almost any status it ever had as a "leftist" newspaper, but at least they can still maintain a sort of old-school left, class-based perspective once in a while. The Independent is straight up American-liberal bullshit.

Reuters is a great news source though!

Edit: I should note that I'm not British though, so I'm only referring to online here. Those three are pretty much the only British outlets I regularly or somewhat-regularly check. In Portugal most major newspapers today fall somewhere within a pretty mild center-left-to-center-right direction, with at least one following a pretty right-wing line by our standards. Has quite decent in-depth articles and reporting at times though, it's just the general editorial line and the opinion pieces that trigger me mostly :lol


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1008749585735569409
"Official WF President Donald Trump Thread: *SPACE FORCE*" for thread title now imo.


----------



## virus21

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1008749585735569409
> "Official WF President Donald Trump Thread: *SPACE FORCE*" for thread title now imo.


The conquest of Mars begins!!!!


----------



## Reaper

Not sure if real but [emoji38]


----------



## RavishingRickRules

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1008749585735569409
> "Official WF President Donald Trump Thread: *SPACE FORCE*" for thread title now imo.


That is actually pretty cool tbh, and I cosign that thread title too. 



Reap said:


> Not sure if real but [emoji38]


If it's not real somebody should make it real. I still don't understand remotely how "sanctuary states" even get to be a thing. It seems utterly ridiculous to me to be ok with illegal immigrants. I'm all for immigration, I think it provides far more positive than negative and studies would agree with me if we were talking about the UK (not looked much at other countries here) but illegal immigration is harmful to both the immigrants who don't receive the usual protections of regular citizens and legal immigrants and the country who's now dealing with illegals running around. It's actually completely insane to me that some states will allow that shit.


----------



## virus21

RavishingRickRules said:


> If it's not real somebody should make it real. I still don't understand remotely how "sanctuary states" even get to be a thing. It seems utterly ridiculous to me to be ok with illegal immigrants. I'm all for immigration, I think it provides far more positive than negative and studies would agree with me if we were talking about the UK (not looked much at other countries here) but illegal immigration is harmful to both the immigrants who don't receive the usual protections of regular citizens and legal immigrants and the country who's now dealing with illegals running around. It's actually completely insane to me that some states will allow that shit.


Scary thing is that I fear this stuff will end with a modern age version of Serfdom.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> Scary thing is that I fear this stuff will end with a modern age version of Serfdom.


Serfdom started in America when the war tax was instituted on Americans to fund WWI imo.


----------



## deepelemblues

No that's not real, it's a photoshop

Fake but accurate (TM)

Why are you all still arguing over Fake News, you're all discerning individuals who can glean any valuable information from whatever source. At least that's what I do get on my level bruhs I read almost all those publications they all have value as long as you're not a mong

Except Salon

Totally worthless


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> No that's not real, it's a photoshop
> 
> Fake but accurate (TM)
> 
> Why are you all still arguing over Fake News, you're all discerning individuals who can glean any valuable information from whatever source. At least that's what I do get on my level bruhs I read almost all those publications they all have value as long as you're not a mong
> 
> Except Salon
> 
> Totally worthless


I discovered social media "flexing" today and sometimes a lot of your posts read like that.


----------



## deepelemblues

Reap said:


> I discovered social media "flexing" today and sometimes a lot of your posts read like that.


i'm just trying to unleash everyone's hidden potential 

like so


----------



## Reaper

If that's the case then carry on with your mission :goku


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> No that's not real, it's a photoshop
> 
> Fake but accurate (TM)
> 
> Why are you all still arguing over Fake News, you're all discerning individuals who can glean any valuable information from whatever source. At least that's what I do get on my level bruhs I read almost all those publications they all have value as long as you're not a mong
> 
> Except Salon
> 
> Totally worthless


I believe this was my point. :lol


----------



## Stinger Fan

RavishingRickRules said:


> If it's not real somebody should make it real. I still don't understand remotely how "sanctuary states" even get to be a thing. It seems utterly ridiculous to me to be ok with illegal immigrants. I'm all for immigration, I think it provides far more positive than negative and studies would agree with me if we were talking about the UK (not looked much at other countries here) but illegal immigration is harmful to both the immigrants who don't receive the usual protections of regular citizens and legal immigrants and the country who's now dealing with illegals running around. It's actually completely insane to me that some states will allow that shit.


Democrats/Liberals insist that sanctuary cities should exist because they'll get the votes. If Illegal immigrants come into your country and have kids, that means they're getting legal votes from illegal immigration. Those kids wouldn't vote against ending illegal immigration and the side who is boasting about being in favor of that would get the benefit, it's all a ploy to get votes.


----------



## deepelemblues

I don't see why people on the twitter and the facepage and the reddit are getting so down on Space Force 

Just think for a moment

:trump spends a trillion dollars over the next 2 years to build the Space Force 

He states that he is not running for re-election as he is going to take his new position at Moonbase Trump Taj Mahal as King of Space 

He builds walls at the Sun-Earth and Earth-Moon Lagrange Points to "keep out the real aliens, lemme tell you, MS-13 is nothing next to these 'guys' with their double jaws and acid blood, but we're gonna stop 'em I tell you, it's gonna be great, so great" 

Someone else is president in 2021

Would this not be acceptable to everyone?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

deepelemblues said:


> I don't see why people on the twitter and the facepage and the reddit are getting so down on Space Force
> 
> Just think for a moment
> 
> :trump spends a trillion dollars over the next 2 years to build the Space Force
> 
> He states that he is not running for re-election as he is going to take his new position at Moonbase Trump Taj Mahal as King of Space
> 
> He builds walls at the Sun-Earth and Earth-Moon Lagrange Points to "keep out the real aliens, lemme tell you, MS-13 is nothing next to these 'guys' with their double jaws and acid blood, but we're gonna stop 'em I tell you, it's gonna be great, so great"
> 
> Someone else is president in 2021
> 
> Would this not be acceptable to everyone?


You forgot the MASSIVE number of jobs he's creating with the production of star fighters, space suits, projectile weaponry that'll work in space and of course the crown jewel of the US space fleet "USSS Best Star" Planetary destroyer. Them god damned Martians don't stand a chance!


----------



## MrMister

SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE



FOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRCE

:mark:


----------



## deepelemblues

RavishingRickRules said:


> You forgot the MASSIVE number of jobs he's creating with the production of star fighters, space suits, projectile weaponry that'll work in space and of course the crown jewel of the US space fleet "USSS Best Star" Planetary destroyer. Them god damned Martians don't stand a chance!


I just want Space-Prince Barron


----------



## MrMister

Space Baron Barron imo


----------



## Miss Sally

People are really complaining about the Space Force when going to Space has been all the rage for the last 5 years?

People are silly


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Miss Sally said:


> People are really complaining about the Space Force when going to Space has been all the rage for the last 5 years?
> 
> People are silly


Regardless of how silly the motivations may be or not, for me it's actually something I think is pretty awesome. Brings us closer to sci-fi and that's always a plus in my mind :grin2:

Of course, it may just come to nothing, but if not I could see potential in this giving them a kick up the arse in terms of actually attempting to do more in space. If we had space colonies in our lifetimes some of my childhood dreams would actually come true.


----------



## Miss Sally

RavishingRickRules said:


> Regardless of how silly the motivations may be or not, for me it's actually something I think is pretty awesome. Brings us closer to sci-fi and that's always a plus in my mind :grin2:
> 
> Of course, it may just come to nothing, but if not I could see potential in this giving them a kick up the arse in terms of actually attempting to do more in space. If we had space colonies in our lifetimes some of my childhood dreams would actually come true.


It's also good because NASA has been on the decline and Space has been a huge subject for a while now. This is the perfect time to start this program. I'd like one for the ocean too, studying both the ocean and space. Those are two untapped areas!

People need to grow up if they're upset about a space program, especially if they were fine with it but since it's Trump doing it.. well now it's bad! Who cares who done it? Wish Bush did it over spending all that money on the idiotic Iraq war. 

Imagine if Bush started it, Obama continued it and Trump added to it. Each president putting resources into the program. It would be amazing!


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Miss Sally said:


> It's also good because NASA has been on the decline and Space has been a huge subject for a while now. This is the perfect time to start this program. I'd like one for the ocean too, studying both the ocean and space. Those are two untapped areas!
> 
> People need to grow up if they're upset about a space program, especially if they were fine with it but since it's Trump doing it.. well now it's bad! Who cares who done it? Wish Bush did it over spending all that money on the idiotic Iraq war.
> 
> Imagine if Bush started it, Obama continued it and Trump added to it. Each president putting resources into the program. It would be amazing!


At the risk of coming across like a libtard moonbat (I love that insult deepelemblues haha) this reminds me of a quote I always loved from Bill Hicks. And whilst I don't 100% agree with everything he says I fully agree with the overall sentiment. 

“The world is like a ride in an amusement park, and when you choose to go on it you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. The ride goes up and down, around and around, it has thrills and chills, and it's very brightly colored, and it's very loud, and it's fun for a while. Many people have been on the ride a long time, and they begin to wonder, "Hey, is this real, or is this just a ride?" And other people have remembered, and they come back to us and say, "Hey, don't worry; don't be afraid, ever, because this is just a ride." And we … kill those people. "Shut him up! I've got a lot invested in this ride, shut him up! Look at my furrows of worry, look at my big bank account, and my family. This has to be real." It's just a ride. But we always kill the good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok … But it doesn't matter, because it's just a ride. And we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one. Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. *Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.*”


----------



## Chris90

Please be called Starship Troopers.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

I personally think Trump should troll everybody and call them Storm Troopers. The meltdown would be of gargantuan proportions :lol


----------



## Chris90

RavishingRickRules said:


> I personally think Trump should troll everybody and call them Storm Troopers. The meltdown would be of gargantuan proportions :lol


US Sturmtruppen has a ring to it lol


----------



## RavishingRickRules

I just think it'd be hilarious if the narrative changed from "literally Hitler" to "literally Vader" hahaha


----------



## Reaper

Selective misrepresentation.


----------



## DesolationRow

_If you're livin' in a blue state and lookin' down
Cheer up because The Donald is lifting us off the ground 
Look skyward, interstellar Trump Plazas fly about the stars
Makin' space travel great again, soon to conquer Mars
They thought he should stick to hotels, and the odd golf course
Now he is unleashing Great America's might with SPACE FORCE!_​
Set to this imo:


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> Selective misrepresentation.


The picture of him looking up at Merkel whilst she looks miserable is great though. The look on his face is priceless :lol


----------



## virus21

First look at the space force


Spoiler: :


----------



## dannybosa

i have some official leaked images of this space force he is talking about


----------



## RavishingRickRules

:grin2:


----------



## DOPA

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1008749585735569409
> "Official WF President Donald Trump Thread: *SPACE FORCE*" for thread title now imo.


THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED AS WELL :lmao :sodone :mark:


----------



## CamillePunk

Doesn't matter how much Trump actually puts into developing a proper "space force" while president, the fact is that in the future when the idea becomes viable it will be a historical fact that it was founded by Donald J Trump. :lol Brilliant.



Scott Adams talks to Lara Trump. Basic stuff for those who have followed Scott Adams since he started talking about the 2016 election, but interesting nonetheless.


----------



## Vic Capri

It's motherfucking Space Force God damn it!

- Vic


----------



## TripleG

Space Force? LOL. 

I'm picturing Trump as Zordon right now and its hilarious.


----------



## Black Metal

THE SPACE FORCE

Sounds like a shitty b-movie from 1988.


----------



## CamillePunk

Clearly the fix to having children of illegal immigrant children separated from their parents (who chose to intentionally cross the border illegally or send their children to do so rather than simply go to an entry point and apply for asylum, which would not result in this) is to just detain the kids with the parents. Not sure why Obama didn't take care of this, or why the press didn't make it a big story, when it was happening during his administration. 

Of course Congress could take care of this today if neither party lets other political concerns get in the way. Let's see if it happens. What I find amusing is how liberals can't wait but to trip over one another in expressing their outrage over this and throw out the Nazi comparisons as if this is something new that just started with Trump. Sorry, if y'all cared this much you would've been talking about it before.

You know who did talk about it when it happened under Obama though? :mj Breitbart. But that's none of my business. :lol


----------



## RavishingRickRules

TripleG said:


> Space Force? LOL.
> 
> I'm picturing Trump as Zordon right now and its hilarious.


----------



## TripleG




----------



## Draykorinee

The Trump administration quits the human rights council. A council that includes Saudi Arabia. Not sure I disagree with this one even though its only because Obama joined it and they bash the Israelis.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> The Trump administration quits the human rights council. A council that includes Saudi Arabia. Not sure I disagree with this one even though its only because Obama joined it and they bash the *Israelis*.


You mean, the country where Muslims enjoy the highest lifespan in all middle eastern countries? and are least likely to be killed by other Muslims because of the anti-terror stance taking by the country who has vowed to protect them :mj

If Muslims didn't hate the Jews because their religion tells them too, they might be "doing whatever they can" in the hopes of being able to migrate to Israel tbh like they do everywhere else other than muslim countries :lmao .


----------



## Draykorinee

Reap said:


> You mean, the country where Muslims enjoy the highest lifespan in all Muslim majority countries? and are least likely to be killed by other Muslims because of the anti-terror stance taking by the country who has vowed to protect them :mj
> 
> If Muslims didn't hate the Jews because their religion tells them too, they might be creaming their panties in the hopes of being able to migrate to Israel tbh like they do everywhere else bh.


I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with my post, I was just saying the reasons why Trump doesn't like the council. 

For the UN human rights council to keep Israel as an open agenda and have SA on the council you have to question what the fuck they're all smoking. Israel does have a lot to answer for, but no more than any other country.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with my post, I was just saying the reasons why Trump doesn't like the council.
> 
> For the UN human rights council to keep Israel as an open agenda and have SA on the council you have to question what the fuck they're all smoking. *Israel does have a lot to answer for,* but no more than any other country.


The thing it has to do with your post is that the only reason why you even tossed Israel in there is because to you Israel's actions against terrorists (not Muslims, but _terrorists_) are rightly guided. 

Only those who've only got half of the information down and can't seem to separate anti-Israeli propaganda from reality seem to think that Israel has a lot to answer for.

The answer lies in history of the "conflict". Read it. It's a 1500 year old History (sure with a few breaks here and there) that Muslims started when they butchered the men of Banu Qurayza and have never stopped since. 

They just don't like Jews. 95-97% of them today dislike them.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reap said:


> The thing it has to do with your post is that the only reason why you even tossed Israel in there is because to you Israel's actions against terrorists (not Muslims, but _terrorists_) are rightly guided.
> 
> Only those who've only got half of the information down and can't seem to separate anti-Israeli propaganda from reality seem to think that Israel has a lot to answer for.
> 
> The answer lies in history of the "conflict". Read it. It's a 1500 year old History that Muslims started when they butchered the men of Banu Qurayza and have never stopped since.


Well, initially my post had nothing to do with any of that and just Trumps thought process. I appreciate that you defend Israel at every opportunity, I certainly won't debate you on the matter because your knowledge far outweighs mine as its not something I tend to research. I possibly am swayed by western left wing media on the subject more than I should be.

My post was mainly about Saudi Arabia being on a human rights council, which is like having Amy Schumer on a comedy committee.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Well, initially my post had nothing to do with any of that and just Trumps thought process. I appreciate that you defend Israel at every opportunity, I certainly won't debate you on the matter because your knowledge far outweighs mine as its not something I tend to research. I possibly am swayed by western left wing media on the subject more than I should be.


Thanks for the acknowledgement. I have no love for Israel. Just the truth as I've come to see it and have witnessed it. The media has skewed our perspective of every global event in history from the first WW to the second, to the SA apartheid and the list just goes on. 

I have spent way too much time researching this topics and thinking about them. 



> My post was mainly about Saudi Arabia being on a human rights council, which is like having Amy Schumer on a comedy committee.


Well, the Muslim bloc has always been the UNHR council's Achilles heel. It's a sham organization and the Muslim bloc has been jockeying for power ever since they got oil rich. All Muslim countries don't even know what Human Rights are, and they're united in their hate for Israel -- and they've turned the UN into their propaganda mill. 

US should leave the UN and let it butt fuck itself to death. It's a failed experiment and has no business existing because all it is is a drain on global resources where small penised "leaders" go to puff themselves up and feel important.


----------



## DOPA

People on social media freaking out saying we're living in a dystopian novel because the US quit the Human Rights Council :HA.

The HRC and the UN as a whole are a joke. You have countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia and China on the council....clearly all glowing examples of countries with an extensive level of human rights protection. Saudi Arabia not too long ago was chosen to head the HRC for several key provisions, the same country where it wasn't too long ago that women weren't even allowed to drive. They don't have voting rights, homosexuality is still illegal and punished by death. I could go on.

Meanwhile whilst the UN is always on Israel's case and I'm not saying they shouldn't held accountable but at the same time they completely ignore what is going on in Venezuela with Maduro's regime increasingly becoming more authoritarian, grabbing power for his administration, making the legislative body null and void, arresting and murdering political opponents, their population starving to death and the UN says and does nothing about it.

Honestly if we had the balls, we in the UK should pull out of it and the UN altogether too. It's a shambles of an organization.


----------



## CamillePunk

I also would quit any organization with the acronym HRC.


----------



## Vic Capri

Build The Wall: It keeps families together.

- Vic


----------



## Tater

DOPA said:


> The HRC and the UN as a whole are a joke.





CamillePunk said:


> I also would quit any organization with the acronym HRC.


I was going to make a crack about HRC being a bad joke under multiple acronyms but CP beat me to the punch.


----------



## wkdsoul

Puts out a press release for World Refugee Day today, fucking amazing. :done


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump has backtracked and now wants to keep families together. How nice.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> Trump has backtracked and now wants to keep families together. How nice.


I mean, that's kinda how it's supposed to work right? Something's happening that the people don't like and kick off about so the politicians actually listen and change? And I'm sure by now I've made my point that I REALLY don't like Trump so you know this isn't shilling at all. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to be singing praises any time soon but that is kinda how it's supposed to go if the people call out for something to be changed. Imagine if our government actually changed their mind on legalising cannabis after the outcry?


----------



## MrMister

So are the Dems going to use Animal Farm as their rallying cry now?

I mean I fucking hate that children are or were separated from their families, but people JUST NOW realize that government doesn't have our best interest at heart?

Ok then.


----------



## TripleG

RavishingRickRules said:


> I mean, that's kinda how it's supposed to work right? Something's happening that the people don't like and kick off about so the politicians actually listen and change? And I'm sure by now I've made my point that I REALLY don't like Trump so you know this isn't shilling at all. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to be singing praises any time soon but that is kinda how it's supposed to go if the people call out for something to be changed. Imagine if our government actually changed their mind on legalising cannabis after the outcry?


Oh my Facebook feed has been hilarious the last two days. 

Before it was status after status of "ERMEHGOD! TRUMP IS RUNNING CONCENTRATION CAMPS!!!". Now I could point out that the legislation was passed under Clinton, upheld and enforced under Bush and Obama, and all of it received little to no coverage. I could also point out that Trump had little to do with it beyond allowing it to continue, but that goes against their beliefs and I'd be met with rabid snarling if I did. 

So today, Trump signs something to keep the kids from being separated from their families, and now I'm seeing "He only did it because he was forced too! Fuck that piece of garbage".

Shouldn't your reaction be "Oh he listened to us. Good" or at least "I still hate him, and he did it for selfish reasons, but at least the families will be back together". 

It makes me wonder if the passionate response was truly genuine. Did you really care about the kids or can you just not get over your own personal hatred for a politician?

One of my Facebook friends also shared an article saying that all four living former first ladies condemned these practices currently going on. Oh, you mean that thing that was going on while all of your husbands (except for Carter) were in office? Um...WHAT?! 

Look, I am not a Trump supporter. I didn't vote for him (or Hilary for that matter. None of the Above 2016 is a write in vote I am most proud of, lol) but for God's sake, the Trump haters sound so much like raving lunatics that I sound like a Trump supporter just for pointing out how crazy they sound. 

Shit guys, I didn't like Obama or Bush either but I was happy to point out when they did something I liked.

I hate to sound egotistical about this, but if more people viewed Trump the way I do (a giant blow hard) instead of trying to paint him as Satan-incarnate and the heir apparent to Adolph Hitler, their side might be taken a little more seriously and they'd have a better chance of winning back the White House in 2020. 

Because here's the thing. They keep spewing that "Trump = Doomsday" and its end times, so really, all Trump has to do is not destroy everything and not blow up the world, and then the other side looks wrong. Again, why they have elected to frame the debate this way is beyond my comprehension. 

Now though, they just sound like the new age Puritans passing moral judgment on everything and everyone and just come across as obnoxious.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Also, I don't know how to link tweets tbh but I just saw in a new article the most disgusting tweet I've seen in ages. Fuck Peter Fonda, the guy's a disgrace, regardless of what you think of somebody's politics this is utterly abhorrent. 

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...ther-and-put-him-in-cage-with-pedophiles.html


----------



## TripleG

RavishingRickRules said:


> Also, I don't know how to link tweets tbh but I just saw in a new article the most disgusting tweet I've seen in ages. Fuck Peter Fonda, the guy's a disgrace, regardless of what you think of somebody's politics this is utterly abhorrent.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...ther-and-put-him-in-cage-with-pedophiles.html


Ripped from his mom and put in a cage with pedophiles huh? 

So I assume Peter means somewhere in Hollywood.


----------



## wkdsoul

TripleG said:


> Oh my Facebook feed has been hilarious the last two days.
> 
> Before it was status after status of "ERMEHGOD! TRUMP IS RUNNING CONCENTRATION CAMPS!!!"*. Now I could point out that the legislation was passed under Clinton, upheld and enforced under Bush and Obama, and all of it received little to no coverage. I could also point out that Trump had little to do with it beyond allowing it to continue*, but that goes against their beliefs and I'd be met with rabid snarling if I did.


Was it as strictly enforced before? #GenuineQuestion


----------



## RavishingRickRules

TripleG said:


> Ripped from his mom and put in a cage with pedophiles huh?
> 
> So I assume Peter means somewhere in Hollywood.


It's just sickening. As bad as some of the things I've seen Trump say are NOTHING I've seen him say comes close to that.


----------



## TripleG

wkdsoul said:


> Was it as strictly enforced before? #GenuineQuestion


If this article is to be believed, there are pictures of what the detainment facililities looked like in 2014: 
https://qz.com/1291470/photos-immigrant-children-detained-at-the-placement-center-in-2014/


----------



## Tater

TripleG said:


> I could point out that the legislation was passed under Clinton, upheld and enforced under Bush and Obama, and all of it received little to no coverage.


This is true for a lot of government policies. Problem is, the people running the show are desperate to pin it all on Trump like he is some aberration, so they can continue doing the same shit once Trump is gone. The truth is, Trump is a puppet just like every other president in recent memory. The faces may change and there might be some superficial differences but the overall government trajectory remains consistent from administration to administration. The only reason there are people in the establishment who hate Trump is because he is such a braying jackass, it gets people looking at things they were blind to before.



RavishingRickRules said:


> Also, I don't know how to link tweets


twitter.com/profwolff/status/1009129182226366464

Copy the link to the tweet, then take the numbers from the end and wrap them in [ tweet ] [ /tweet ] tags.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1009129182226366464


----------



## CamillePunk

Why would a business be democratic?


----------



## Draykorinee

RavishingRickRules said:


> I mean, that's kinda how it's supposed to work right? Something's happening that the people don't like and kick off about so the politicians actually listen and change? And I'm sure by now I've made my point that I REALLY don't like Trump so you know this isn't shilling at all. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to be singing praises any time soon but that is kinda how it's supposed to go if the people call out for something to be changed. Imagine if our government actually changed their mind on legalising cannabis after the outcry?


Of course, hence my rather benign comment, I'm not impressed by political pandering in the face of overwhelming public outcry but I'll take it over ignoring them. I'd just rather politicians did the right thing first.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Why would a business be democratic?


Because our political culture has moved from "no one should be King" to "everyone should be King*"

*except the people my politics demands I hate, depending on what my politics are. Fuck those people they should be second-class citizens at best


----------



## Draykorinee

wkdsoul said:


> Was it as strictly enforced before? #GenuineQuestion


From what I've read it was never enforced, so it's disingenuous to say other politicians created this.



> In April, the US attorney general announced a "zero-tolerance" policy to criminally charge and jail undocumented border crossers.


This didn't happen before Trump from everything I've read, it's a bit of a cop out to blame others if that's true, maybe tripleg will supply evidence to the contrary.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44303556

Can read a bit there

http://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-trump-separations-4078446-Jun2018/

Or here.

It seems to only be a Trump issue, and as usual just deflecting on to the Democratic for cheap propaganda.


----------



## CamillePunk

Twitter account still active. Verified account.  As expected.

The Daily Caller is banned too? :done


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Twitter account still active. Verified account.  As expected.
> 
> The Daily Caller is banned too? :done


That guy needs to help.

His feed makes me vomit.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> Twitter account still active. Verified account.  As expected.
> 
> The Daily Caller is banned too? :done


He deserves to be banned and more for that shit. I'm not really into violence but frankly I think Trump wouldn't be remotely out of order to punch that man in the face for those comments. I'm actually shocked that somebody would write something so utterly vile and personal over politics. If I see anybody cosigning that shit they'll be getting a piece of my mind that's for sure. Completely and utterly disgusting behaviour.


----------



## CamillePunk

All these deranged, unhinged Hollywood types are going to be filled with regrets when Crown Prince Barron's Space Force has them doing forced labor gas mining on Uranus.


----------



## samizayn

RavishingRickRules said:


> He deserves to be banned and more for that shit. I'm not really into violence but frankly I think Trump wouldn't be remotely out of order to punch that man in the face for those comments. I'm actually shocked that somebody would write something so utterly vile and personal over politics. If I see anybody cosigning that shit they'll be getting a piece of my mind that's for sure. Completely and utterly disgusting behaviour.


It would certainly be a terrible thing to see happen.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> All these deranged, unhinged Hollywood types are going to be filled with regrets when Crown Prince Barron's Space Force has them doing forced labor gas mining on Uranus.


I don't want Hollywood perverts mining for gas on my anus

I'm putting a ban on gas mining on my anus just like New York state did on fracking :trolldog


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Why would a business be democratic?


I know you struggle with certain concepts and are totally okay with totalitarianism as long is it is feudal lords instead of "the state" but some of us actually believe in democracy and oppose dictatorships. This might be difficult for you to understand but in the absence of government, the corporations effectively become the government, and the thing you claim to fear the most is what your ideology has brought to reality.

Well, that is when you show any consistency with your so-called libertarian beliefs. Don't feel too bad though. You're not the only one who became a lapdog to power when the right strongman came along. I forgive you.


----------



## CamillePunk

*asks simple question*

*receives ad hominem tirade*

Ah yes, I must be in a discussion with Tater.


----------



## FatherJackHackett

CamillePunk said:


> *asks simple question*
> 
> *receives ad hominem tirade*
> 
> Ah yes, I must be in a discussion with Tater.


That's Hope Sandoval on your avatar right? I haven't listened to Mazzy Star in years, great band.

Anyway got to laugh at this suddenly becoming a huge issue when it has been going on for a long time. I'm pretty sure the Trump Admin is following laws that have been in place since the 90s, brought in due to the many instances of children being allowed into the hands of human traffickers who had no proof that they were the parents. This was a big problem which is why the law was passed and still is a very real threat. It isn't Trump's fault at all despite people's efforts to paint it that way.

Trump has quickly said that he wants to do what he can to stop children and their accompanying adults being separated, and has rightly pointed out that he has wanted to fix immigration for ages and the Dems won't negotiate seriously with him. He knows full well that these people who are screaming loudest about this have absolutely no intention of doing anything to fix it, rather they want to be able to perpetually use this as a stick to beat Trump with. When they complain that children shouldn't be used as political bargaining chips, they are doing just that. Chuck Schumer pretty much confirmed this with what he said earlier.

This is clearly the Democrat platform for the midterms. It's arguable that continuing to pin your electoral hopes on complete opposition to a President who has been rising handily in popularity isn't that smart, and it will just serve as further evidence to some that the Democrat Party has gone off the rails and totally lost sight of issues that affect everyday American citizens.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1009425028113461249
So separating illegal immigrant adults from their kids is bad. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1009529087566794752
But detaining them together is also bad.

Well then what are we supposed to...oh, right, I get it. Just let them all in or release them right away so they can just try again the next day until they finally sneak past successfully. Of course!

This is not to mention the blatant lie that the detainment is "indefinite", of course.

They just want future Democrat voters. There is nothing else to this entire drama.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Twitter account still active. Verified account. As expected.


And of course, Twitter has done nothing about him threatening The President's son on social media.

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

I guess I'll be nice and respond to this vitriolic post even though it's childish and totally undeserving of a serious response. I do like to argue.


Tater said:


> I know you struggle with certain concepts


You've described 100% of the population.



> and are totally okay with totalitarianism as long is it is feudal lords instead of "the state"


Citation needed.



> but some of us actually believe in democracy


Why? Most people are really dumb and can't be trusted with decisions that have consequences for their own lives, let alone the lives of others. 



> and oppose dictatorships.


This seems like a false dichotomy. I'm against both.



> This might be difficult for you to understand but in the absence of government, the corporations effectively become the government, and the thing you claim to fear the most is what your ideology has brought to reality.


I don't know when I made this claim or what you're referring to. Explanation? 

Corporations are state constructs. A corporation without the state is just a business that can only make money if they offer a product or service people want to buy, and they do it relatively well compared to their competitors. If you're worried about these businesses suddenly spending a ton of money to buy weapons and hire soldiers, suddenly creating a very dangerous and expensive situation for themselves and everyone else completely needlessly, I don't share that worry. 



> Well, that is when you show any consistency with your so-called libertarian beliefs.


What is a concrete, real example of my inconsistency? I want a stateless society with maximum freedom from force for the individual. I'm not sure how having businesses be ran like a democracy has anything to do with that. If businesses want to run themselves that way, by all means go ahead. I know I'd prefer not to deal with the responsibility of making business decisions for my employer. My skillset is in programming, not business or economics. I'd rather leave those decisions to those who are qualified to make them. 



> Don't feel too bad though. You're not the only one who became a lapdog to power when the right strongman came along. I forgive you.


I'm not sure what I've given, given up, or received from any so-called strongman. The so-called conservative government passed a bill to lower my taxes. That was nice. Did I miss something?


----------



## Vic Capri

President Trump's first visit to Minnesota

Trump might do the impossible and turn Minnesota back red next election. 

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1009425028113461249
> So separating illegal immigrant adults from their kids is bad.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1009529087566794752
> But detaining them together is also bad.
> 
> Well then what are we supposed to...oh, right, I get it. Just let them all in or release them right away so they can just try again the next day until they finally sneak past successfully. Of course!
> 
> This is not to mention the blatant lie that the detainment is "indefinite", of course.
> 
> They just want future Democrat voters. There is nothing else to this entire drama.


They want immediate release after being caught so illegal immigrants can ignore their court date and disappear into the vastness of the country.

And they want as few as possible to be caught in the first place. 

They want deportations to be extremely difficult and extremely rare.

That's why hiring more immigration judges is anathema to them, more judges = more cases heard = fewer illegal immigrants being released with a court date months later so they can easily slip through the cracks and ultimately = more deportations of illegal immigrants. 

The official Democratic Party position on immigration is nonexistent because they can't agree on an official position but the unofficial position is not very far off from open borders with the consequent unlimited immigration. This is not a popular position so they don't outright advocate for it legislatively or as part of executive policy, they just try to obstruct enforcement of existing immigration law as much as they can, attempting to create a situation as close to de facto unlimited immigration as possible.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

You guys really need to find a way to prevent illegals from voting. An illegal immigrant simply can't vote in the UK, as soon as they tried to get on the electoral roll they'd be detained by immigration.


----------



## DesoloutionRow

RavishingRickRules said:


> You guys really need to find a way to prevent illegals from voting. An illegal immigrant simply can't vote in the UK, as soon as they tried to get on the electoral roll they'd be detained by immigration.


It is bemusing to me that an illegal immigrant would be eligible to vote. How can this be?


----------



## CamillePunk

RavishingRickRules said:


> You guys really need to find a way to prevent illegals from voting. An illegal immigrant simply can't vote in the UK, as soon as they tried to get on the electoral roll they'd be detained by immigration.


Nope. Any suggestion that one should have some form of identification with them when they vote is met with cries of classism and racism. Clearly if you want someone to have the same burden of identification when they vote as when they do virtually anything else of any importance, you're actually just trying to prevent poor people and people of color from voting. 

These are the shitty arguments the left throws out and then people wonder why the right suspects there's a con afoot.


----------



## BRITLAND

RavishingRickRules said:


> You guys really need to find a way to prevent illegals from voting. An illegal immigrant simply can't vote in the UK, as soon as they tried to get on the electoral roll they'd be detained by immigration.


I find it weird that each state have their own closing times and their own rules how electoral college votes are awarded like winner takes all or in Maine were votes are distributed for each district. In the past states were able to set up rules which would prevent blacks from voting.

I'm a federalist but you would think that all rules of federal elections were done at the federal level such as requiring all polls to close at 10pm local time like here in UK and all states awarding their electoral votes one way or the other.


----------



## virus21

Fuck Peter Fonda. How much of a repugnant scum bag tweets something like that. One thing to do it to Trump, but that was disgusting. Then again, look at Hanoi Jane. Looks like she learned well.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> Nope. Any suggestion that one should have some form of identification with them when they vote is met with cries of classism and racism. Clearly if you want someone to have the same burden of identification when they vote as when they do virtually anything else of any importance, you're actually just trying to prevent poor people and people of color from voting.
> 
> These are the shitty arguments the left throws out and then people wonder why the right suspects there's a con afoot.


You don't need identification in the UK. You register on the electoral roll with your details and national insurance number (which you can't have as an illegal) and then when you go to vote you're crossed off a list and given a ballot. Simple.


----------



## Miss Sally

RavishingRickRules said:


> You don't need identification in the UK. You register on the electoral roll with your details and national insurance number (which you can't have as an illegal) and then when you go to vote you're crossed off a list and given a ballot. Simple.


And I'm sure there would be an argument against that too. Using your Social Security number to vote would also be good since if someone else used it or used one of someone dead or fake it could be caught.

Yet I feel they'd say somehow this too is also discrimination. Considering the fact you need ID for pretty much everything it seems odd they want people to not need any form when making choices on Politicians and policy, you know the things that actually matter. :wink2:


----------



## Lady Eastwood

Maybe I am just a dumb cunt (possibility here), but, in regards to the children being detained and caged, I think that's pretty sad and no doubt traumatic, but, at the same time, the parents put their kids in this type of situation by illegally crossing.

Correct me if I am wrong, I might be missing something here.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Miss Sally said:


> And I'm sure there would be an argument against that too. Using your Social Security number to vote would also be good since if someone else used it or used one of someone dead or fake it could be caught.
> 
> Yet I feel they'd say somehow this too is also discrimination. Considering the fact you need ID for pretty much everything it seems odd they want people to not need any form when making choices on Politicians and policy, you know the things that actually matter. :wink2:


Yeah Social Security number is basically what a NI number is here. That's exactly what you'd use. Before every election the local government would send letters to every home requesting that anybody intending to vote either register by letter or online using their SS number. On election day when you show up you're ticked off a list and given a ballot and you vote. No illegals, no discrimination, no requirement for photo ID or anything.


----------



## CamillePunk

Catalanotto said:


> Maybe I am just a dumb cunt (possibility here), but, in regards to the children being detained and caged, I think that's pretty sad and no doubt traumatic, but, at the same time, the parents put their kids in this type of situation by illegally crossing.
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, I might be missing something here.


You're missing having the political agenda where you want as much non-European immigration as possible, legal or illegal.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1009425028113461249
> So separating illegal immigrant adults from their kids is bad.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1009529087566794752
> But detaining them together is also bad.
> 
> Well then what are we supposed to...oh, right, I get it. Just let them all in or release them right away so they can just try again the next day until they finally sneak past successfully. Of course!
> 
> This is not to mention the blatant lie that the detainment is "indefinite", of course.
> 
> *They just want future Democrat voters. There is nothing else to this entire drama.*


Why do people on the right keep saying this when the right keeps blocking a path to citizenship, and thus the ability to vote, for undocumented immigrants? Why would the dems let all these people in with the plan that one day they'll magically get citizenship and the dems can dominate the legislative agenda, if their citizenship is predicated on the dems already dominating the legislative agenda and making them citizens? Unless... you mean the dems are waiting for these first generation immigrant children to grow up and have citizen children of their own, and then have to wait for those kids to grow up to legal voting age? That's like a 30-40 year plan, talk about 4D chess.


----------



## deepelemblues

Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Why do people on the right keep saying this when the right keeps blocking a path to citizenship, and thus the ability to vote, for undocumented immigrants? Why would the dems let all these people in with the plan that one day they'll magically get citizenship and the dems can dominate the legislative agenda, if their citizenship is predicated on the dems already dominating the legislative agenda and making them citizens? Unless... you mean the dems are waiting for these first generation immigrant children to grow up and have citizen children of their own, and then have to wait for those kids to grow up to legal voting age? That's like a 30-40 year plan, talk about 4D chess.


Democrats aren't stupid, they saw they gained millions of voters from the 1986 amnesty and want to do it again if they can. It didn't take 30 or 40 years for them to gain millions of voters from the amnesty either

Pretty basic political self-interest

Perhaps the solution to all these immigrants wanting to come is they can join the Space Force and live in the American colonies on the moon, under Space King :trump 

Manifest Moondestiny! :trolldog


----------



## yeahbaby!

virus21 said:


> Fuck Peter Fonda. How much of a repugnant scum bag tweets something like that. One thing to do it to Trump, but that was disgusting. Then again, look at Hanoi Jane. Looks like she learned well.


It's actually okay because I've got an update from Peter - it was all just locker room talk


----------



## virus21

yeahbaby! said:


> It's actually okay because I've got an update from Peter - it was all just locker room talk


Yeah no. There is a big difference between what Trump said and what Fonda said.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> You're missing having the political agenda where you want as much non-European immigration as possible, legal or illegal.


Considering the Democrats are more typical of European right-wing politics and the Republicans are closer to fringe parties like UKIP (struggled to ever win seats in UK Parliament, as an example) what use would European immigrants be to the Republicans? Surely they'd be more likely to vote Democrat as they're close to most European neo-con parties in general? Most European liberals would find both parties unacceptably right-wing :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

RavishingRickRules said:


> Considering the Democrats are more typical of European right-wing politics and the Republicans are closer to fringe parties like UKIP (struggled to ever win seats in UK Parliament, as an example) what use would European immigrants be to the Republicans? Surely they'd be more likely to vote Democrat as they're close to most European neo-con parties in general? Most European liberals would find both parties unacceptably right-wing :lol


The point isn't that Republicans want European immigrants. :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

:mark:

JOIN SPACE FORCE

BECAUSE

WE NEED SOLDIERS






SERVICE. GUARANTEES. CITIZENSHIP.

Democrats there's your path to citizenship!


----------



## Draykorinee

FatherJackHackett said:


> That's Hope Sandoval on your avatar right? I haven't listened to Mazzy Star in years, great band.
> 
> Anyway got to laugh at this suddenly becoming a huge issue when it has been going on for a long time. I'm pretty sure the Trump Admin is following laws that have been in place since the 90s, brought in due to the many instances of children being allowed into the hands of human traffickers who had no proof that they were the parents. This was a big problem which is why the law was passed and still is a very real threat. It isn't Trump's fault at all despite people's efforts to paint it that way.


Wrong, we've already discussed this. There was not a separation of children until Trump. The legislation in place never advocated separating children, until Trump it was a civil issue not a criminal issue, Trump made it a criminal issue and as the children weren't being arrested they couldn't go to prison with their parents.

I really wish people would stop using Trumps twitter feed to get their information and actually read about it. Trumps fake news continues on.


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> Wrong, we've already discussed this. There was never a separation of children until Trump. The legislation in place never advocated separating children, until Trump it was a civil issue not a criminal issue, Trump made it a criminal issue and as the children weren't being arrested they couldn't go to prison with their parents.
> 
> I really wish people would stop using Trumps twitter feed to get their information and actually read about it. Trumps fake news continues on.


The consent decree does make it illegal to detain longer than 20 days without separation. 

Separation was the only legal way to stop the catch-and-release of illegal aliens who were arrested with their children. 

Entering the country illegally most certainly is a criminal offense. If you are caught while in the act you are charged with a criminal and not civil offense. But since the point is to get you out of the country, most of the time the punishment is deportation not criminal penalties.

Being present in the country illegally is a civil offense. Although, if deported, you are usually explicitly banned from re-entering the country for a set period of time. If you are caught inside the country's borders again before that time has expired, that is a criminal offense.


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> The consent decree does make it illegal to detain longer than 20 days without separation.
> 
> Separation was the only legal way to stop the catch-and-release of illegal aliens who were arrested with their children.
> 
> Entering the country illegally most certainly is a criminal offense. If you are caught while in the act you are charged with a criminal and not civil offense. But since the point is to get you out of the country, most of the time the punishment is deportation not criminal penalties.
> 
> Being present in the country illegally is a civil offense. Although, if deported, you are usually explicitly banned from re-entering the country for a set period of time. If you are caught inside the country's borders again before that time has expired, that is a criminal offense.


This all changed because of the zero tolerance policy, so whereas they were previously released and put through the civil system - no separation of families, Trump (Sessions) went hard ass and made them go through the criminal courts. 

IF he actually cared about the previous legislation and separation of families he should have fixed that first and THEN chosen to prosecute parents and separate kids. The consent decree could easily be removed by congress.

Blaming the democrats because he chose to change how they had things working is typical Trump fake news.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> *asks simple question*
> 
> *receives ad hominem tirade*
> 
> Ah yes, I must be in a discussion with Tater.


My apologies. I sometimes forget that you don't like having your hypocrisy pointed out to you.



CamillePunk said:


> My skillset is not economics.


This is the most accurate thing you've said ever.



CamillePunk said:


> I'd rather leave those decisions to those who are qualified to make them.


It amuses me that you do not see the irony in this statement, given your claimed philosophy. It also amuses me that you cannot comprehend that if your claimed philosophy were implemented, the end result would be the exact opposite of what you claim to want. But hey, like you said, your skillset is not economics.



CamillePunk said:


> The so-called conservative government passed a bill to lower my taxes. That was nice. Did I miss something?


You apparently missed the part where the vast majority of that tax break goes to the already obscenely wealthy and that tax break for everyone making under 70-80k was bread crumbs to trick poor people into believing this is a good thing, when the reality is that those bread crumbs are only temporary and in the long run, taxes will actually be raised on the working class. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. Toss the peasants a few table scraps in the short term, so they hopefully don't notice how they are getting screwed in the long term. 

Details, details...



CamillePunk said:


> Nope. Any suggestion that one should have some form of identification with them when they vote is met with cries of classism and racism. Clearly if you want someone to have the same burden of identification when they vote as when they do virtually anything else of any importance, you're actually just trying to prevent poor people and people of color from voting.
> 
> These are the shitty arguments the left throws out and then people wonder why the right suspects there's a con afoot.


A: This is not a left vs right issue.

B: You and I actually agree on this topic. People *should* have to have ID to vote.

Here's the problem though. The people passing these voter ID laws are doing it in an attempt at voter suppression because at the same time, they also make it very difficult for the ones they don't want voting to get the right kind of ID.

Here's an idea. Automatic voter registration for every legal citizen and when they become old enough to vote, they get sent a voter ID card. Eliminate the roadblocks put in place for legal citizens and then there is no more issue. You gotta have an ID to vote, so no illegal immigrants can vote, but every legal citizen has the capability of voting. Problem solved.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> My apologies. I sometimes forget that you don't like having your hypocrisy pointed out to you.


You didn't point anything out though. :lol No citations, no examples, nothing. Not even in this response. 



> It amuses me that you do not see the irony in this statement, given your claimed philosophy. It also amuses me that you cannot comprehend that if your claimed philosophy were implemented, the end result would be the exact opposite of what you claim to want. But hey, like you said, your skillset is not economics.


Explain the irony? 



> You apparently missed the part where the vast majority of that tax break goes to the already obscenely wealthy and that tax break for everyone making under 70-80k was bread crumbs to trick poor people into believing this is a good thing, when the reality is that those bread crumbs are only temporary and in the long run, taxes will actually be raised on the working class. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. Toss the peasants a few table scraps in the short term, so they hopefully don't notice how they are getting screwed in the long term.
> 
> Details, details...


Yeah I'm still not sure what I've given up or lost. I wouldn't get any tax cut at all with Hillary as president. Just a bunch of new programs they'd have to raise taxes to "pay for".


----------



## yeahbaby!

virus21 said:


> Yeah no. There is a big difference between what Trump said and what Fonda said.


Sure, there are degrees to suggesting bad things and Fonda's is worse - there's nothing worse than stripping away babies from their mothers.

But are they not in same ball park? Fonda talked insanely and horribly directly about ripping children from a mother and Trump openly bragged about sexual assault. If you disagree with sexual assault I'll downgrade to gross sexual misconduct. Both are deplorable. Would you see the connection?


----------



## BruiserKC

I think it's hilarious that everyone is so worked up over this and doesn't even bother to realize that once again Trump folded like a cheap suit and surrendered by signing this Executive Order. Much like the last two budget battles where he eventually gave in to the whims of Chuck and Nancy, Trump talks about how he can't fix the problem himself then cuts the legs out from under his own people. 

I want this problem solved, we keep going down this road regarding illegal immigration but I really don't believe they want to solve this. Democrats want votes, Republicans want cheap labor. Something tells me Trump will push for amnesty and many of his mindless minions will cheer for him not realizing the con game is in full effect again.


----------



## Miss Sally

BruiserKC said:


> I think it's hilarious that everyone is so worked up over this and doesn't even bother to realize that once again Trump folded like a cheap suit and surrendered by signing this Executive Order. Much like the last two budget battles where he eventually gave in to the whims of Chuck and Nancy, Trump talks about how he can't fix the problem himself then cuts the legs out from under his own people.
> 
> I want this problem solved, we keep going down this road regarding illegal immigration but I really don't believe they want to solve this. Democrats want votes, Republicans want cheap labor. Something tells me Trump will push for amnesty and many of his mindless minions will cheer for him not realizing the con game is in full effect again.


It's just like the people who say "15 dollar minimum wage!" not realizing that many companies will just move or switch to illegal labor. Those illegals aren't getting 15 bucks an hour, they're not getting benefits or any rights. Yet the people who claim to champion for them don't give a rats ass about them. 

Amnesty is a slap in the face to people who spent the money, learned the language and worked to become citizens. I guess who really cares as long as Dems get their votes, Republicans get their labor and the virtue signaling masses get their cheap goods. :frown2:


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Yeah I'm still not sure what I've given up or lost. I wouldn't get any tax cut at all with Hillary as president. Just a bunch of new programs they'd have to raise taxes to "pay for".


Ya know, there are times when I do very much respect your opinion. Other times, you don't seem to understand the hypocrisy in your statements.

We can at least agree for now that we're both happy Hillary wasn't installed as president. We also agree that Big Government is not the answer to our problems.

I'll give you a more detailed response later.


----------



## Vic Capri

This video didn't age well.

*#Oops*

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> Ya know, there are times when I do very much respect your opinion. Other times, you don't seem to understand the hypocrisy in your statements.
> 
> We can at least agree for now that we're both happy Hillary wasn't installed as president. We also agree that Big Government is not the answer to our problems.
> 
> I'll give you a more detailed response later.


K you still haven't made any kind of point or backed up anything you said earlier.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> K you still haven't made any kind of point or backed up anything you said earlier.


I think your heart is in the right place. I just don't think you realize that your ideas would ultimately achieve the opposite of your desires.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> I think your heart is in the right place. I just don't think you realize that your ideas would ultimately achieve the opposite of your desires.


I think that if you care about your worldview you should come up with a more persuasive way of arguing for it than launching personal attacks laced with condescending snark without providing any substance to support your argument. You accused me of a bunch of things without explaining how I'm guilty of any of it. When pressed you just say stuff like this. Nobody is convinced. Nobody is impressed. Maybe you don't care, and just want to feel like you know what's best for the world all by yourself without having to actually convince anyone else. Whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Vic Capri

I thought you were responding to birthday_massacre? :lol

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

Vic Capri said:


> I thought you were responding to birthday_massacre? :lol
> 
> - Vic


LEAVE BM ALONE

HE WILL RETURN SOMEDAY :drose

HE WILL :mj2


----------



## virus21

yeahbaby! said:


> Sure, there are degrees to suggesting bad things and Fonda's is worse - there's nothing worse than stripping away babies from their mothers.
> 
> But are they not in same ball park? Fonda talked insanely and horribly directly about ripping children from a mother and Trump openly bragged about sexual assault. If you disagree with sexual assault I'll downgrade to gross sexual misconduct. Both are deplorable. Would you see the connection?


The full quote is:



> And when you're a star, they *let* you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.


Look at the bolded word. They let you do it. Would that not imply consent?


----------



## samizayn

BruiserKC said:


> I think it's hilarious that everyone is so worked up over this and doesn't even bother to realize that once again Trump folded like a cheap suit and surrendered by signing this Executive Order. Much like the last two budget battles where he eventually gave in to the whims of Chuck and Nancy, Trump talks about how he can't fix the problem himself then cuts the legs out from under his own people.
> 
> I want this problem solved, we keep going down this road regarding illegal immigration but I really don't believe they want to solve this. Democrats want votes, Republicans want cheap labor. Something tells me Trump will push for amnesty and many of his mindless minions will cheer for him not realizing the con game is in full effect again.


Really curious take. This, to me, came off like a power play/deflection/testing the waters, for when he eventually does implement whatever it is they end up with by way of immigration policy. It was wildly successful. I don't think the concern here is about whether or not an immigration crackdown is coming whatsoever.

The news reports, as it turns out, are saying it really was a case of Trump falling victim to someone else's whim. 

BTW, his daughter's congratulating him on ending the vile family separation that some mysterious malevolent entity put in place was comedy hour material. Between that, the twitter picture, and Melania's shitty jacket, they really make up one of the more unfortunate first families America has had the pleasure of seeing. It's almost starting to seem like the ignorance might have just been evil all along.


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak




----------



## DesolationRow

MrMister said:


> So are the Dems going to use Animal Farm as their rallying cry now?
> 
> I mean I fucking hate that children are or were separated from their families, but people JUST NOW realize that government doesn't have our best interest at heart?
> 
> Ok then.


Well that is the thing, is it not? As Friedrich Nietzsche noted in _Thus Spoke Zarathustra_, with the rise of the fully modernized state, "A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters." As Aristotle posits and St. Thomas Aquinas concurs, the responsibility of the polity must be singular in object, design and manifested for but that polity. Consequently the only people whose interest a government that only vaguely insists upon retaining some republican integument in spite of experiencing what Aristotle would call at least several different "revolution(s) within the form," is the people living under it. Detaining alien children away from their parents is an unfortunate byproduct of enforcing the realm's borders to any extent whatsoever, and it is not one to be worried about if given the proper perspective. Granted, we live in a highly Jacobin-influenced environment and time, as the pervasive removal of politically incorrect statues of war heroes and statesmen indicates.

Donald Trump should move against the tide from Telford, England to San Francisco, California with Kate Steinle and do good work on behalf of the people who voted for him. A bold move would be to find a way in which claims for asylum could be suspended indefinitely until the situation at the border is rectified. Because in the vast majority of these cases, a child is taken into the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services. Shelters are situated whereat children spend, usually, a number of days. The overwhelming majority of the cases that take considerable time are ones in which aggravating factors are discovered, typically long histories of prior illegal entries, or possession of illicit drugs. The majority of migrants plead guilty, and in at least ninety percent of the cases on record they are sentenced to the time they have served. This typically takes place over the course of a couple of days, but naturally due to the blanching stressing and straining of the migrating population at the border sometimes it does indeed take longer. Upon sentencing they go back to the custody of ICE. 

Many adults decide at that point in time to simply go back home. That is a straightforward process. Before the week is out the family is almost always reunited and correctly sent back home as their family unit. 

What gums up the proverbial works is when adults file for asylum claims. These require exhaustive and taxing background checks. Unfortunately what mostly occurs in these instances is because the government has to move so deliberately in analyzing each asylum case, the child or children is stuck in their government holding pattern until the time at which the government can no longer hold the children. This goes back to the Flores Consent Decree of 1997, which limits the time children can be held by the government to 20 days. The Ninth Circuit stretched this umbrella protection out for children who are brought up as part of family units altogether. It leads to the predictable bureaucratic problem that even were the government doing everything in its power to keep family units together, the process of making it occur is expressly flawed at best and counter-intuitive. 

Right around here is where it should be noted that there exist numerous far better ways by which to seek asylum. The U.S. border is simply overwhelmed with illegal aliens entering through it every day. In fact, that is one of the primary problems: in spite of Trump's rhetoric, which is what led to that roughly nine- or ten-month sharp decrease in border crossings, by autumn 2017 the word had spread that in actuality the U.S. border was not any tougher or more difficult to cross when Trump's predecessors was president. As articles I linked last autumn displayed, the incoming fluxes of migrants became overwhelming once more. Again, though, if someone is truly seeking asylum, and doubtless some here are, they should go to a port of entry and do so, not cross the border illegally, which is precisely how this whole imbroglio commences. 

And it ought to be remembered that in the overwhelming majority of cases the adult asylum-seeker is merely detained because it allows that asylum-seeker's claim to snake its way through the system with far greater alacrity, in most cases about sixty days. Since the early 1980s and even before that time, most adults who are released are never again found by the U.S. government. 

The one way, tangibly, in which the Trump administration has created a harder line is that all adults are to be prosecuted; before, adults who were a part of a family unit which illegally crossed were almost never prosecuted. When adult illegals are prosecuted for illegal entry they are shuttled to the custody of U.S. Marshals. This is another issue, because the U.S. Marshals are both ill-equipped and ill-suited to care for the children of the adults taken into custody. This is true of, say, American-born fugitives from law pursued by U.S. Marshals. The U.S. Marshals transmit the children to the custody the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, under whose auspices these shelters exist. 

Trump should push for something radical--like, perhaps, a six-month moratorium on the entire process of asylum. Get this mess sorted out and also send the message that the asylum process is not to be abused going forward (which, it must be said, happens literally every day in the U.S.). Cut down on the illegal traffic moving upward out of South America, Central America and Mexico. It will not happen but it probably should. The U.S. ought to be prepared for what is, almost every day, appearing like an eventuality rather than a mere possibility: the pressure upon Mexican society is too great and seems to be in the process of leading to already-exacerbated realities. El Salvador, for instance, is almost wholly conquered by some of the most vicious drug cartels on the planet, Honduras is unstable and incredibly violent with the drug trade dominating almost everything, and Guatemala may be in even worse shape with judges and prosecutors mostly either safely bribed or fearing for their lives. Couple all of this to the ongoing crisis in Venezuela and you have a rather impressive recipe for only exponentially greater influxes of tens upon tens of thousands fleeing, sanctioned by the Mexican regime to move through should they go all the way up to the U.S. border, many of them breaking in and later demanding asylum. Much of Mexico today is a figurative basket case with cartels plundering, robbing and murdering with impunity. 114 political figures have been killed as the Mexicans are presently in the middle of their election campaign, a campaign paralleled by the campaign of violent death and carnage the cartels are waging. 

As the violence increases, social capital evaporates for most of the country's population and poverty naturally deepens, far-left candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is running comfortably at the front of the pack with rightist National Action Party candidate Ricardo Anaya and Jose Antonio Meade from the Institutional Revolutionary Party (the latter of which ruled Mexico from 1929 until 2000 without interruption). Predictably the race is largely framed by which candidate is the most rabidly anti-American. Obrador fits the bill, denouncing the U.S. president with constant fury, and declaring unconditional support for illegal migrants as they cross the U.S. border. He is also calling for the release of all criminals arrested for drug offences. Obrador, should he become the Mexican president, will be a formidable foe of Trump's--he has campaigned in the U.S. with his book _Oye Trump_, or _Listen, Trump_--and will unabashedly fight as hard for the interests of the Mexican government as one would hope that his American counterpart would for the interests of the people in the U.S. Of course, that would be the greatest black swan event of them all, as perhaps possibly suggested by Trump's election. For, as years ago the American novelist Edward Abbey stated, Republicans want their cheap labor, Democrats want their cheap cause. Institutionally neither party is built to play meaningful caretaker of the nation-state over which they share the ruling.


----------



## yeahbaby!

virus21 said:


> The full quote is:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the bolded word. They let you do it. Would that not imply consent?


You're telling me you believe a guy like Trump bragging about this stuff saying women are happy to let him grab their pussy because he's famous? You don't question that? You honestly think women are happy to have their pussy grabbed by a 70 year old?

I mean Jesus, with all respect, can you not take off the rose coloured glasses for a second with Trump? I have public figures I like and respect but if they bragged about grabbing pussy out of the blue because 'they're famous' I'd think that's deplorable and would say so.

Again I'm not saying it's worse than Fonda but for you to be unable to acknowledge Trump has said fucked up things too like this - that amount to sexual assault - is just being brainwashed to the extreme.


----------



## virus21

yeahbaby! said:


> You're telling me you believe a guy like Trump bragging about this stuff saying women are happy to let him grab their pussy because he's famous? You don't question that? You honestly think women are happy to have their pussy grabbed by a 70 year old?
> 
> I mean Jesus, with all respect, can you not take off the rose coloured glasses for a second with Trump? I have public figures I like and respect but if they bragged about grabbing pussy out of the blue because 'they're famous' I'd think that's deplorable and would say so.
> 
> Again I'm not saying it's worse than Fonda but for you to be unable to acknowledge Trump has said fucked up things too like this - that amount to sexual assault - is just being brainwashed to the extreme.


Dude Hefner was fucking women while being in his 80s, so yeah him being famous means that some women would allow it. Don't discount what fame and money will motivate people. And I don't have rose colored glasses when it comes to Trump. I have criticized him and posted news and videos doing the same. I'd rather it be something worth talking about, like this immigration issue or tariffs. And wasn't this whole quote something that was suppose to be a private conversation anyway that got leaked? Yeah, it makes him a pig, but he's hardly alone it that regard.


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> LEAVE BM ALONE
> 
> HE WILL RETURN SOMEDAY :drose
> 
> HE WILL :mj2


I hope so, I miss all my green rep.


----------



## BruiserKC

samizayn said:


> Really curious take. This, to me, came off like a power play/deflection/testing the waters, for when he eventually does implement whatever it is they end up with by way of immigration policy. It was wildly successful. I don't think the concern here is about whether or not an immigration crackdown is coming whatsoever.
> 
> The news reports, as it turns out, are saying it really was a case of Trump falling victim to someone else's whim.
> 
> BTW, his daughter's congratulating him on ending the vile family separation that some mysterious malevolent entity put in place was comedy hour material. Between that, the twitter picture, and Melania's shitty jacket, they really make up one of the more unfortunate first families America has had the pleasure of seeing. It's almost starting to seem like the ignorance might have just been evil all along.


Trump's M.O. is that from the beginning of his campaign, he said basically that America is broken and only he can fix it. However, as a small-government conservative what I am witnessing is something I can't get behind. Reagan said that big government is the problem, Trump is basically saying big government will work for those of you that support me and fuck off to the rest. He writes off a good portion of the country and then whines when they won't support him. 

Trump wastes his political capital on the culture wars (the anthem protests which again were white noise, transgenders, etc) that don't mean a damn thing. Then, he folds when he signs budgets that add more debt (he has done this twice) and now this. Yes, it was horrible to separate kids from their families and it could have been handled MUCH better. However, Trump just undercut his own people by signing the E.O. (after he said I can't fix this). There are a lot of people out there that share my take, many of his own supporters are asking if he's caved and that we might be on the brink of him declaring amnesty for all involved. Yet, he then turns around and throws red meat at his followers with rallies. Now people are talking about how he questioned the gender of a protester. It's his way of yelling, "SQUIRREL!" 

I have been calling for the immigration issue to be addressed for years. Trump's' moves here did absolutely nothing to do that but put us right back to square one.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1010197834229043200
From Occupy Wall Street. A progressive movement. 

Yah .. Keep reminding us why we should never consider even thinking about voting progressives.


----------



## Vic Capri

- Vic


----------



## MrMister

:lmao that graphic murder thing is satire right?

RIGHT?!?!??


----------



## Draykorinee

Yeah, it's a joke. Not a good one mind.


----------



## Crasp

The only folks who would get worked up over that 6-step guide were never going to vote anything but Trump anyway so all in all it's pretty inconsequential. 

It's just an intentionally unpolished satirical meme which, fully aware of this, one particular branch of the media picked up on and presented it as something more sinister, in the knowledge that their audience would buy it.

Not that this scenario doesn't commonly occur in the other direction also.


----------



## virus21

So that crying girl picture in Time is apparently fake.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

[YOUTUBE]22Q8mECc[/YOUTUBE]

Could someone embed this please. I tried to follow the guide in the FAQ section but there was not an = in the link

https://youtu.be/il-22Q8mECc


----------



## MrMister

virus21 said:


> So that crying girl picture in Time is apparently fake.


Is it fake as in staged? I haven't heard that. I have heard that the girl was not separated from her mom. This was on NPR.


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak

Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> Just post the code I think you forgot to mention "il-" that's why it didnt work


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

Stupid_Smark said:


> Were you trying to post this?


That’s the one. Thanks!!

EDIT: Now it seems to be ok on my original post. Thanks if someone sorted it. Confused if they didn’t :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

MrMister said:


> Is it fake as in staged? I haven't heard that. I have heard that the girl was not separated from her mom. This was on NPR.


Friend of mine was telling me the girl wasn't separated from the mom and some of the pics being floated around are from Pre-Trump era, around the Obama admin time about 2014.

Was going to comment on it earlier but friend never linked article because we were texting. So any photos I'd take with a grain of salt, seems photos are being used like the "Syrian Gas Attacks" ones.


----------



## Reaper

Except previous administrations are known for having kept the family together while awaiting deportation. So both sides are using those pictures for their own political agenda. 

I haven't yet seen any evidence that suggests that any of the previous administrations separated families.

The only evidence I've seen on the issue from Obama's administrations points to this: 



> The Obama administration faced a surge of unaccompanied children from Central America trying to cross the border in 2014. Cecilia Muñoz, director of the Obama administration’s Domestic Policy Council, told the New York Times this month that a multi-agency team was considering “every possible idea” at the time, including separating families. “I do remember looking at each other like, ‘We’re not going to do this, are we?’ We spent five minutes thinking it through and concluded that it was a bad idea,” the Times quoted Muñoz saying. “The morality of it was clear — that’s not who we are.”


So it's apparent that they concluded it was a bad idea and did not do it.


----------



## Reaper

Actually ... Never mind my above post. While I was researching, I decided to use Duckduckgo instead of Google or Bing and found this from 2012

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/falling-through-cracks



> Falling Through the Cracks
> 
> The Impact of Immigration Enforcement on Children Caught Up in the Child Welfare System
> 
> One of the many consequences of an aggressive immigration enforcement system is the separation of children, often U.S. citizens, from their unauthorized immigrant parents. Take the case of Felipe Montes, a father who has spent the past two years fighting to reunite with his three young children, who were placed in foster care in North Carolina following Montes’ deportation to Mexico in late 2010. Such cases only scratch at the surface of a growing problem. Our immigration policies often fail to address the needs of millions of children whom they directly impact.
> 
> According to the Pew Hispanic Center, approximately 5.5 million children in the United States, including 4.5 million U.S.-born citizens, live in mixed-legal status families with at least one parent who is an unauthorized immigrant. These children are at risk of being separated from a parent at any time. Parents facing removal must frequently make the decision whether to take their children with them or leave their children in the U.S. in the care of another parent, relative, or friend. In many cases, a parent may determine that it is in their child’s best interest to remain in the U.S. However, in some cases, a parent’s ability to make such decisions is compromised when their child enters the child welfare system, which can prompt a series of events leading to the termination of parental rights. The lack of consistent protocols across the different public systems that encounter separated families further exacerbates the problem.
> 
> This paper outlines the unique challenges that federal and state immigration enforcement measures pose to child well-being and family unity, including the implications for children and families involved in the child welfare system.
> 
> *How Many Families Are Separated By Immigration Enforcement?
> *
> *The precise number of children and families separated by immigration enforcement is unknown. Prior to 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not track this information consistently. As of 2011, DHS was required by Congress to document only the number of parents of U.S.-citizen children removed each year. Therefore, neither the number of parents detained nor the precise number of U.S.-citizen children impacted by a parent’s removal or detention is known. What we do know is:
> 
> A 2007 Urban Institute study on immigration worksite raids found that, on average, for every two adults apprehended in a worksite raid, at least one child is impacted.
> The DHS Office of the Inspector General estimated that over 108,000 parents of U.S.-citizen children were removed from the U.S. between 1997 and 2007.
> Reflecting a dramatic increase in recent years, statistics released by DHS reveal that 204,810 parents of U.S.-citizen children were removed from the U.S. between July 1, 2010 and September 31, 2012, accounting for nearly 23 percent of all individuals deported during that period. This is likely an underestimate since parents may be reluctant to reveal that they have children.
> *
> 
> *Why Have Removals Of Parents Of U.S.-Citizen Children Increased?
> *
> 
> Partnerships with local police agencies: The rise in parental removals is correlated with a shift in immigration enforcement policy in late 2007 from worksite operations to cooperation with the criminal justice system. According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) statistics, more than half of the individuals removed from the U.S. in 2011 were identified as “criminal aliens,” including those who committed non-violent offenses. The most prominent jail-based immigration enforcement program, called Secure Communities, is a DHS program that identifies immigrants who are booked into U.S. jails and who are suspected of violating immigration law. It has been implemented in a majority of county jails and is expected to operate nationwide in 2013.
> 
> *- According to a 2011 analysis by the University of California, Berkeley Law School, 83 percent of individuals arrested through Secure Communities were placed in immigration detention and 37 percent of those arrested reported that they had a U.S. citizen-child.
> 
> - A study by the Applied Research Center (ARC) reveals that in localities where local police participate aggressively in immigration enforcement through 287(g) agreements, children in foster care are 29 percent more likely to have a detained or deported parent.
> *
> Prosecutorial discretion and mandatory detention laws: Parents continue to be removed due to conflicting ICE policies regarding enforcement priorities and the limited use of prosecutorial discretion. In 2011, ICE released guidance to further clarify their enforcement priorities and to define the factors to be considered by ICE personnel when exercising prosecutorial discretion in any given case. These factors include consideration of whether an individual or their spouse is pregnant or nursing and whether the individual has a U.S.-citizen child. However, too often parents are unable to benefit from prosecutorial discretion because they are subject to “mandatory detention” under immigration law. Mandatory detention laws apply to all individuals who attempt to enter the U.S. unlawfully, those who return to the U.S. following a previous removal, and those with certain criminal convictions.
> 
> What Happens When A Parent Is Detained By Immigration Authorities Or Local Law Enforcement?
> 
> There are no guidelines to screen for parents apprehended outside of worksite operations. ICE has plans to implement a risk classification assessment tool to help agencies identify individuals eligible for release or alternatives to detention, including sole caregivers. However, there is currently no mechanism to screen for parents at the time of apprehension in non-worksite related actions. In 2007, ICE established humanitarian guidelines for the identification and potential release of pregnant or nursing mothers and primary caregivers during a worksite enforcement operation involving 150 or more individuals (later expanded to include operations of 25 or more). These guidelines have proven effective in reducing family separation, but do not apply to the majority of arrests associated with the new criminal justice model of enforcement.
> 
> ICE does not have a consistent policy that permits individuals to make a phone call at the time of arrest, limiting the ability of parents to make care arrangements for their children. If a parent is booked into a local jail, they may be allowed a phone call to make short-term care arrangements for their children, only to discover later that an immigration hold has been issued (also known as a “detainer”). But they are not allowed to make a second phone call to make further arrangements for their children and alert caregivers about their possible transfer to an immigration detention center. As a result, family members or friends looking after a child may be left with the burden of determining a child’s long-term care. When a parent is denied the opportunity to make care arrangements for a child, the safety and well-being of the child are compromised and the likelihood of the child entering the child welfare system is significantly increased.
> 
> *How Many Children Are In The Child Welfare System Due To A Parent’s Detention Or Deportation?
> *
> *The ARC estimated that in 2011, approximately 5,100 children with a detained or deported parent were in the public child welfare system. ARC further concluded that if deportations continued at those levels, over the next five years an additional 15,000 children in the child welfare system could be at risk of permanent separation from their detained or deported parent.
> *
> 
> *It is difficult for a parent in immigration detention to reunify with their child, especially when their child is in CPS custody. Local ICE and child welfare agencies rarely collaborate, and both systems lack effective and consistent policies to promote family reunification. Some of the unique challenges to reunification facing detained parents include:
> *


Interesting. But for some reason this view of "inhumane" treatment entering the public consciousness is absolutely new and a result of existing bias against a current sitting president.



draykorinee said:


> Yeah, it's a joke. Not a good one mind.


I would agree except that it was Occupy Wall Street that posted it. They're not known for satire and have consistently propagated violence as a means to an end.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reap said:


> Actually ... Never mind my above post. While I was researching, I decided to use Duckduckgo instead of Google or Bing and found this from 2012
> 
> https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/falling-through-cracks
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. But for some reason this view of "inhumane" treatment entering the public consciousness is absolutely new and a result of existing bias against a current sitting president.
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree except that it was Occupy Wall Street that posted it. They're not known for satire and have consistently propagated violence as a means to an end.


I know! It's not like the last administration made frivolous uses for drone strikes, arms dealing, using the NSA and Government agencies to spy on citizens or the whole "Fast and Furious" debacle.. Seems like another selective outrage by the media. 

Seems like they're trying to make it another Alan Kurdi or "Syrian Gas Attack" situation. 

The propaganda machine is firing on all cylinders!


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> The propaganda machine is firing on all cylinders!


I've often wondered if Obama making propaganda legal was intentional so that in case a Republican won they could do exactly what they're doing now, or just a huge and naive mistake. 

Given what we know about how propaganda shores up communist states and dictators, I find it very hard to believe that our local think tanks were so naive as to believe that it couldn't be used against even democratic populations.

We are kind of living in a very "state run" media climate (where instead of the media being an independent third party, both sides have clearly chosen which side they're going to commit propaganda for) while _pretending _that there is only pure motives everywhere. It's a kind of mass naivete that surprises me.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reap said:


> I've often wondered if Obama making propaganda legal was intentional so that in case a Republican won they could do exactly what they're doing now, or just a huge and naive mistake.
> 
> Given what we know about how propaganda shores up communist states and dictators, I find it very hard to believe that our local think tanks were so naive as to believe that it couldn't be used against even democratic populations.
> 
> We are kind of living in a very "state run" media climate (where instead of the media being an independent third party, both sides have clearly chosen which side they're going to commit propaganda for) while _pretending _that there is only pure motives everywhere. It's a kind of mass naivete that surprises me.


Like I told Tater earlier in the thread when talking about Brietbart, all the media sites are their own versions of Brietbart with their truths and what they think is right. 

Don't like fake news? Too bad, the "trusted" sources are all bought and paid for. They all have political leanings and agendas. They're not simply there to inform you. America has become so politicized that everything you buy or watch or even eat has politics attached to it, milk anyone?

Obama did some shady stuff and Trump didn't expose it, he legalized it. If you cannot control the entire media narrative you can bombard it with so much nonsense that nobody knows what to believe. It's almost as good as dictator ran media because people actually believe their "side" has the truth. When in fact there are no sides. :laugh:


----------



## Vic Capri

> So that crying girl picture in Time is apparently fake.


“Correcting” a mistake after it goes viral and impacts policy isn’t a correction at all. This was always a lie. The reporters knew it was a lie. This is not an honest correction. It’s a last minute cover your ass.

This is why we call fake news...fake news.

- Vic


----------



## Stormbringer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVg549MlF-E

Sites been acting up don't know if this will show up right.






I might be putting myself out there but I like watching this guy's videos. Reminds me of a heel Triple G. But anyway, I really wonder why people are suddenly so vocal about this topic. Haven't we been deporting illegal immigrants for decades?


----------



## Miss Sally

Vic Capri said:


> “Correcting” a mistake after it goes viral and impacts policy isn’t a correction at all. This was always a lie. The reporters knew it was a lie. This is not an honest correction. It’s a last minute cover your ass.
> 
> This is why we call fake news...fake news.
> 
> - Vic


It's a good tactic, put out something you know is fake then retract it. Everyone knows that when it's out that less people will see the retraction than the first put out image. Just hard to prove intention.

@DX-Superkick It's called selective outrage.


----------



## MrMister

It's not just selective outrage. This is going to be used in the mid-terms. They're going to use the face of a crying child to try to win seats in the House.


----------



## Draykorinee

DX-Superkick said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVg549MlF-E
> 
> Sites been acting up don't know if this will show up right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I might be putting myself out there but I like watching this guy's videos. Reminds me of a heel Triple G. But anyway, I really wonder why people are suddenly so vocal about this topic. Haven't we been deporting illegal immigrants for decades?


Trumps changes made this problem, yes, families of us citizen children were separated by previous governments as Reap showed.

Families were rarely separated at the border especially 2500+ in a few months, there's no selective outrage. This is a policy shift from sessions and Trump and they're once again deflecting. And Republicans and fox are gobbling it up.


----------



## Miss Sally

MrMister said:


> It's not just selective outrage. This is going to be used in the mid-terms. They're going to use the face of a crying child to try to win seats in the House.


Like I told Reap, this is another Alan Kurdi, Syrian Gas Attack thing, using these things for gain. It doesn't matter if the pics turn out to be fake or old or if the situation is overblown, this is their drowned syrian kid and everyone is going to use it for political gain.

Dems were in trouble, as were many Republicans, now can use this to try and gain an advantage. Not sure if it will work or not, only can wait and see.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

MrMister said:


> It's not just selective outrage. This is going to be used in the mid-terms. They're going to use the face of a crying child to try to win seats in the House.


No matter what happened Trump was going to lose seat's in the house,it is the historic norm for a President to lose seat in off year elections(98 and 02 were special circumstances IE public behind Bush after 9/11 and Lewinskygate turning the public off to the GOP)


----------



## Reaper

People continue to vote against the perceived failures of each government repeatedly without once realizing that the entire institution of government is a failure. This is why you end up with worse and worse candidates because people keep voting for lesser of the two evils. Anyone with half a brain can see what sort of leadership that leads to. 

The only thing important in democracy is that the shithead you're voting for is only perceived to be slightly better than the other shithead he's competing with. It's ok if the new shithead is slightly worse than the previous one that came before him/her. As long as the perception holds that he's slightly better than his competition. 

It's a rabbit hole. One of people's own creation. It's not a politicians fault that governments run like shit. It's the people themselves.


----------



## Vic Capri

> It's not just selective outrage. This is going to be used in the mid-terms. They're going to use the face of a crying child to try to win seats in the House.


"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

Fake quote I found out, but the point stands.

- Vic


----------



## DaRealNugget

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1010900865602019329
This is the second time he's spoken out against due process. The first time being when he wanted to seize guns after Parkland, before his puppet-masters talked him out of it.


----------



## deepelemblues

DaRealNugget said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1010900865602019329
> This is the second time he's spoken out against due process. The first time being when he wanted to seize guns after Parkland, before his puppet-masters talked him out of it.


They already get no due process if they are caught within 100 miles of the border and have been in the country less than 14 days. An immigration official - not a judge - can make a determination.

I would be 100% for extending that to all illegals and the issue being revisited by the Supreme Court, as there is no actual constitutional or other legal basis as to why an illegal alien gets a hearing before a judge if caught more than 100 miles inside the country and/or because they have succeeded in evading arrest for more than 14 days, while those who fail to do so do not. The Supreme Court decision mandating a hearing if certain conditions are met created a legal fiction, appropriating the powers of the legislature, as the Court does, and which is totally illegitimate under the separation of powers. 

:trump continuing to say things that raise his approval rating and ensure his re-election. 2018 generic ballot continues to look better for the Republican Party as well. The gap between blame of the parents for sending their children unaccompanied over the border or bringing their children with them and blame of the government for enforcing the law is 20 points. In the president's favor. 88D chess at play.


----------



## BruiserKC

deepelemblues said:


> They already get no due process if they are caught within 100 miles of the border and have been in the country less than 14 days. An immigration official - not a judge - can make a determination.
> 
> I would be 100% for extending that to all illegals and the issue being revisited by the Supreme Court, as there is no actual constitutional or other legal basis as to why an illegal alien gets a hearing before a judge if caught more than 100 miles inside the country and/or because they have succeeded in evading arrest for more than 14 days, while those who fail to do so do not. The Supreme Court decision mandating a hearing if certain conditions are met created a legal fiction, appropriating the powers of the legislature, as the Court does, and which is totally illegitimate under the separation of powers.
> 
> :trump continuing to say things that raise his approval rating and ensure his re-election. 2018 generic ballot continues to look better for the Republican Party as well. The gap between blame of the parents for sending their children unaccompanied over the border or bringing their children with them and blame of the government for enforcing the law is 20 points. In the president's favor. 88D chess at play.


This is called Trump pulling shit out his ass and throwing it against the wall pretending they are trial balloons. He went from separating children to folding and signing an executive order that solved nothing. Then, he tells Congress not to do anything until after the mid-terms, now we are going to deport people immediately. Tomorrow, who the hell knows?


----------



## CamillePunk

I hope I can be perceived as folding while changing or giving up absolutely nothing. That's a heck of a talent.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> I hope I can be perceived as folding while changing or giving up absolutely nothing. That's a heck of a talent.


That would be a good shady move looking at it cynically - if people actually believed it in the slightest. Maybe some do, but there's not really any proof of that, plus there's a good chance it really continues to hurt credibility and give him a flip flop tag. 

As Bruiser said, literally tomorrow the message could be completely different and the proof is already in the pudding.


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> I hope I can be perceived as folding while changing or giving up absolutely nothing. That's a heck of a talent.


He changes his stance based on which way the wind blows. He keeps changing what he wants. YUGE difference between pragmatism and just throwing stuff out there to see what sticks. This is clearly the latter. Many supporters are nervous that amnesty is coming in some form. That happens, then the 5th Avenue moment of losing support becomes a reality. 

But keep on cheering the chaos and questioning anyone who dares to challenge what Trump is doing. And remember, Hillary is not President but
her friend and donor is.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1010974591693418496
But Israel is the apartheid state ... Nothing has been more effective in the west than the modern painting of Muslim states as the victims while non-Muslims as the villains while completely ignoring just how vicious Muslim nations are against one another.

But hey, the Saudi wymens can finally drive :mj


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> This is called Trump pulling shit out his ass and throwing it against the wall pretending they are trial balloons. He went from separating children to folding and signing an executive order that solved nothing. Then, he tells Congress not to do anything until after the mid-terms, now we are going to deport people immediately. Tomorrow, who the hell knows?


If the executive order does nothing then what has changed? 

He said Republicans shouldn't bother doing anything until after the election because the Democrats, who just want the illegal immigrants released into the country, won't cooperate on any kind of immigration reform. Is he wrong? 

Also, he didn't say "we are now deporting everyone immediately". He proposed that as the policy he would want, i.e once the GOP has enough votes in Congress to pass their own immigration reform. 



BruiserKC said:


> He changes his stance based on which way the wind blows. He keeps changing what he wants. YUGE difference between pragmatism and just throwing stuff out there to see what sticks. This is clearly the latter. Many supporters are nervous that amnesty is coming in some form. That happens, then the 5th Avenue moment of losing support becomes a reality.
> 
> But keep on cheering the chaos and questioning anyone who dares to challenge what Trump is doing. And remember, Hillary is not President but
> her friend and donor is.


I don't do any of that, but if I did, nothing you've said would change my mind. :lol I'm not at all worried that amnesty is coming because Trump's position on cracking down on illegal immigration has been clear and consistent for 3 years now. You are way too distracted by news headlines and the non-substantive political theater.


----------



## Vic Capri

After Maxine Waters's open call for hostility and violence, us Trump supporters have to stay vigilant until mid-terms and after.

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

It's already been the case, since before candidate Trump became president Trump, that openly supporting Trump in a liberal area is a physically dangerous proposition.


----------



## deepelemblues

Vic Capri said:


> After Maxine Waters's open call for hostility and violence, us Trump supporters have to stay vigilant until mid-terms and after.
> 
> - Vic


It is interesting to see the same people who foamed at the mouth about gay wedding cakes now rationalize and justify total apartheid behavior as long as the victims are anyone to the right of BernieOld

Dangerous game they're playing but they're too dumb to see that


----------



## birthday_massacre

I leave for a few months and its the same BS from the same people LOL Nothing has changed. thank god I don't post here anymore. Just add my two cents on this.



deepelemblues said:


> It is interesting to see the same people who foamed at the mouth about gay wedding cakes now rationalize and justify total apartheid behavior as long as the victims are anyone to the right of BernieOld
> 
> Dangerous game they're playing but they're too dumb to see that


And NO its just the people on the left laughing at people on the right getting a taste of their own medicine. That is the problem with the right, all the BS rules they make are ok when it effects others like gays, blacks, the poor etc but once it effects them they cry about it. 

The Trump admin set the precedent for this type of thing to happen so they can't cry about it when it happens to them.

People on the right is too dumb to understand that.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> People on the right is too dumb to understand that.


VINTAGE BM :mark:


----------



## deepelemblues

birthday_massacre said:


> I leave for a few months and its the same BS from the same people LOL Nothing has changed. thank god I don't post here anymore. Just add my two cents on this.
> 
> 
> 
> And NO its just the people on the left laughing at people on the right getting a taste of their own medicine. That is the problem with the right, all the BS rules they make are ok when it effects others like gays, blacks, the poor etc but once it effects them they cry about it.
> 
> The Trump admin set the precedent for this type of thing to happen so they can't cry about it when it happens to them.
> 
> People on the right is too dumb to understand that.


:mark:

:trump2

BM returns to give us another example, distilled to its essence, of why :trump will win re-election and why the Left will continue to decline intellectually, morally, and electorally in this country. The soul-eating hatred for conservatives that consumes them and dictates their behavior will only result in hampering them and driving us to greater effort and more winning

:trump3


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> :mark:
> 
> :trump2
> 
> BM returns to give us another example, distilled to its essence, of why :trump will win re-election and why the Left will continue to decline intellectually, morally, and electorally in this country. The soul-eating hatred for conservatives that consumes them and dictates their behavior will only result in hampering them and driving us to greater effort and more winning
> 
> :trump3


LOL that is why Trump and the conversatives will get destroyed in the midterms and the next Presidential election, because liberals use their own agenda against them, and show what crybabies converatives are when they get a taste of their own medicine.

Anyways carry on with the peanut gallery. Its still cute to see how delusional the right is in this thread.

Have fun.


----------



## deepelemblues

BM is back and he's coming for the belt at Summerslam :mark: 

Teach these bitchboys like Bobby Lashley how to do a REAL return, BM :mark:


----------



## yeahbaby!

An unfortunate climate now to be in apparent physical danger based on beliefs or even supporting someone for office.

Do the peeps here think the people willing to be violent are generally confined to mostly Anti-Trumpers, or 'THE LEFT' generally? Liberals but not Conservatives? If so why?

Also do peeps this a recent phenomenon in America because of the Trump situation and if so, what would you attribute it to? 

I'm not sure if it is indeed the case of being a recent Trumpy thing, maybe it's more reported now due to24hr news cycle and YT reporters that makes it seem more prevalent?


----------



## virus21

All that it will take is on ANTIFA fuck or Alt-Right shithead to get kill happy to turn this into a shit storm. Its not going to be pretty.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

Typical Swing Voter " Trump making fun of a handcapped reporter or calling some other candidate's wife a fug is within the rules of civility,not allowing Sarah Huckabee Sander's to eat at some restaraunt is just classless. That is a bridge too far and proves the left are truly the intolerant people in this country. What's next Democratic baker's not willing to make wedding cake's for people in Maga hat's"


----------



## yeahbaby!

HandsomeRTruth said:


> *Typical Swing Voter " Trump making fun of a handcapped reporter or calling some other candidate's wife a fug is within the rules of civility*,not allowing Sarah Huckabee Sander's to eat at some restaraunt is just classless. That is a bridge too far and proves the left are truly the intolerant people in this country. What's next Democratic baker's not willing to make wedding cake's for people in Maga hat's"


Um, with all due respect do you know what civility really means? I'm not sure making fun of the handicapped is really being that civil.


----------



## Art Vandaley

yeahbaby! said:


> Um, with all due respect do you know what civility really means? I'm not sure making fun of the handicapped is really being that civil.


I'm pretty sure he's mocking the double standards applied by Trump supporters. 

Ie, there is one standard of what is acceptable social behaviour for Trump, but another for literally every other person. 

Kinda like when the rightwingers in this thread were leaping all over some comedian for saying something far milder than most things Trump said and genuinely tried to argue that we need to hold comedians to a higher standard than the President.


----------



## deepelemblues

HandsomeRTruth said:


> Typical Swing Voter " Trump making fun of a handcapped reporter or calling some other candidate's wife a fug is within the rules of civility,not allowing Sarah Huckabee Sander's to eat at some restaraunt is just classless. That is a bridge too far and proves the left are truly the intolerant people in this country. What's next Democratic baker's not willing to make wedding cake's for people in Maga hat's"


He didn't make fun of the reporter for being handicapped though, he used the same gestures he'd used many times before when mocking non-handicapped people.

Completely contrived controversy based on a lie.



Alkomesh2 said:


> I'm pretty sure he's mocking the double standards applied by Trump supporters.
> 
> Ie, there is one standard of what is acceptable social behaviour for Trump, but another for literally every other person.
> 
> Kinda like when the rightwingers in this thread were leaping all over some comedian for saying something far milder than most things Trump said and genuinely tried to argue that we need to hold comedians to a higher standard than the President.


Perhaps you could provide an example as to when :trump said something far less mild than calling a woman a cunt. No wait, "most things," since that's the standard you set forth yourself. One or two times sadly doesn't meet your standard. "Most" is at the least more than 50%.


----------



## Art Vandaley

deepelemblues said:


> He didn't make fun of the reporter for being handicapped though, he used the same gestures he'd used many times before when mocking non-handicapped people.
> 
> Completely contrived controversy based on a lie.


1. Having used the gesture on non handicapped people doesn't make it ok to use it on handicapped people.
2. Using the gesture to mock handicapped people is way worse than using it to mock non handicapped people. Like using the n word as an insult against an african american person would be worse than using it as an insult against someone who isn't african american, you're a smart enough kid to get that surely. 

Completely legitimate controversy based on video evidence that proves it 100%



> Perhaps you could provide an example as to when :trump said something far less mild than calling a woman a cunt. No wait, "most things," since that's the standard you set forth yourself. One or two times sadly doesn't meet your standard. "Most" is at the least more than 50%.


We're talking about different things here.

I'm referring to the Michelle Wolf jokes on Sarah Sanders-Huckabee, which the right were OUTRAGED by, and yes they were far milder than the things Trump constantly says. 

The right have one standard of civility for Trump and another for everyone else. 

Trump calls a former Miss USA a piggy and that's totally cool, Michelle Wolf implies Sarah Sanders Huckabee looks like a character from a tv show that some people find unattractive and that is way over the line.


----------



## CamillePunk

Trump didn't make fun of a handicapped reporter for being handicapped. Please stop re-posting things that were thoroughly debunked ages ago as if they actually happened and weren't debunked already.


----------



## Art Vandaley

CamillePunk said:


> Trump didn't make fun of a handicapped reporter for being handicapped. Please stop re-posting things that were thoroughly debunked ages ago as if they actually happened and weren't debunked already.


I love that you believe Trumps denial over the video footage of him doing it.

But iirc you're were one of the people who believed Trump's inauguration had a higher turnout than Obamas so... you've already made the decision that when there is a disagreement between Trump and your own eyes, you'll go with Trump everytime.


----------



## CamillePunk

huh

No I believe the videos of him mocking other people who aren't handicapped the exact same way, and the fact that when I first saw him do it (without knowing the guy he was mocking was handicapped) I didn't think "ah yes, he's portraying a handicapped person" even once. The media conjured that idea and people's confirmation bias did the rest.

It's been debunked and if you repeat the claim you are in fact lying and willfully repeating fake news and thus aren't worth taking seriously.


----------



## Art Vandaley

CamillePunk said:


> huh
> 
> No I believe the videos of him mocking other people who aren't handicapped the exact same way, and the fact that when I first saw him do it (without knowing the guy he was mocking was handicapped) I didn't think "ah yes, he's portraying a handicapped person" even once. The media conjured that idea and people's confirmation bias did the rest.
> 
> It's been debunked and if you repeat the claim you are in fact lying and willfully repeating fake news and thus aren't worth taking seriously.



Trump denying it is not it being debunked, you do realise that right?

Him having made the same gesture to non handicapped people doesn't make it any less offensive when done to a handicapped person.


----------



## deepelemblues

Did we time warp back 24 months

I hope not because if so you're gonna be in for a big disappointment yet again Alkomesh (hint: :trump wins)


----------



## CamillePunk

Alkomesh2 said:


> Trump denying it is not it being debunked, you do realise that right?
> 
> Him having made the same gesture to non handicapped people doesn't make it any less offensive when done to a handicapped person.


Who is talking about Trump's denials but you? :lmao 

I never claimed it wasn't offensive. I said he wasn't deliberately mocking the guy's handicap, which he clearly wasn't. I'm quite sure he meant to offend the guy. He was making fun of him for being a spineless little bitch after all. But that has nothing to do with his hand.


----------



## Art Vandaley

CamillePunk said:


> Who is talking about Trump's denials but you? <img src="http://www.wrestlingforum.com/images/smilies/roflmao.gif" border="0" alt="" title="ROFLMAO" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> I never claimed it wasn't offensive. I said he wasn't deliberately mocking the guy's handicap, which he clearly wasn't. I'm quite sure he meant to offend the guy. He was making fun of him for being a spineless little bitch, which has nothing to do with his hand.


Literally the only evidence suggesting this wasn't intentionally insulting is Trump saying it wasn't and that he didn't know the guy was disabled, even though they'd met a heap of times by that point making it a bizzarely obvious and self interested lie.

You believe Trump, but don't pretend for a second this is anything other than you believing Trump.

Trump claiming something isn't true is not that thing being debunked.


----------



## CamillePunk

You aren't seeing what I'm saying at all. We're in different worlds. I keep forgetting.


----------



## Art Vandaley

CamillePunk said:


> You aren't seeing what I'm saying at all. We're in different worlds. I keep forgetting.



Yes I believe my own senses over propaganda and you believe literally every word repeated by your dear leader no matter how obvious a lie or how strong the evidence to the contrary is.


----------



## deepelemblues

Alkomesh2 said:


> Yes I believe my own senses over propaganda and you believe literally every word repeated by your dear leader no matter how obvious a lie or how strong the evidence to the contrary is.


But... you have no evidence... you just have your opinion... you know that, right? You're saying that you can read :trump's mind and consequently know that he was specifically and deliberately mocking this reporter's physical maladies. 

But what, really, is your point? That :trump is mean? Okay... how did making that argument work out 2 years ago? Why are you still trying to fight on the hill that you lost and died on 2 years ago? Do you really not understand that a huge part of :trump's appeal is that he is mean? That Republicans were tired of the George W. Bushes and the Mitt Romneys who stoically endured whatever attacks were thrown their way, no matter how low? Who never hit back against the derogatory way the media and popular culture figures constantly talk about Republicans? 

We had enough of politicians who don't defend us and don't retaliate when we're called stupid, ignorant, racist, sexist, fascist, every political slur in the book and plenty of the schoolyard slurs as well. We wanted a mean son of a bitch who would spit himself, after all the times we've been spit on. And we got him.

Did you really think there would never be any blowback stemming from the way Republicans and conservatives were treated? Do you think there will be no blowback from the way Republicans and conservatives are now getting treated by angry mobs? Surrounded and screamed at, shouted down, called all the same old slurs and a bunch of new ones? Treated with utter hatred and contempt? Sorry but the surveys have shown, we on the right are far more tolerant of views on the left and the people who hold them than they are of our views and of us. Do you think that will last forever? What do you think will happen when we get down to your level? Do you think it will go well for you? We haven't gotten anywhere near your level, and already we elected a mean son of a bitch as president. Keep it up, you'll get Ne Plus Ultra :trump as president in 20 years.


----------



## Art Vandaley

deepelemblues said:


> But... you have no evidence... you just have your opinion... you know that, right? You're saying that you can read :trump's mind and consequently know that he was specifically and deliberately mocking this reporter's physical maladies.


I don't need to read Trump's mind to infer that when he mocks a disabled person for being disabled that he meant to offend them.


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> Did you really think there would never be any blowback stemming from the way Republicans and conservatives were treated? Do you think there will be no blowback from the way Republicans and conservatives are now getting treated by angry mobs? Surrounded and screamed at, shouted down, called all the same old slurs and a bunch of new ones? Treated with utter hatred and contempt? Sorry but the surveys have shown, we on the right are far more tolerant of views on the left and the people who hold them than they are of our views and of us. Do you think that will last forever? What do you think will happen when we get down to your level? Do you think it will go well for you? We haven't gotten anywhere near your level, and already we elected a mean son of a bitch as president. Keep it up, you'll get Ne Plus Ultra :trump as president in 20 years.


I like this attitude, if any more disabled people cruelly attack Trump or any other Repubs - we know the Great Leader knows what to do to defend the poor victims of such hideous reprehensible behaviour.

:Trump :Trump :Trump


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Harley-Davidson announced today that due to the EU's new retaliatory tariffs they will be moving some of their production overseas to avoid those tariffs. Layoffs incoming. You also have to assume the meteoric rise in the price of steel thanks to the new tariffs has something do with it.
*
Harley-Davidson's SEC filing.*



> The European Union has enacted tariffs on various U.S.-manufactured products, including Harley-Davidson motorcycles. These tariffs, which became effective June 22, 2018, were imposed in response to the tariffs the U.S. imposed on steel and aluminum exported from the EU to the U.S.
> 
> Consequently, EU tariffs on Harley-Davidson motorcycles exported from the U.S. have increased from 6% to 31%. Harley-Davidson expects these tariffs will result in an incremental cost of approximately $2,200 per average motorcycle exported from the U.S. to the EU.
> 
> Harley-Davidson believes the tremendous cost increase, if passed onto its dealers and retail customers, would have an immediate and lasting detrimental impact to its business in the region, reducing customer access to Harley-Davidson products and negatively impacting the sustainability of its dealers’ businesses. Therefore, Harley-Davidson will not raise its manufacturer’s suggested retail prices or wholesale prices to its dealers to cover the costs of the retaliatory tariffs. In the near-term, the company will bear the significant impact resulting from these tariffs, and the company estimates the incremental cost for the remainder of 2018 to be approximately $30 to $45 million. On a full-year basis, the company estimates the aggregate annual impact due to the EU tariffs to be approximately $90 to $100 million.
> 
> To address the substantial cost of this tariff burden long-term, Harley-Davidson will be implementing a plan to shift production of motorcycles for EU destinations from the U.S. to its international facilities to avoid the tariff burden. Harley-Davidson expects ramping-up production in international plants will require incremental investment and could take at least 9 to 18 months to be fully complete.
> 
> Harley-Davidson maintains a strong commitment to U.S.-based manufacturing which is valued by riders globally. Increasing international production to alleviate the EU tariff burden is not the company’s preference, but represents the only sustainable option to make its motorcycles accessible to customers in the EU and maintain a viable business in Europe. Europe is a critical market for Harley-Davidson. In 2017, nearly 40,000 riders bought new Harley-Davidson motorcycles in Europe, and the revenue generated from the EU countries is second only to the U.S.
> 
> Harley-Davidson’s purpose is to fulfill dreams of personal freedom for customers who live in the European Union and across the world, and the company remains fully engaged with government officials in both the U.S. and the EU helping to find sustainable solutions to trade issues and rescind all tariffs that restrict free and fair trade.
> 
> Harley-Davidson will provide more details of the financial implications and plans to mitigate the impact of retaliatory EU tariffs during the company’s second quarter earnings conference call on July 24, 2018, at 8:00AM CDT...


In response.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1011360410648416258
Yeah, why didn't you just add $2200 to the price tag of all your euro exports Harley? Don't you love America?!


----------



## Draykorinee

Now we can sing we didn't start the fire. Thanks for the trade war Trump.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

deepelemblues said:


> But... you have no evidence... you just have your opinion... you know that, right? You're saying that you can read :trump's mind and consequently know that he was specifically and deliberately mocking this reporter's physical maladies.
> 
> But what, really, is your point? That :trump is mean? Okay... how did making that argument work out 2 years ago? Why are you still trying to fight on the hill that you lost and died on 2 years ago? Do you really not understand that a huge part of :trump's appeal is that he is mean? That Republicans were tired of the George W. Bushes and the Mitt Romneys who stoically endured whatever attacks were thrown their way, no matter how low? Who never hit back against the derogatory way the media and popular culture figures constantly talk about Republicans?


So you go from 1 extreme to another. Someone who goes after private American businesses on multiple occasions,attacks civilian's,encourages violence,talk's like he is President of The Right against "Libtard's in a flame war instead of President Of The United States,treat's everything like it a game of politic's. Someone who is more thin skinned then a 14 year old girl on the rag, he has engaged in fighting with people low on the totem pole Presiden't of both parties in the past have been above. And this isn't people calling his supporters or family member's names,that handicapped reporter in particular was just some local reporter who wrote a negative article(that probably only a few hundred or thousand people ever read) about his real estate business.


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> If the executive order does nothing then what has changed?
> 
> He said Republicans shouldn't bother doing anything until after the election because the Democrats, who just want the illegal immigrants released into the country, won't cooperate on any kind of immigration reform. Is he wrong?
> 
> Also, he didn't say "we are now deporting everyone immediately". He proposed that as the policy he would want, i.e once the GOP has enough votes in Congress to pass their own immigration reform.
> 
> I don't do any of that, but if I did, nothing you've said would change my mind. :lol I'm not at all worried that amnesty is coming because Trump's position on cracking down on illegal immigration has been clear and consistent for 3 years now. You are way too distracted by news headlines and the non-substantive political theater.


Actually I am paying attention and see what is going on. He continues to change his mind on what he wants. We need someone who is going to take a stand and stick with it and not change their mind like we change socks. Then he does a rally in the hopes that everyone will forget what he has said in place of something else. Meanwhile he plays Whataboutism to a T. I consider Maxine Waters a horrible human being for telling people to really stalk members of the administration. Yet Trump is insulting people and making a jerk of himself as well. 

But keep ignoring that Harley Davidson is going to start making more bikes overseas thanks to Trump and his tariffs and the market is on a downward swing. Keep blindly cheering for this man and never hold him accountable.


----------



## CamillePunk

The conservative (TRUE conservative, my mistake) birthday_massacre. :lol Absolute broken record.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

He's threatening Harley-Davidson with higher taxes.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1011584315040419840


----------



## CamillePunk

Ayy the travel ban was upheld by the Supreme Court. You guys remember the travel ban right? From 200 years worth of news cycles ago?



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1011588967442022406
Trump is so great. :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> I like this attitude, if any more disabled people cruelly attack Trump or any other Repubs - we know the Great Leader knows what to do to defend the poor victims of such hideous reprehensible behaviour.
> 
> :Trump :Trump :Trump














Although, of course, your response proves my point, so thank you for that.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Ayy the travel ban was upheld by the Supreme Court. You guys remember the travel ban right? From 200 years worth of news cycles ago?
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1011588967442022406
> Trump is so great. :lol


Nobody cares about the travel ban, now it's about a crying little girl that wasn't separated from her mother.

You should watch the Editor and Chief of TIME's interview on CNN, it's so bad. TIME had to retract what they wrote then he says well "We didn't know what happened" but didn't stop them from saying what they think happened until caught. 

American Journalism 101; don't fact check, don't dig deeper and make up what you think is true.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose

I'm rather confused that anyone could balance such a dissonance of thinking that they are the ultimate objective pragmatists staying ice cold against a wave of suffering and emotional pleading, while simultaneously thinking that they are hilarious supercool trolls bringing the lolz against a bunch of liberal idiots who care about things and other sissy stuff.

It's a fake philosophy that will have its day. 

A temporarily incredibly successful one, undoubtedly. I mean it's picked up a lot of people tempted by the sound of thinking they can have both the intellectual high ground AND enjoy sadistic humour, which is a seductive mix to the aspirational but weak-willed. But one that will have its day.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> I think that if you care about your worldview you should come up with a more persuasive way of arguing for it than launching personal attacks laced with condescending snark without providing any substance to support your argument. You accused me of a bunch of things without explaining how I'm guilty of any of it. When pressed you just say stuff like this. Nobody is convinced. Nobody is impressed. Maybe you don't care, and just want to feel like you know what's best for the world all by yourself without having to actually convince anyone else. Whatever floats your boat.


This is a fair point and a valid criticism. I'll keep that in mind the next time I respond to you. *no sarcasm


----------



## Vic Capri

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

Huge unforced error by low IQ Maxine Waters. Framing the midterm elections as self-defense for Republicans is hugely persuasive, and recent actions by Democrat activists coupled with Waters openly fanning the flames just amplifies its effect.

I expect Republicans to pounce on this message fairly soon if they aren't already.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Huge unforced error by low IQ Maxine Waters. Framing the midterm elections as self-defense for Republicans is hugely persuasive, and recent actions by Democrat activists coupled with Waters openly fanning the flames just amplifies its effect.
> 
> I expect Republicans to pounce on this message fairly soon if they aren't already.


If the choice is between shit-tard Republicans and neoliberal corporatist Democrats, I'd rather the Trumpists keep winning. We saw what a disaster the Obama years were. Replacing one pile of shit with a different pile of shit just leaves everyone with a bigger pile of shit.


----------



## CamillePunk

Both parties are generally shitty and I think most people understand that. However, one party is currently threatening our social fabric. They have to be stopped. Vote Republican 2018. Etc. 

Something like that. It'll work. Republicans will outperform projections. Will it be enough? Don't know. I don't think they were ever getting to 60 Senate seats so I expect things to be largely as they are until 2020. Unless the Democrats make an even bigger mess from here. Schumer and Pelosi seem to be trying to dial it back though.


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> The conservative (TRUE conservative, my mistake) birthday_massacre. :lol Absolute broken record.


My goalposts never moved. I know exactly where I stand and it hasn't changed. Obama talked about how cops should be fired, trust me I jumped up and down and howled. Trump attacks private businesses and wants to pick and choose who wins. That is not a conservative stance, that's WAY out of bounds for any President to do. Trump has also changed his stance on immigration on a regular basis, just like he did last year on Obamacare when he tweeted three different stances in the course of 4 days. 

I'm tired of the name-calling, bullying, and the virtue-signaling from this clown. I want shit to get done. If he actually was half as willing to do things as he is in regards to mocking people (whether deserved or not), we'd have a hell of a lot more getting done. Yes, the left is up in arms, but a lot of it is his doing. If he would shut his mouth and actually get stuff done, I might actually get behind him. Instead, he feels it's OK to stoop to the level of his opposition. If that's his argument, it's a piss-poor one. 

But keep on being fooled by a progressive con man.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> one party is currently threatening our social fabric. They have to be stopped.


Well, you're half right.

You asked for an example of your hypocrisy. Proclaiming yourself to be a libertarian and supporting the fascist Republicans is the height of hypocrisy.

You're not wrong about the Democrats though.

Unless you meant "one party" to be the unholy joining of the Republicrats, then you nailed it.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

I think it's time to let Trump to pretty much have his way on every issue and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> Well, you're half right.
> 
> You asked for an example of your hypocrisy. Proclaiming yourself to be a libertarian and supporting the fascist Republicans is the height of hypocrisy.
> 
> You're not wrong about the Democrats though.
> 
> Unless you meant "one party" to be the unholy joining of the Republicrats, then you nailed it.


Republicans aren't even close to fascist, but in any case you misunderstood that post. I was putting forth a GOP talking point for the 2018 midterms. Which is why I then immediately gave a prediction for its effectiveness. 

I don't support the GOP. I like Trump, he's entertaining and a directionally (basically meaning imperfect) positive force toward having a freer society. The libertarian-lite senators are nice but they don't actually move the needle.


BruiserKC said:


> My goalposts never moved. I know exactly where I stand and it hasn't changed. Obama talked about how cops should be fired, trust me I jumped up and down and howled. Trump attacks private businesses and wants to pick and choose who wins. That is not a conservative stance, that's WAY out of bounds for any President to do. Trump has also changed his stance on immigration on a regular basis, just like he did last year on Obamacare when he tweeted three different stances in the course of 4 days.
> 
> I'm tired of the name-calling, bullying, and the virtue-signaling from this clown. I want shit to get done. If he actually was half as willing to do things as he is in regards to mocking people (whether deserved or not), we'd have a hell of a lot more getting done. Yes, the left is up in arms, but a lot of it is his doing. If he would shut his mouth and actually get stuff done, I might actually get behind him. Instead, he feels it's OK to stoop to the level of his opposition. If that's his argument, it's a piss-poor one.
> 
> But keep on being fooled by a progressive con man.


If birthday_massacre had a solid grasp of the English language and different politics. :lol I could easily write a program that'd write your posts for you and nobody would notice.


----------



## deepelemblues

-Gets called fascist.
-Doesn't leave the people calling them fascist facedown and dead in a ditch looking like a lumpy fleshbag with 90% of their bones broken. 
-Republicans: WORST. FASCISTS. EVER.

:heston

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ive-attitude-to-immigrants-global-study-finds

Americans the MOST INCLUSIVE in the WORLD to legal immigrants. Immigrate here LEGALLY, we don't care where you come from, what color your skin is, what religion you follow, what your political beliefs are. FOLLOW THE RULES to become an American and we accept you with open arms as ONE OF US, an AMERICAN

B-b-b-BUT 

MUH NARRATIVE THAT AMERICA HATES IMMIGRANTS

MUH

NARRATIVE


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> Although, of course, your response proves my point, so thank you for that.


My god can you imagine the impressive Trump response if waves of DISABLED illegal immigrant rapist gang members, who of course are told what to say by all their expensive legal teams, started to stream over the border after being fired up by the democrats proposed open border rapist disabled policy? (Because you know they're waiting for their moment)

The golden 9000D chess response would have even me spoofing all over my keyboard like Mommy Blows Best!!!


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> My god can you imagine the impressive Trump response if waves of DISABLED illegal immigrant rapist gang members, who of course are told what to say by all their expensive legal teams, started to stream over the border after being fired up by the democrats proposed open border rapist disabled policy? (Because you know they're waiting for their moment)
> 
> The golden 9000D chess response would have even me spoofing all over my keyboard like Mommy Blows Best!!!


Have you told the Department of Homeland Security about your concerns, that sounds very cereal

It would be a sterling demonstration of the great love and friendship the great Australian people have towards their friends in America


----------



## dele

CamillePunk said:


> Huge unforced error by low IQ Maxine Waters. Framing the midterm elections as self-defense for Republicans is hugely persuasive, and recent actions by Democrat activists coupled with Waters openly fanning the flames just amplifies its effect.
> 
> I expect Republicans to pounce on this message fairly soon if they aren't already.


Yeah, because putting illegal border crossers in concentration camps is the moral high ground. It's an unforced error, but it's only a representative. Politicians should fear the people and not the other way around.



Tater said:


> If the choice is between shit-tard Republicans and neoliberal corporatist Democrats, I'd rather the Trumpists keep winning. We saw what a disaster the Obama years were. Replacing one pile of shit with a different pile of shit just leaves everyone with a bigger pile of shit.


Saved the global economy from collapse and prevented an economic black hole from forming in Detroit. What a terrible presidency. He wasn't perfect, but this implication that he didn't do a good job is patently false.



BruiserKC said:


> I'm tired of the name-calling, bullying, and the virtue-signaling from this clown. I want shit to get done. If he actually was half as willing to do things as he is in regards to mocking people (whether deserved or not), we'd have a hell of a lot more getting done. Yes, the left is up in arms, but a lot of it is his doing. If he would shut his mouth and actually get stuff done, I might actually get behind him.


This describes how I feel. Tariffs and oil prices increasing from reintroducing sanctions in Iran don't mix well with rising interest rates. Good thing there's max employment and all the people who used to do the open ones have now been deported. Very quickly looking like a liquidity trap to me.



deepelemblues said:


> Americans the MOST INCLUSIVE in the WORLD to legal immigrants. Immigrate here LEGALLY, we don't care where you come from, what color your skin is, what religion you follow, what your political beliefs are. FOLLOW THE RULES to become an American and we accept you with open arms as ONE OF US, an AMERICAN
> 
> B-b-b-BUT
> 
> MUH NARRATIVE THAT AMERICA HATES IMMIGRANTS
> 
> MUH
> 
> NARRATIVE


Are you planning on going to cities along the border and pick fruit and vegetables? Why is it so difficult to get to a LEGAL immigration site on the border? Kicking everyone out is not a good way to go when there's not enough people to do the work.


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ive-attitude-to-immigrants-global-study-finds
> 
> Americans the MOST INCLUSIVE in the WORLD to legal immigrants. Immigrate here LEGALLY, we don't care where you come from, what color your skin is, what religion you follow, what your political beliefs are. FOLLOW THE RULES to become an American and we accept you with open arms as ONE OF US, an AMERICAN
> 
> B-b-b-BUT
> 
> MUH NARRATIVE THAT AMERICA HATES IMMIGRANTS
> 
> MUH
> 
> NARRATIVE


Pretty interesting the divide between left and right apparently.....



> Within the US, however, there was a large differential in attitudes to religion between left-leaning and right-leaning voters. Among leftwing voters 71% felt a Muslim could be a real American compared with 36% of right-leaning voters. Perhaps more surprisingly, this differential remained high for other non-Christian religions and atheism. Among leftwing Americans 80% said Jews were real Americans , compared with 63% of rightwing Americans. For atheism the difference was 77% leftwing against 52% rightwing and for Hinduism the difference was 71% leftwing to 41% rightwing.


Mighty accepting christian attitudes from THE RIGHT shown there. Jeebus would be proud!!!


----------



## deepelemblues

dele said:


> Are you planning on going to cities along the border and pick fruit and vegetables? Why is it so difficult to get to a LEGAL immigration site on the border? Kicking everyone out is not a good way to go when there's not enough people to do the work.


The United States has over 320 million people and has taken in an average of a little over 1 million legal immigrants a year for the last 25 years.

There is no reasonable argument whatsoever that the United States needs to take MORE people in than it already does through legal immigration. 

Robots can pick the fruits and vegetables, the transition to using robots for unskilled agricultural labor is already well underway.



yeahbaby! said:


> Pretty interesting the divide between left and right apparently.....
> 
> 
> 
> Mighty accepting christian attitudes from THE RIGHT shown there. Jeebus would be proud!!!


Perhaps it has something to do with their being constantly told by triumphalist left-wingers that America will be changed from a country of individualism and limited government to a country of collectivism and unlimited government once enough white Christians are replaced by non-white non-Christians :hmmm

"Demography is destiny" is one of the more popular phrases I believe?


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> Perhaps it has something to do with their being constantly told by triumphalist left-wingers that America won't be America anymore once enough white Christians are replaced by non-white non-Christians :hmmm


First of all that wild statement may need some proof behind it ever occurring. Ironically enough I think it's more figures such as the character this thread is about telling the people things of that ilk.

Second, it shouldn't matter anyway - if their faith is strong enough they should be following the examples of Christ, forgive and accept.


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> First of all that wild statement may need some proof behind it ever occurring. Ironically enough I think it's more figures such as the character this thread is about telling the people things of that ilk.
> 
> Second, it shouldn't matter anyway - if their faith is strong enough they should be following the examples of Christ, forgive and accept.


Well it is unfortunate that apparently you are making comments about things that you have not kept yourself informed on. I would certainly understand a lack of interest in following and examining the details of political discourse in another country, but I do not understand commenting on it when you have not done said following and examining. If you had, you would know that the discussion that can be broadly labeled under the "Demography is destiny" marker has been extensive in the United States since the election of Barack Obama. Alleged 'white panic' at future loss of political power through demographic changes was extensively touted as both a reason for the majority disapproval of Obama among whites, and for the election of :trump. 

Ironically enough, showing again that you are not as informed as you might be, the current president has NOT spoken either directly or indirectly on the subject. Neither did Barack Obama, at least not publicly. "Demography is destiny" was an undertone of his "clinging to guns and religion" comment made in private that was secretly recorded and leaked, though. 

Who is an American? is a political - not a religious - question, so I am not sure how the examples and teachings of Christ figure into the discussion. Christ preached love for one's fellow man, the brotherhood of humanity, and to be your brother's keeper, but also preached the rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and the rendering unto God what is God's. Immigration, citizenship, and national identity would seem to be an issue that is more Caesar's than God's.

Unless you are suggesting that the informal separation of Church and politics, stemming from the formal separation of Church and State, be somewhat less separate? An interesting idea I will say, making Christianity a larger direct influence on American politics :hmmm


----------



## 2 Ton 21

http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/26/news/companies/steel-tariffs-job-losses/index.html



> *Largest US nail manufacturer 'on the brink of extinction' because of the steel tariffs*
> 
> Steel tariffs could force the nation's largest nail manufacturer to close or move to Mexico.
> The Mid-Continent Nail plant in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, laid off 60 of its 500 workers last week because of increased steel costs. The company blames the 25% tariff on imported steel. Orders for nails plunged 50% after the company raised its prices to deal with higher steel costs.
> 
> The company is in danger of shutting production by Labor Day unless the Commerce Department grants it an exclusion from paying the tariffs, company spokesman James Glassman told CNN's Poppy Harlow.
> 
> Mid-Continent Nail is "on the brink of extinction," he said.
> 
> Glassman said the company might relocate to Mexico, where it could buy the steel without the tariffs — and then export the finished nails back to the United States without tariffs, which only apply to raw materials.
> 
> "It's obviously an option," said Glassman about moving to Mexico. "It absolutely is something this company does not want to do. It wants to save the jobs in Poplar Bluff, Missouri."
> 
> Glassman called President Donald Trump's trade policy misguided. He noted that the company had doubled its work force since 2013, and thrived despite increased competition from China.
> 
> About 21,000 US companies have filed for tariff exclusions. In a June 20 Senate hearing, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said Mid-Continent had filed a request for an exclusion only two days earlier.
> 
> "I'm not belittling their situation at all. But given the importance of it to them, it's very unfortunate that they waited all these weeks to file the request," he said. "Under the authority we were granted, there is a process we have to follow."
> 
> The US Chamber of Commerce has estimated that 2.6 million US jobs are at risk because of the Trump administration's hard-line policies on trade, although that estimate includes the impact of ending NAFTA. The tariffs that have already been proposed could cost the US economy about 700,000 jobs by next summer, according to Moody's Analytics.
> 
> The area of Missouri where the plant is located voted 80% for President Trump. Glassman said he can't say whether people in town are still supporting the president.
> 
> "They are scared, they are worried about their families. It's not like there are tons of other manufacturing jobs," he said. "If I were a Mid-Continent worker, I would be extremely unhappy with what this administration is doing


----------



## CamillePunk

dele said:


> Yeah, because putting illegal border crossers in *concentration camps* is the moral high ground.


Well I'm glad you aren't resorting to hyperbole or anything. :lol My goodness.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Well I'm glad you aren't resorting to hyperbole or anything. :lol My goodness.


I don't remember reading about concentration camps having air conditioning and real medical services. Or food provision at non-starvation levels.

I may have to re-read histories on the subject. Perhaps I am just forgetting the sections covering the air conditioning and real medical service and abundant food found in the concentration camps of Russia, Germany, Japan, Cuba, etc.


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> Who is an American? is a political - not a religious - question, so I am not sure how the examples and teachings of Christ figure into the discussion. Christ preached love for one's fellow man, the brotherhood of humanity, and to be your brother's keeper, but also preached the rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and the rendering unto God what is God's. *Immigration, citizenship, and national identity would seem to be an issue that is more Caesar's than God's.*
> 
> Unless you are suggesting that the informal separation of Church and politics, stemming from the formal separation of Church and State, be somewhat less separate? An interesting idea I will say, making Christianity a larger direct influence on American politics :hmmm


As appears to be the case with a lot of Christians, and indeed religious followers, they're apparently able to pick and choose what they want to follow and what they don't, according to their prejudice. Which preachings and verses can be ignored and which should be followed, applied to what etc. What can be interpreted literally and what can't.

It's all very convenient. 

But I guess this is not a religious thread is it, we've all been down this road before, so if you want the last word on how acceptance of others isn't related to Christianity, go for it and then we can move on with the Trump / Fox n Friend's 99D chess alliance


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

deepelemblues said:


> The United States has over 320 million people and has taken in an average of a little over 1 million legal immigrants a year for the last 25 years.
> 
> There is no reasonable argument whatsoever that the United States needs to take MORE people in than it already does through legal immigration.
> 
> Robots can pick the fruits and vegetables, the transition to using robots for unskilled agricultural labor is already well underway.


We are taking in a lesser % of immigrant's now then at most points in our history and at the same time have an all time low fertility/birth rate. Those 2 things do not indicate a need to stifle the flow of immigration or a bloated labor pool who will be fighting for jobs with immigrants. Even among undocumented immigration there is a decrease in people coming here with the peak occuring during George W Bush's years in the 00.  And while robot's at some point will indeed picks most fruits and vegetables(and overtake a whole bunch of other industries) in 2018 the need for farm workers still exists with no excpectation those jobs will go away anytime in the next few years. And even if you raised waiges to $15 an hour the supply of American worker's to do that labor/move to the places where the day laborer's are needed is non existent. 
Why has the GOP now has taken protectionist/isolationist stances on the economy that would make Reagan roll over in his grave,is it just because they think more people moving from south of the border =more future Democrats. Wanting a secure/safer border is one thing, but saying they want to decrease even legal immigration when unemployment is low and we are living in the Boomer era which will have the greatest amount of people in retirement age so it will need a labor force to replace them.Many industries both at the highskill and lowskill end are even saying they can't find US workers to fill jobs.


----------



## Miss Sally

Oh God, people are still thinking we need MORE people and more births? We don't we need LESS people.

Does nobody think of the long term or is everyone concerned with clutching their tissues and virtue to look to the future?

Uncontrolled breeding is what got us into this mess of overpopulation and climate change. The fix isn't moar breeding.

The reason why low skilled jobs and high skilled jobs are lacking people is because a lot of Americans go to College, get useless Degrees and are in debt for pointless education. Low skilled jobs aren't being filled because nobody wants to work for 5 bucks an hour with no benefits. Basically by saying "We should have illegals working without benefits for pennies on the dollar because, we need cheap stuff!" you're part of the problem of the addiction to cheap unsustainable labor. As long as it's a bunch of illegals being worked who cares right? Where's that moral high ground at? Not to mention tech giants are looking to drop American workers for cheaper labor, so there goes that theory that there just isn't enough people.

The solution is easy, stop delaying automation and technology, get an education in something useful or a useful trade, stop relying on low skilled labor as a long term solution. Once the older people die off there will be balance since nobody is going to be popping out 15 kids. Well unless we keep going the way we are.


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> Oh God, people are still thinking we need MORE people and more births? We don't we need LESS people.
> 
> Does nobody think of the long term or is everyone concerned with clutching their tissues and virtue to look to the future?
> 
> Uncontrolled breeding is what got us into this mess of overpopulation and climate change. The fix isn't moar breeding.
> 
> The reason why low skilled jobs and high skilled jobs are lacking people is because a lot of Americans go to College, get useless Degrees and are in debt for pointless education. Low skilled jobs aren't being filled because nobody wants to work for 5 bucks an hour with no benefits. Basically by saying "We should have illegals working without benefits for pennies on the dollar because, we need cheap stuff!" you're part of the problem of the addiction to cheap unsustainable labor. As long as it's a bunch of illegals being worked who cares right? Where's that moral high ground at? Not to mention tech giants are looking to drop American workers for cheaper labor, so there goes that theory that there just isn't enough people.
> 
> The solution is easy, stop delaying automation and technology, get an education in something useful or a useful trade, stop relying on low skilled labor as a long term solution. Once the older people die off there will be balance since nobody is going to be popping out 15 kids. Well unless we keep going the way we are.


But Sally, Serfdom is all the rage.


----------



## Vic Capri

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFRHX6glTSM

It's time to fight. 

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

Vic Capri said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFRHX6glTSM
> 
> It's time to fight.
> 
> - Vic


Just drive cars in to them like the right wing nutters do.


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> Oh God, people are still thinking we need MORE people and more births? We don't we need LESS people.
> 
> Does nobody think of the long term or is everyone concerned with clutching their tissues and virtue to look to the future?
> 
> Uncontrolled breeding is what got us into this mess of overpopulation and climate change. The fix isn't moar breeding.
> 
> The reason why low skilled jobs and high skilled jobs are lacking people is because a lot of Americans go to College, get useless Degrees and are in debt for pointless education. Low skilled jobs aren't being filled because nobody wants to work for 5 bucks an hour with no benefits. Basically by saying "We should have illegals working without benefits for pennies on the dollar because, we need cheap stuff!" you're part of the problem of the addiction to cheap unsustainable labor. As long as it's a bunch of illegals being worked who cares right? Where's that moral high ground at? Not to mention tech giants are looking to drop American workers for cheaper labor, so there goes that theory that there just isn't enough people.
> 
> The solution is easy, stop delaying automation and technology, get an education in something useful or a useful trade, stop relying on low skilled labor as a long term solution. Once the older people die off there will be balance since nobody is going to be popping out 15 kids. Well unless we keep going the way we are.


I actually saw an interesting news snippet on the BBC, Scotland had 2000 more deaths than births.



> Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie said the figures show the importance of immigration in “tackling the long-term decline in Scotland’s population and mitigating the effects of an ageing society.”
> 
> Read more at: https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/population-fear-as-scots-births-sink-to-17-year-low-1-4705886


All I could think was the long term solution is not immigration but fixing the reasons why the birth rate has plummeted.


----------



## Tater

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

*FUCK YEAH!!!!!!!*

Fuck Joe Crowley.


----------



## deepelemblues

HandsomeRTruth said:


> We are taking in a lesser % of immigrant's now then at most points in our history and at the same time have an all time low fertility/birth rate.


There is no need to take in more than the million legal immigrants a year the United States already takes in.



> Those 2 things do not indicate a need to stifle the flow of immigration or a bloated labor pool who will be fighting for jobs with immigrants.


The labor pool is still depressed thanks to 8 years of people giving up on finding jobs during the worst economic recovery in the nation's history. More will return as the economy continues growing at a much faster rate. The job sectors that are short on labor are not unskilled anyway. Immigrants attempting to escape poverty in Mexico and Central America are not going to fill those jobs.



> Even among undocumented immigration there is a decrease in people coming here with the peak occuring during George W Bush's years in the 00.


Good.



> And while robot's at some point will indeed picks most fruits and vegetables(and overtake a whole bunch of other industries) in 2018 the need for farm workers still exists with no excpectation those jobs will go away anytime in the next few years. And even if you raised waiges to $15 an hour the supply of American worker's to do that labor/move to the places where the day laborer's are needed is non existent.


Quite frankly, the need of vast agribusiness corporations for unskilled labor they can pay less than minimum wage is not important enough to countenance mass illegal immigration, or mass legal immigration of unskilled labor either. 



> Why has the GOP now has taken protectionist/isolationist stances on the economy that would make Reagan roll over in his grave,is it just because they think more people moving from south of the border =more future Democrats.


Well of course that is what it means. And that alone is reason enough to oppose it. The double standard is that it is racist to want to secure the border because one of the effects would be a slowing of the growth of non-whites as a proportion of the population and a change in the political proportions of the electorate via the infusion of millions of foreign-born, but somehow it is not racist and in fact is laudable to want to open the border for the express purpose of changing the demographics and political makeup of the country. 

I don't care what Reagan would have thought on the issue. Reagan's 1986 amnesty is the reason the border needs secured in the first place. 



> Wanting a secure/safer border is one thing, but saying they want to decrease even legal immigration when unemployment is low and we are living in the Boomer era which will have the greatest amount of people in retirement age so it will need a labor force to replace them.Many industries both at the highskill and lowskill end are even saying they can't find US workers to fill jobs.


Not having enough workers = seller's market for labor = better wages for workers. It is not my concern that employers have enough of an excess of skilled or unskilled immigrant labor that they can depress wages as much as possible.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Republicans aren't even close to fascist


Are ya sure about that? Mussolini would disagree.










Not only are the Republicans fascist, the Democrats are running a close second. That's what the authoritarian right is. It's a union of big government with big corporation for the benefit of both. 

Want another example? How about the fact that both parties are full of neocon warhawks who use military force to topple governments who don't fall in line with USA interests. Our country has for decades used the power of our military to illegally invade foreign countries. Our current illegal occupation of Syria is positive proof of fascism. Destroying Iraq, who did not attack us and was no threat to us; fascism. The vast majority of politicians in DC are owned by oligarchs who do their bidding; fascism. We spend as much as the next 9-10 countries combined on our military and have roughly a thousand military bases around the world. I could continue citing examples until the sun don't shine but if you don't understand by now, you never will.

Just as a bonus example: the USA has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population. If you don't believe the USA is run by a fascist government, then you simply do not understand the definition of fascism.



CamillePunk said:


> I don't support the GOP. I like Trump, he's entertaining and a directionally (basically meaning imperfect) positive force toward having a freer society.


This is only true in the sense that Trump and the GOP are speeding up the collapse of capitalism. We don't live in a free society now and never will as long as the ruling elite overrule the will of the popular majority.



dele said:


> Saved the global economy from collapse and prevented an economic black hole from forming in Detroit. What a terrible presidency. He wasn't perfect, but this implication that he didn't do a good job is patently false.


Obama helmed the biggest failure in the history of all presidents. He campaigned on hope and change. He gave us no change and left us with no hope. If you consider losing a thousand state seats, both houses of Congress and the WH to a buffoonish con man to be "a good job", then you and I have very different definitions of what defines a good job.

All Obama did was prop up a dying system by sucking off the donor class and fucking over everyone else. The result of his failure is a country run by fascists. Take off the partisan hack glasses and view reality for a change.


----------



## deepelemblues

Justice Anthony Kennedy is retiring at the end of next month

ARE YOU READY FOR DC TO MELT DOWN TO THE PLANET'S CORE?


----------



## CamillePunk

That's a pretty narrow definition of fascism. Certainly the GOP doesn't meet, and in fact goes in direct contradiction to, many other characteristics of fascism. For example, fighting so hard to make sure the citizenry can arm themselves. I'm not interested in semantic arguments or defending the GOP though, so I'll concede. The GOP are corporate fascists who want me to keep my guns, pay less in taxes, have an easier time starting a business, be able to run that business in accordance with my religious beliefs, and generally prevent my neighborhood and country from being overran by people who always vote for big government. I'm...fine with this. Relative to the alternative.


----------



## Sincere

deepelemblues said:


> Justice Anthony Kennedy is retiring at the end of next month
> 
> ARE YOU READY FOR DC TO MELT DOWN TO THE PLANET'S CORE?


Breaking: Liberal agenda to be anally fucked without lube for the next 30 years straight.

:lmao

Thank you, Clinton.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> That's a pretty narrow definition of fascism. Certainly the GOP doesn't meet, and in fact goes in direct contradiction to, many other characteristics of fascism. For example, fighting so hard to make sure the citizenry can arm themselves. I'm not interested in semantic arguments or defending the GOP though, so I'll concede. The GOP are corporate fascists who want me to keep my guns, pay less in taxes, have an easier time starting a business, be able to run that business in accordance with my religious beliefs, and generally prevent my neighborhood and country from being overran by people who always vote for big government. I'm...fine with this. Relative to the alternative.


You and I have more in common than we don't. We just don't communicate very well. I'll take my fair share of blame for that. 

But at the end of the day, I believe we can both agree that big government is not the solution to the problems in our society.


----------



## Miss Sally

draykorinee said:


> I actually saw an interesting news snippet on the BBC, Scotland had 2000 more deaths than births.
> 
> 
> 
> All I could think was the long term solution is not immigration but fixing the reasons why the birth rate has plummeted.


Yes people are using immigration as a scheme to prop up a dying system and it won't work. You'll simply have more people who won't really make a change to a society that is set in it's course. 

It also doesn't help Western Societies trumpet abortion, punish the middle class for having kids and don't promote valuable education. I'm certainly not against abortion in the least but if you're going to have it then you have to deal with the consequences of having any right.

They could fix the low birth rate issue without immigration but they won't because people don't want to accept that they'd need to actually change things. It's foreign for Governments to think this way because for years they've been out to abuse the citizens, not help them.


----------



## MrMister

inb4 Giuliani is the appointee :max


----------



## Tater

MrMister said:


> inb4 Giuliani is the appointee :max


:gtfo


----------



## deepelemblues

Under this ridiculous definition of fascism, literally every country on the planet is fascist.

Apparently the only way to not be fascist is to be 100% _laissez-faire._ Since, you know, any ability of the State to pick economic winners and losers is _fascist._ Which, of course, would be the case in a socialist economy even more than in contemporary mixed (heavily mixed towards capitalism) economies.

Sounds like an excellent solution to me.


----------



## dele

2 Ton 21 said:


> http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/26/news/companies/steel-tariffs-job-losses/index.html


>what is game theory



CamillePunk said:


> Well I'm glad you aren't resorting to hyperbole or anything. :lol My goodness.


A bit, my bad. The attitude that enables what's been going on at the border, however, is really messed up imo.



Vic Capri said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFRHX6glTSM
> 
> It's time to fight.
> 
> - Vic


Not a Republican, but that's a well done commercial.



Tater said:


> Obama helmed the biggest failure in the history of all presidents. He campaigned on hope and change. He gave us no change and left us with no hope. If you consider losing a thousand state seats, both houses of Congress and the WH to a buffoonish con man to be "a good job", then you and I have very different definitions of what defines a good job.
> 
> All Obama did was prop up a dying system by sucking off the donor class and fucking over everyone else. The result of his failure is a country run by fascists. *Take off the partisan hack glasses and view reality for a change.*


Nice line, I'm going to steal that.


----------



## CamillePunk

dele said:


> A bit, my bad. The attitude that enables what's been going on at the border, however, is really messed up imo.


Everyone reaches for that bag of Nazi analogies (in lieu of thinking) but I'd like to hear what people think should be done when people try to illegally sneak across the border, particularly when its kids who are either by themselves or with an adult who isn't even their parent. What should we do? Presently we hold them for a couple weeks while we figure out who these people are, and then once that process is over we send them back. They are fed and sheltered and aren't mistreated during this process. How is that unreasonable? How is it even in the same zipcode as throwing people in camps indefinitely and slowly exterminating them? It's like people don't understand that the Nazis WERE TRYING TO KILL THE JEWS. We don't kill illegals we capture, we just send them back home. *THE HORROR. *

By the way, if they go to a legal entry point and apply for asylum, none of this shit happens. They aren't separated from their kids and they can go back home whenever they want. The people who get locked up and separated right now are people who tried to come in ILLEGALLY when they didn't have to. At least that's my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Stephen90

Tater said:


> Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
> 
> *FUCK YEAH!!!!!!!*
> 
> Fuck Joe Crowley.


About time to get rid of the Pelosi democrats.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

MrMister said:


> inb4 Giuliani is the appointee :max


Ted Cruz would make for an interesting choice too.


----------



## deepelemblues

SHIV:THE OTHER WHITE MEAT said:


> Ted Cruz would make for an interesting choice too.


DAHNALD

DO NOT PICK ME DAHNALD

I MUST BE PRESIDENT AFTER YOU DAHNALD


----------



## CamillePunk

But then who would the True Conservatives vote for in 2024?

I guess there's always...


----------



## CamillePunk

Wtf CNN. :lol

Also, Stefan Molyneux made a video directed specifically to @BruiserKC


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> By the way, if they go to a legal entry point and apply for asylum, none of this shit happens. They aren't separated from their kids and they can go back home whenever they want. The people who get locked up and separated right now are people who tried to come in ILLEGALLY when they didn't have to. At least that's my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong.


I thought it was generally legal to come at any point and apply for asylum under the international refugee convention or whatever it's called - the one that I thought most western countries were signed up to.

I think the idea is that if you're fleeing persecution etc and you're a genuine refugee you may not be able to pick and choose to go to an actual 'legal' point of the country.

The Nazi/WW2 comparison there that actually may be appropriate would be when the Nazis marched into Poland and you were a Jew you didn't bother going home to get your papers and worry about legal entry points, you just got the fuck out. (And no I'm not suggesting the consequences are the same - but in same cases they could be life threatening, we really don't know).


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> I thought it was generally legal to come at any point and apply for asylum under the international refugee convention or whatever it's called - the one that I thought most western countries were signed up to.
> 
> I think the idea is that if you're fleeing persecution etc and you're a genuine refugee you may not be able to pick and choose to go to an actual 'legal' point of the country.
> 
> The Nazi/WW2 comparison there that actually may be appropriate would be when the Nazis marched into Poland and you were a Jew you didn't bother going home to get your papers and worry about legal entry points, you just got the fuck out. (And no I'm not suggesting the consequences are the same - but in same cases they could be life threatening, we really don't know).


There's no war in South America so they're not refugees. If we count the Cartel violence well then people from Chicago and Baltimore could be considered refugees because those places are insanely violent.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Miss Sally said:


> There's no war in South America so they're not refugees. If we count the Cartel violence well then people from Chicago and Baltimore could be considered refugees because those places are insanely violent.


People leaving Chicago for other states due to the violence in Chicago are refugees, that is a spot on observation. 

Also your talk on Asylum Seekers and Trump's border stuff is very tame compared to what we do to refugees down here. We send them to the Australian version of Guantanamo, a base on an island actually owned by another country so our courts can't get involved as they lack jurisdiction where we torture people essentially.

Interestingly that was the logic (no war therefore no refugee) the Australian gov applied during the early years of the holocaust prior to WW2 to refuse asylum to any Jewish people, also as the Australian immigration minister famously told an international convention on the issue "Australia doesn't have a race problem and we don't want one".


----------



## Sincere

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Lol... 

I'm all for anything that has to do with less Pelosi, but electing a socialist bartender instead doesn't seem like the best plan B, to mention nothing of many of the policies she's promoting that range from absolutely impractical at best to mind-bogglingly retarded at worst.

Nothing against bartenders.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Miss Sally said:


> There's no war in South America so they're not refugees. If we count the Cartel violence well then people from Chicago and Baltimore could be considered refugees because those places are insanely violent.


Oh come on Sally. You can't tell me you actually know the local conditions of these places can you? Potential local gangs violence, oppressive local regimes, cartel violence as you mentioned.

It's fine to be against refugees as a concept if you are- but to make the blanket statement like you did about No War = No refugees is just flat out wrong IMO and with respect sounds ignorant.

This definition certainly doesn't limit Refugees to quote "war".

https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/what-is-a-refugee/



> A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries.


It's not for you or I to determine what they may be fleeing from it's up to the processes in place.


----------



## CamillePunk

Sincere said:


> Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Lol...
> 
> I'm all for anything that has to do with less Pelosi, but electing a socialist bartender instead doesn't seem like the best plan B, to mention nothing of many of the policies she's promoting that range from absolutely impractical at best to mind-bogglingly retarded at worst.
> 
> Nothing against bartenders.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1011786860107059201
FREE EVERYTHING FOR EVERYONE!!~~

Reminds me of school elections from when I was a kid. :lol We never did get those vending machines.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1011786860107059201
> FREE EVERYTHING FOR EVERYONE!!~~
> 
> Reminds me of school elections from when I was a kid. :lol We never did get those vending machines.


A lot of that is so ridiculously over the top with idealism that I have to agree with you, school elections are a great comparison. As somebody in the energy industry I do support the "invest in renewable energy" though. As long as you don't completely fuck up the numbers (like the UK government did a few years back and spent a 25 year budget in 6 months :lol ) renewable energy is fantastic and is good for both the environment AND our finances. (though possibly not always the finances of people like my boss :lol) With how cheap the technology is this days it makes little to no sense NOT to have renewable energy for your home. We have a solar array, a MCHP boiler (generates small amounts of electricity from the steam when water is heated) and I'm in the process of pricing up a small wind turbine too now I've received the planning permission. The amount we're saving on electricity bills plus the increase in property value is fantastic tbh, one of the best investments I've had in recent years.


----------



## Draykorinee

RavishingRickRules said:


> A lot of that is so ridiculously over the top with idealism that I have to agree with you, school elections are a great comparison. As somebody in the energy industry I do support the "invest in renewable energy" though. As long as you don't completely fuck up the numbers (like the UK government did a few years back and spent a 25 year budget in 6 months :lol ) renewable energy is fantastic and is good for both the environment AND our finances. (though possibly not always the finances of people like my boss :lol) With how cheap the technology is this days it makes little to no sense NOT to have renewable energy for your home. We have a solar array, a MCHP boiler (generates small amounts of electricity from the steam when water is heated) and I'm in the process of pricing up a small wind turbine too now I've received the planning permission. The amount we're saving on electricity bills plus the increase in property value is fantastic tbh, one of the best investments I've had in recent years.


So over the top that its done in most European countries.

:dylan


----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> So over the top that its done in most European countries.
> 
> :dylan


Really though? You think most European countries have:

Free healthcare including dental, eye and mental health care? (we don't)
Everybody being paid a true living wage? (we don't)
Fully funded schooling and university from taxing big business? (we don't)
Paid family and sick leave for everybody? (we don't)
An end to the war on drugs? (come on now :lol ) 
Simplified paths to citizenship and no immigration control agencies? (we don't)
An end to corporate influence in elections? ( :lmao )
An economy of peace that values all humanity? ( :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao )

Seriously, whatever you're taking, send me some it must be bomb af.


----------



## Sincere

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1011786860107059201
> FREE EVERYTHING FOR EVERYONE!!~~
> 
> Reminds me of school elections from when I was a kid. :lol We never did get those vending machines.


Holy hell. :lmao

She may as well have just saved the ink and wrote "Fighting for: ALL THE BESTEST THINGS EVAR!!!"


----------



## CamillePunk

I look at that list and see a bunch of promises to try and force people who are much smarter and more competent than most government officials to do things they don't want to do. I wonder how that's gonna work out for everyone.


----------



## Draykorinee

RavishingRickRules said:


> Really though? You think most European countries have:
> 
> Free healthcare including dental, eye and mental health care? (we don't)
> Everybody being paid a true living wage? (we don't)
> Fully funded schooling and university from taxing big business? (we don't)
> Paid family and sick leave for everybody? (we don't)
> An end to the war on drugs? (come on now :lol )
> Simplified paths to citizenship and no immigration control agencies? (we don't)
> An end to corporate influence in elections? ( :lmao )
> An economy of peace that values all humanity? ( :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao )
> 
> Seriously, whatever you're taking, send me some it must be bomb af.


No we don't, medicare doesn't mean FREE though so we can scrub that off as hyerbole. The NHS does cover all of those things though.
Yes we do, its a legal requirement since 2016.
No WE don't, plenty of countries do.
Yes we do.
A lot of countries don't have a war on drugs and neither should anyone else.
We pretty much do.
Thats an idealistic goal that we SHOULD go for.
Again something we SHOULD aim for. 

This was an argument against it being over the top. You're claim that it is does not compute when a lot of European countries achieve a lot of those goals succesfully.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> No we don't, medicare doesn't mean FREE though so we can scrub that off as hyerbole. The NHS does cover all of those things though.
> Yes we do, its a legal requirement since 2016.
> No WE don't, plenty of countries do.
> Yes we do.
> A lot of countries don't have a war on drugs and neither should anyone else.
> We pretty much do.
> Thats an idealistic goal that we SHOULD go for.
> Again something we SHOULD aim for.
> 
> This was an argument against it being over the top. You're claim that it is does not compute when a lot of European countries achieve a lot of those goals succesfully.


Ok let's look at some of these nonsensical claims shall we?

You have to pay for NHS dentists out of pocket, as well as eye care. That's not from your regular income tax, that's straight out of your pocket unless you're on benefits. So that's one down.
We don't have a living wage, hence the massive increase in foodbanks for low-wage earners - if you need charity to make ends meat, regardless of what the government is telling you that is NOT a living wage.
Some countries do, not the majority of countries in Europe which was your original assertion. 
Portugal. That's pretty much it in terms of countries in Europe that don't have a war on drugs.
We really don't, you don't even get citizenship automatically if you marry a UK citizen. If you're from outside of the EU you also have to earn significantly higher than the typical working class wage or you have to leave. 3 of my former colleagues from India found that to be the case and moved back home with their British spouses for that reason. You have to jump through insane amounts of hoops to qualify for actual British citizenship as a non-EU member, and soon for those too. 
Something we should aim for, not something that is a reality in any European country.
See the last point.

So how exactly do most of the countries in Europe have these things? They don't, you're living in a fantasy land if you believe they do.


----------



## Draykorinee

RavishingRickRules said:


> Ok let's look at some of these nonsensical claims shall we?
> 
> You have to pay for NHS dentists out of pocket, as well as eye care. That's not from your regular income tax, that's straight out of your pocket unless you're on benefits. So that's one down.
> We don't have a living wage, hence the massive increase in foodbanks for low-wage earners - if you need charity to make ends meat, regardless of what the government is telling you that is NOT a living wage.
> Some countries do, not the majority of countries in Europe which was your original assertion.
> Portugal. That's pretty much it in terms of countries in Europe that don't have a war on drugs.
> We really don't, you don't even get citizenship automatically if you marry a UK citizen. If you're from outside of the EU you also have to earn significantly higher than the typical working class wage or you have to leave. 3 of my former colleagues from India found that to be the case and moved back home with their British spouses for that reason. You have to jump through insane amounts of hoops to qualify for actual British citizenship as a non-EU member, and soon for those too.
> Something we should aim for, not something that is a reality in any European country.
> See the last point.
> 
> So how exactly do most of the countries in Europe have these things? They don't, you're living in a fantasy land if you believe they do.


Oh dear oh dear. Go pay privately and tell me the NHS doesn't cover dentistry. Do we live in the same country?
I worked in an NHS eye hospital, it covers eye care. Lets be very clear that eye care does not mean free glasses, its looking after your eyes... So yes lets scrub that off as you not understanding how the NHS covers these costs. Just like Medicare the NHS will HELP cover costs in all of those things, it does not mean FREE so stop thinking thats what she means by medicare for all.

So regardless of it being a legal requirement to pay a living wage we don't have a living wage. :hmmm

Okay, some countries do and yet its still ridiculously over the top. :hmmm

These countries don't have war on drugs yet its still ridiculously over the top to assume others could. :hmmm

Something we should aim for but ridiculously over the top. :hmmm

Okay,i'll admit my original wording was wrong, some countries achieve at least most of these therefore to say its ridiculously over the top is at best hyperbolic and at worst just nonsense.

The only stance I would argue against is free tuition, I don't think University is a right.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> Oh dear oh dear. Go pay privately and tell me the NHS doesn't cover dentistry. Do we live in the same country?
> I worked in an NHS eye hospital, it covers eye care. Lets be very clear that eye care does not mean free glasses, its looking after your eyes... So yes lets scrub that off as you not understanding how the NHS covers these costs. Just like Medicare the NHS will HELP cover costs in all of those things, it does not mean FREE so stop thinking thats what she means by medicare for all.
> 
> So regardless of it being a legal requirement to pay a living wage we don't have a living wage. :hmmm
> 
> Okay, some countries do and yet its still ridiculously over the top. :hmmm
> 
> These countries don't have war on drugs yet its still ridiculously over the top to assume others could. :hmmm
> 
> Something we should aim for but ridiculously over the top. :hmmm
> 
> Okay,i'll admit my original wording was wrong, some countries achieve at least most of these therefore to say its ridiculously over the top is at best hyperbolic and at worst just nonsense.
> 
> The only stance I would argue against is free tuition, I don't think University is a right.


Tell you what, if it's so plausible let me know when one single country has everything on that list? That's not a difficult benchmark right? Considering you started at "most countries in Europe have these things" I'm sure one that has them all shouldn't be too hard, right? :lol

In fact, just because it's SUCH an idiotic stance to take, let me show you how retarded it is that you think it's been a legal requirement to provide a true living wage. 

The current "national living wage" (basically renaming the minimum wage) for adults over 25 is £7.83 an hour. Let's take the example of a single parent with one child shall we? Cool.

In a standard full-time working week of 37.5 hours (the benchmark by which you accrue your full holiday allowance) you earn £293.62 before deductions.
In a month you earn £1,272 of which your take home pay after tax (£57) and NI (£68) is £1,147.
Average 2 bedroom flat has a rent of £600, which in council tax band A works out at an additional £84.95 a month in council tax which leaves us with £462. 
Average gas for a 2 bedroom flat is £45 a month, electric £55 and water £35 a month. That leave us with £327.05.
Assuming people in that low-income bracket don't pay for house insurance, life insurance or anything like that and don't own a car. A weekly bus ticket is around £15, so that's a further £60 a month leaving us with £267.05.
TV license around £25 a month leaves us with. £242.05
So for one month you have to feed and clothe 2 people, pay for any phone bills and internet, any additional costs, school equipment etc for £242 and you think that's a living wage? Seriously though? 

Point is: They can call it what they want but anybody suggesting that is an adequate living wage in 2018 is flat out talking from their bumhole and you know it.


----------



## CamillePunk

I don't know what it means for an economy to value all of humanity.

Sounds like slave trading to me.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

@draykorinee also, private dental care isn't much different than NHS dental care these days in out of pocket costs. So there's another one you've either made up or are just completely misinformed on.

https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/dentists/article/private-and-nhs-dental-charges

How much can one person be dead wrong in one day?


----------



## Draykorinee

RavishingRickRules said:


> Tell you what, if it's so plausible let me know when one single country has everything on that list? That's not a difficult benchmark right? Considering you started at "most countries in Europe have these things" I'm sure one that has them all shouldn't be too hard, right? :lol


I don't think my or your argument was that as a whole it was plausible or not, I actually don't think it is, your initial comment was 'a lot of that is ridiculously over the top', well, they're not. Individually they're all easily attainable, are attained elsewhere and her mistake is putting a platform together that tries to sell all of this at once. It'll never happen and it'll never work. Its way too idealistic even for a scandanavian country let alone America.

I appreciate you took the time to argue against the living wage being a living wage, I wasn't interested in it functioning as it should, it still is a living wage, other countries have a living wage that functions better. The Tories can't put together a decent living wage is not surprising.

As to your second comment about dentistry, theres a huge difference in those costs in the upper bracket, and lets not fool ourselves, thats where practices go, its like Tuition fees, the cheapest is £5000 but the average is £9500, it would be entirely disingenous to claim that tuition fees are only £5000. But the argument was not about the difference, you argued the NHS didn't do it. They do. Yet I'm wrong? :hmmm

Either way, you're getting more hysterical with each post so I won't be replying to another comment from you on this matter, I prefer measured discussion.


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> Wtf CNN. :lol
> 
> Also, Stefan Molyneux made a video directed specifically to @BruiserKC


Upon watching the video, I know that you take great pleasure in thinking that I'm cute and all regarding my stance on Trump in the White House. However, people like you don't bother to pay attention to the BIG picture and what's coming down the road. 

Is Trump doing some good things, yes. However, there's a lot of gross incompetence that is still coming out of this White House and a ton of shit that has not been done or is anywhere close to getting done. Obamacare is still the law of the land and it sounds like no one has even bothered to mention that lately. The wall hasn't been built. Trump rolled over and signed spending bills that have increased our national debt. He has decided to personally attack private companies for their practices regarding hiring and where they build their products (NFL, Harley Davidson, and Amazon as prime examples). His tariffs run the risk of undoing the improvement of the economy, and we'll pay the price in increased costs for the goods we purchased. The tax cuts are permanent for businesses but not for individuals, so eventually taxes will be increased. He has gone the Obama route of pissing off our allies and giving our enemies a reach-around. 

On the personal front, I understand fighting back. Nothing wrong with throwing a punch when someone takes a swing. However, he pissed away a lot of political capital fighting battles that didn't mean a damn thing. Yes, Maxine Waters is a disgusting human being and it's amazing the clowns in California keep re-electing her shit show to go back to Congress. But, rather then take the high road in a case like this, he decides to go into the gutter as well and throw more mud. During the lead up to his inauguration, he had the chance to work with a lot of people who disagreed with him but was willing to help him. Instead, he decided to rub their nose in it and then act shocked when some of these people won't work with him. Yes, many on the left are acting like children, but he has no room to talk about civility with the way he has handled himself at times. 

With two SCOTUS picks so far in his administration, it can be a positive to get another justice that is willing to interpret the Constitution and not create new law or be judicial advocates. However, what the short-sighted folks like Molyneux aren't seeing is what all this could do down the road. The effects of a Presidency aren't seen immediately but are really seen after their administrations are over. What we saw during the Clinton, Dubya, and Obama administrations gave us Trump. There are a lot of folks right now who don't feel like they're winning. They are angry and they feel like their President doesn't speak for them. Trump has pretty much said "Fuck you" to anyone who isn't with him. People that vote 90% with Trump's agenda are seen as disloyal and traitors to him and the Constitution. In other sites, I have people that actually would send me to a re-education camp for criticizing the President at all. Guess what, it's called holding him accountable...something that you and others here refuse to do. Meanwhile, I at least appreciate he is honest in not just providing lip service for bringing the country together and just saying he will be for those that like him. 

Right now, things are going good for the economy, but if the tariffs and the debt eventually bring down the markets and slow things down he might be toast in a couple of years. We're still two years away from that election, and a lot can change in that time. Bush 41 is an example...March of 1991 he has 90% approval ratings. Less than two years later he is out of a job. With that being said, the moment that happens, the next President will be gung-ho to destroy everything that Trump did. We could very seriously be facing the permanent change of America for the bad, and it could have been avoided had Trump been a little bit more humble in doing his job. 

But, I know you'll ignore this because you have it already in your mind that nothing he does will ever be good enough. I want the President to succeed, but at this rate the price could be too high to pay. And if a generation from now America has become that socialist state because of the way he pushed things, it will be a moment we realized we made a horrible mistake. 

But, go ahead and keep thinking I'm being cute when I see what the long-term effects could be. I will be happy to admit I'm wrong once I see feasible results and results that stick for the long haul. Until then, I will continue to be a person that just shit in someone else's Corn Flakes.


----------



## DOPA

Let's be honest @draykorinee, the "living wage" that has been mandated by the Conservative government in the UK isn't really anywhere near what people think of when they are arguing for a living wage. It's really only a living wage in name only, not in practice.

That's all I'll add to the conversation. I'll let you and RRR continue .


----------



## Draykorinee

DOPA said:


> Let's be honest @draykorinee, the "living wage" that has been mandated by the Conservative government in the UK isn't really anywhere near what people think of when they are arguing for a living wage. It's really only a living wage in name only, not in practice.


To a point, but we do have the 'real living wage' which is voluntarily paid for by a number of business and its 90p an hour more so its not drastically off what they should be aiming for in that context, maybe £80 a month after tax. 

New Zealand has had a living wage scheme for 5 years, its not like its some wacky notion.



> That's all I'll add to the conversation. I'll let you and RRR continue .


Na, I'm done with that particular conversation, I don't think we'll get anywhere, my initial wording was wrong, I'll admit that, but theres nothing over the top about these polices individually.


----------



## Tater

Over the next 10-20 years, we're going to have to completely redefine what money is in relation to resources. Just to point out the obvious, for a capitalist economy to function, people have to have money to buy things. As automation and robotics exponentially render human labor obsolete, we'll eventually reach a point where capitalism will collapse. The entire concept of getting a job, earning money and paying your way through life will become unsustainable. Quite frankly, there just won't be enough jobs to go around anymore. With this technology, we'll have the capability to produce everything society needs to survive but there won't be enough jobs to go around for people to earn money to buy these things.

There's an old joke about factories of the future. There will be two employees. A man and a dog. The man is there to feed the dog and the dog is there to make sure the man doesn't touch anything.

We've already reached a stage of false scarcity. The two examples I often cite are in regards to food and houses. The USA throws away 40% of the food it produces and there are more empty houses than there are homeless people. Call me crazy but it's my opinion that if we have the capability to feed and house everyone in the country, hunger and homelessness should be things of the past.

Of course, the reason these problems still exist boils down to capitalism. The goal of capitalism is to create as much wealth as possible for the capitalists themselves. It's never been about creating a healthy society for the country you live in. Humanity needs to evolve beyond the greed for money and start functioning as a resource based economy. If we have the capability to feed, clothe and house every citizen in our country, that should be the goal. It would also bring balance to the economic system and end the regular economic collapses that capitalism produces. 

I'm not a communist and I am not arguing for equality of outcome. There is nothing wrong with some people having more than others. The major fucking problem I have is when a small handful of elite hoard extreme amounts of wealth while the majority of people suffer in poverty. As AI, automation and robotics advance, it's inevitable that the old way of doing things will become unsustainable. 

That day is coming a lot more soon that most people realize. Just for example, when the warehouses and trucking industry goes fully automated, it's going to decimate most states in the USA. IIRC, the trucking industry and everything that goes to support it is the number one economy in a majority of states. There's only so many people needed to create this technology and not everyone is smart enough to work in these industries. 

In the next 10-20 years, we're either going to have to figure out a different way to do things and if we don't, barbarism will be the alternative.


----------



## Vic Capri

Yahoo.com said:


> *The New York Times is under fire for 'homophobic' cartoon of Trump and Putin*


When catering to social justice warriors backfires. :lol

- Vic


----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> I don't think my or your argument was that as a whole it was plausible or not, I actually don't think it is, your initial comment was 'a lot of that is ridiculously over the top', well, they're not. Individually they're all easily attainable, are attained elsewhere and her mistake is putting a platform together that tries to sell all of this at once. It'll never happen and it'll never work. Its way too idealistic even for a scandanavian country let alone America.
> 
> I appreciate you took the time to argue against the living wage being a living wage, I wasn't interested in it functioning as it should, it still is a living wage, other countries have a living wage that functions better. The Tories can't put together a decent living wage is not surprising.
> 
> As to your second comment about dentistry, theres a huge difference in those costs in the upper bracket, and lets not fool ourselves, thats where practices go, its like Tuition fees, the cheapest is £5000 but the average is £9500, it would be entirely disingenous to claim that tuition fees are only £5000. But the argument was not about the difference, you argued the NHS didn't do it. They do. Yet I'm wrong? :hmmm
> 
> Either way, you're getting more hysterical with each post so I won't be replying to another comment from you on this matter, I prefer measured discussion.


:lmao Seriously, you need to learn the word "hysterical" you don't seem to understand it. All I did was show how ignorant you are about the way our country ACTUALLY works.


----------



## Draykorinee

RavishingRickRules said:


> :lmao Seriously, you need to learn the word "hysterical" you don't seem to understand it. All I did was show how ignorant you are about the way our country ACTUALLY works.


:rileyclap

A make believe win for yourself. Give yourself a clap.


----------



## Martins

So, our President met with Trump today. When asked by Trump whether Cristiano Ronaldo would ever run against him and if he had a shot, the Portuguese president answered "Portugal is not like America". Some people in your country didn't like that and plenty in mine did, but I fail to figure the reason why for the latter.

The meaning of the answer was obviously "we don't elect TV personalities and celebrities into office", yet our President spent most of his life as a political failure, a remnant from his origins of being godfathered by members of the old fascist regime prior to the Revolution. Fast forward to some twelve years ago, he gets a political and literary commentary show on a major news channel and becomes relevant and endearing to the public again. Now he's our very popular President, who gives out hugs and kisses to the general populace like candy to satisfy his own ego and is propped up by the vast majority of the media, who promptly joined his former TV station in delivering daily propaganda in his favour. He's pretty much the reverse Trump: insanely popular, but for really no good reason. A very mild form of populism where instead of riling up the working classes through hateful speech, he distributes affection in seemingly endless supplies.

So in this case, you would be right to take offence to that quote; the differences between our countries don't necessarily lay there at all.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Vic Capri said:


> When catering to social justice warriors backfires. :lol
> 
> - Vic


God it sounds so terrible from the description and the look of the animation (it's a cartoon) I couldn't bring myself to watch it.


----------



## CamillePunk

Martins said:


> So, our President met with Trump today. When asked by Trump whether Cristiano Ronaldo would ever run against him and if he had a shot, the Portuguese president answered "Portugal is not like America". Some people in your country didn't like that and plenty in mine did, but I fail to figure the reason why for the latter.
> 
> The meaning of the answer was obviously "we don't elect TV personalities and celebrities into office", yet our President spent most of his life as a political failure, a remnant from his origins of being godfathered by members of the old fascist regime prior to the Revolution. Fast forward to some twelve years ago, he gets a political and literary commentary show on a major news channel and becomes relevant and endearing to the public again. Now he's our very popular President, who gives out hugs and kisses to the general populace like candy to satisfy his own ego and is propped up by the vast majority of the media, who promptly joined his former TV station in delivering daily propaganda in his favour. He's pretty much the reverse Trump: insanely popular, but for really no good reason. A very mild form of populism where instead of riling up the working classes through hateful speech, he distributes affection in seemingly endless supplies.
> 
> So in this case, you would be right to take offence to that quote; the differences between our countries don't necessarily lay there at all.


Not sure why anyone would take offense. :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

Martins said:


> So, our President met with Trump today. When asked by Trump whether Cristiano Ronaldo would ever run against him and if he had a shot, the Portuguese president answered "Portugal is not like America". Some people in your country didn't like that and plenty in mine did, but I fail to figure the reason why for the latter.
> 
> The meaning of the answer was obviously "we don't elect TV personalities and celebrities into office", yet our President spent most of his life as a political failure, a remnant from his origins of being godfathered by members of the old fascist regime prior to the Revolution. Fast forward to some twelve years ago, he gets a political and literary commentary show on a major news channel and becomes relevant and endearing to the public again. Now he's our very popular President, who gives out hugs and kisses to the general populace like candy to satisfy his own ego and is propped up by the vast majority of the media, who promptly joined his former TV station in delivering daily propaganda in his favour. He's pretty much the reverse Trump: insanely popular, but for really no good reason. A very mild form of populism where instead of riling up the working classes through hateful speech, he distributes affection in seemingly endless supplies.
> 
> So in this case, you would be right to take offence to that quote; the differences between our countries don't necessarily lay there at all.


Anyone taking offence to that is an absolute baby and should never go on social media.


----------



## samizayn

The reaction to Ocasio Cortez's platform in here is hysterical tbh. So stupid and unrealistic that they're already standard practice in comparably developed places, but of course there's no way it can be done.


----------



## Draykorinee

samizayn said:


> The reaction to Ocasio Cortez's platform in here is hysterical tbh. So stupid and unrealistic that they're already standard practice in comparably developed places, but of course there's no way it can be done.


Imagine the craziness of wanting healthcare for all, or mandatory sick/maternity pay or green energy, or housing for people. She's a filthy socialist and no country would put these in place.

On a serious note it's not her socialist platform that makes me happy, because it's unrealistic in the current American climate, but that she ousted the establishment, you can argue against her platform for sure, but we should all be happy that she kicked the old guy out while spending $100k compared to his millions from corporate America.


----------



## Reaper

I'm moving left :aryep 

I'm not going to be anti-capitalist like I was. I like capitalism. I like the things it allows me to have. The interesting thing I've discovered is that it's not even _inequality _that bothers me, but the fact that there is this _assumption _against anyone who criticizes capitalism that you want to replace capitalism in order to achieve a more reasonable distribution of wealth. This idea was something that I was not considering when I was going on my pro-capitalist rantings. 

Yah, sure that'll make me seem inauthentic (maybe a part of me was but by and large I believed what I said- though I said it without considering a different route/ideology of getting there), but I have been doing a refresher of my leftist ideology and I think it's not as bad as I ended up making it in my head because I got caught up in the pro-Trump storm. 

I actually see a lot of similarities between Trump's primary promise and outline of the desperate American worker condition and the core Marxist theory of alienation ... He appeals to the disenchanted, down-trodden labor .. Ok, he appeals to the capitalist too .. but his primary concern is very marxist, and very socialist. He's just not actually smart enough to recognize the true potential of who he's appealing too. 

Now the solution is something I no longer have. But I think he had the working class. He did lead a people's revolution. All he needed to really do was stick to what initially sounded like an anti-establishment (read: anti-corporatist) agenda ... which is pretty much entirely abandoned. I don't think he's even talking about going after those who influence politics through money anymore (lobbyists) so we're back to the same old shit in a lot more ways than one. 

This suggests to me that the power structure is so strong and it's so anti-American that it will bring down the entire Federal Government of either side (left or right) to make sure that the "reptiles" who are really at the top do not lose ground on the power that they wield. 

Trump had a good opportunity. He doesn't have it anymore. He could have been the great uniter. He used the people, but didn't realize the true potential he had. I think this was America's one last big opportunity to bring it all together. 

What a waste. It just makes me lose faith in politics even more. 

Liberty is not what they give you, liberty is what you are born with. Serfdom is in appointing those who have the power to choose how they define liberty for you and then congratulate themselves into give you what was already yours.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

Reap said:


> Trump had a good opportunity. He doesn't have it anymore. He could have been the great uniter. He used the people, but didn't realize the true potential he had. I think this was America's one last big opportunity to bring it all together.


That was never going to happen. The Republican establishment was against him, so he appealed to a fringe voting base, and had to use extreme rhetoric to woo them. Even if his behaviour veers towards a more moderate line, the things he had to say to actually become President have irreversibly alienated many voters.
He can do great things, or he can do bad things, but the one thing he absolutely cannot do is unite the country - not after the campaign he ran. It is simply far too late for that, and was even before he won.


----------



## CamillePunk

Say you're moving left and then affirm a definition of liberty that the left vehemently disagrees with. :hmmm 

Good luck. :lol


----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> :rileyclap
> 
> A make believe win for yourself. Give yourself a clap.


So ironic coming from the person who continued to claim that there's a legal requirement for an actual living wage in the UK as opposed to just renaming an inadequate minimum wage that couldn't cover basic living costs for almost any household in the UK without substantial benefits (child tax credit, working tax credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit.) The very fact that almost all workers on "the living wage" also receive one or more of those benefits should show you how idiotic your opinion is.


----------



## CamillePunk

Which expenses is a "living wage" expected to cover? What is the bare living standard someone is expected to be able to have with a living wage? I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## Draykorinee

RavishingRickRules said:


> So ironic coming from the person who continued to claim that there's a legal requirement for an actual living wage in the UK as opposed to just renaming an inadequate minimum wage that couldn't cover basic living costs for almost any household in the UK without substantial benefits (child tax credit, working tax credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit.) The very fact that almost all workers on "the living wage" also receive one or more of those benefits should show you how idiotic your opinion is.


How is it ironic? I never claimed victory I admitted my mistakes. I think you're confused. 

But remember the nhs doesn't cover dentistry...

Let me make it clear like I did before, the Tories didn't implement a working living wage. My mistake.


----------



## Sincere

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012368162786955264
At this rate, it looks like the alleged blue wave may be more of a blue exodus before all is said and done.


----------



## Draykorinee

Sincere said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012368162786955264
> At this rate, it looks like the alleged blue wave may be more of a blue exodus before all is said and done.


 500,000 mentions , lol. Pathetic. Millions of Trump voters would not vote for him now. What's the point in these stupid metrics?


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> Millions of Trump voters would not vote for him now.


It's a good thing he's not up for election now then. :lol We'll see how people feel in a couple years when the Dems are pushing some socialist SJW nutter.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> It's a good thing he's not up for election now then. :lol We'll see how people feel in a couple years when the Dems are pushing some socialist SJW nutter.


For sure, but these kind of dumb movements are supposed to be signs of something happening, it's social media, it's a load of shite.


----------



## Stinger Fan

CamillePunk said:


> Which expenses is a "living wage" expected to cover? What is the bare living standard someone is expected to be able to have with a living wage? I'm genuinely curious.


I've heard people say it should cover everything, cost of housing, food , school and transportation . If you have kids, it should cover for that as well. What they don't think about is how far someones dollar stretches by state or city. $18 an hour in New York won't take you nearly as far as $18 would in Montana. The problem with people who want to increase minimum wages to "livable wages" is that they have no long term outlook at the consequences of doing that. The number of dollars per hour is meaningless because your bank account may look "nicer", but your buying power stays the same. Businesses have to offset the cost of increased wages, which is always put upon the consumer. So we go back to the same song and dance in a year or 2, where the same people who complained prior will complain about how they're not getting "livable wages" and they need more, completely clueless as to why it is


----------



## Sincere

draykorinee said:


> 500,000 mentions , lol. Pathetic. Millions of Trump voters would not vote for him now. What's the point in these stupid metrics?


I suspect the point of these particular metrics is to show the social media 'reach' of the topic in question. Just a shot in the dark.

500k over a 4 day period doesn't seem too insignificant to me, especially given the context. It's not like this is some unhinged celebrity losing their shit in an inane rant at the Oscars and having the national news media 'report' on it for three days straight, or something to that effect.

Millions of Trump voters would not vote for him now according to what, beyond the left's hopes and dreams, that is? I don't even know how you would reliably be able to quantify this, one way or another--at least not in the present. Trump's not in an election cycle for his office right now. That election cycle is still a ways off, and no one knows what the campaign field will look like, to mention nothing of other things like the economy, foreign policy, or whatever else. Then there's the whole intimidation factor that threw everyone off in 2016 which can't really be quantified either. And even if he does lose previous voters, that doesn't preclude the possibility that he could also gain new voters.


----------



## Reaper

CamillePunk said:


> Say you're moving left and then affirm a definition of liberty that the left vehemently disagrees with. :hmmm
> 
> Good luck. :lol


Stop confusing me fam. I'm working things out. 

Work in Progress!


----------



## CamillePunk

I'm just curious as to what living standard people are entitled to. I assume it varies by location given expenses aren't the same everywhere. Should every person have a house to themselves? Or an apartment? How many rooms? Or does everyone just need one room to themselves to live? Do you need a higher wage if you decide to have kids? Does that mean you just are entitled to more money for deciding to have kids? Does that mean employers have to pay people with kids more than people who don't have kids? How is that going to affect their hiring practices? Do we need another law to make sure they can't discriminate between people with kids (who they might be forced to pay a higher "living" wage) and people without kids?


----------



## Sincere

samizayn said:


> The reaction to Ocasio Cortez's platform in here is hysterical tbh. So stupid and unrealistic that they're already standard practice in comparably developed places, but of course there's no way it can be done.


Who said anything about it can't be done?

If that's what you've interpreted the opposition to be, you've made a critical mistake in your analysis, at least from what I understand about the general opposition to these kinds of policies and platform positions.

Just because a thing can be done does not mean it should be done. Also, the implied argument that 'because X nation(s) do Y, therefore Y is good, and nation Z should do Y' is piss-poor reasoning.


----------



## Draykorinee

Sincere said:


> Millions of Trump voters would not vote for him now according to what,


Polls mainly, but I don't put much stock in them, they're pointless metrics.


----------



## Draykorinee

Sincere said:


> Who said anything about it can't be done?
> 
> If that's what you've interpreted the opposition to be, you've made a critical mistake in your analysis, at least from what I understand about the general opposition to these kinds of policies and platform positions.
> 
> Just because a thing can be done does not mean it should be done. Also, the implied argument that 'because X nation(s) do Y, therefore Y is good, and nation Z should do Y' is piss-poor reasoning.


There was talk that about her policies being ridiculously over the top which would imply that they couldn't be done. But thats probably opening a can of worms.

Its not really an argument that they 'should' but its certainly an argument that they COULD. 

Her platform is only flawed by the fact she wants to attain everything at once, its an overly idealistic platform.


----------



## Sincere

draykorinee said:


> Polls mainly, but I don't put much stock in them, they're pointless metrics.


What polls? Then why'd you bring them up?



draykorinee said:


> There was talk that about her policies being ridiculously over the top which would imply that they couldn't be done. But thats probably opening a can of worms.


I don't see how 'ridiculously over the top' automatically or necessarily implies 'they can't be done.' 'Ridiculously over the top' is actually a fairly nebulous statement that could have a number of intentions, meanings, or connotations. 

As stated before, interpreting the opposition this way is a mistake. It's essentially a straw man--assigning meaning that wasn't necessarily indicated, and then arguing against that meaning that you've invented for the statement.



draykorinee said:


> Its not really an argument that they 'should' but its certainly an argument that they COULD.


Yet again, the opposition of those who tend to oppose these kinds of policies is not particularly concerned with whether or not they could theoretically happen, or be done. In other words, the practicality--'could' or 'could not'--as far as I'm aware isn't particularly relevant to the opposition or criticism. 

I suppose there might be some practicality arguments stemming from legality (especially constitutionality), but that's really another matter entirely.



draykorinee said:


> Her platform is only flawed by the fact she wants to attain everything at once, its an overly idealistic platform.


Many people don't find some of those items listed to be ideal at all. So to reduce the problems with her platform down to simply being 'too idealistic' is exceedingly generous. It may be _a_ criticism you can apply here, but it is far from the _only_ one, and it may not even be the most damning one.


----------



## Draykorinee

Sincere said:


> What polls? Then why'd you bring them up?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how 'ridiculously over the top' automatically or necessarily implies 'they can't be done.' 'Ridiculously over the top' is actually a fairly nebulous statement that could have a number of intentions, meanings, or connotations.
> 
> As stated before, interpreting the opposition this way is a mistake. It's essentially a straw man--assigning meaning that wasn't necessarily indicated, and then arguing against that meaning that you've invented for the statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet again, the opposition of those who tend to oppose these kinds of policies is not particularly concerned with whether or not they could theoretically happen, or be done. In other words, the practicality--'could' or 'could not'--as far as I'm aware isn't particularly relevant to the opposition or criticism.
> 
> I suppose there might be some practicality arguments stemming from legality (especially constitutionality), but that's really another matter entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> Many people don't find some of those items listed to be ideal at all. So to reduce the problems with her platform down to simply being 'too idealistic' is exceedingly generous. It may be _a_ criticism you can apply here, but it is far from the _only_ one, and it may not even be the most damning one.


Yeah, I don't disagree with a lot of what you say. I brought up polls because they're as useful as social media statistics.


----------



## Pratchett

Reap said:


> This suggests to me that the power structure is so strong and it's so anti-American that it will bring down the entire Federal Government of either side (left or right) to make sure that the "reptiles" who are really at the top do not lose ground on the power that they wield.
> 
> Trump had a good opportunity. He doesn't have it anymore. He could have been the great uniter. He used the people, but didn't realize the true potential he had. I think this was America's one last big opportunity to bring it all together.
> 
> What a waste. It just makes me lose faith in politics even more.
> 
> Liberty is not what they give you, liberty is what you are born with. Serfdom is in appointing those who have the power to choose how they define liberty for you and then congratulate themselves into give you what was already yours.


We are all slaves to the State.

You need to lose ALL faith in politics. Politics is used by the Oligarchs to control us - DIVIDE AND CONQUER - and it works to perfection every damn day. We are free as long as our minds are free.

We are slaves as long as we define ourselves by what party we vote for, what race we identify others as and whichever "ideology du jour" we are conditioned to cling to.

Slaves have *NO *liberty.


----------



## CamillePunk

I don't know man, I'm pretty glad we don't have a Democrat president right now given all the SCOTUS seats that have been or likely will be up for grabs. I don't want left-wing activist judges reinterpreting the constitution to push a state expansionist agenda, which is what we've seen with various issues over the last century or so. I want conservatives who are loyal to the constitution, which is a pretty good framework for having as limited a state as possible. As much as we've managed to fuck that up.

So yeah, apathy towards politics is a nonstarter for me. Just because you leave the Leviathan alone doesn't mean it's gonna leave you alone.


----------



## Miss Sally

samizayn said:


> The reaction to Ocasio Cortez's platform in here is hysterical tbh. So stupid and unrealistic that they're already standard practice in comparably developed places, but of course there's no way it can be done.


America isn't Europe and a lot of things Europe can do is made possible by not having to spend much on Defense. US needs to cut military spending by half and drop half the bases but if the US pulled out of NATO, it would then be interesting to see what then happens.

The best and most funniest thing about her victory is the fact she beat someone that nobody thought she would. Establishment Democrats are probably reeling right now and worried, it's a mess they created themselves though.


----------



## Reaper

Going left doesn't mean I'll ever support the Democratsssss.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reap said:


> Going left doesn't mean I'll ever support the Democratsssss.


I'd say centrist is the best place to be, even classical Liberals have some silly ideas. The problem with being Left/Right is both are easily corruptible by things like Social Justice or over the top Religious rights etc.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Haven't been in here in a good minute because of family issues, but DAT DERE SPACE FORCE was just too :ellen to pass up.

Fuck making anime real, let's apply that toward Gundams instead. :mark:



Reap said:


> Going left doesn't mean I'll ever support the Democrat*sssss*.












:tommy


----------



## Vic Capri

https://globalnews.ca/news/4305235/manager-fired-maga-hat/

Survey says


> One more...for the good guys!


- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012400769612447744
Not bad. :lol Rachel Maddow really thinks they can do something. Hilarious.


----------



## Draykorinee

I'm not sure what's least democratic, the house of lords or the Supreme Court. Fake democracy at its worst.



Vic Capri said:


> https://globalnews.ca/news/4305235/manager-fired-maga-hat/
> 
> Survey says
> 
> - Vic


I think it's a victory for common sense.


----------



## samizayn

Miss Sally said:


> America isn't Europe and a lot of things Europe can do is made possible by not having to spend much on Defense. US needs to cut military spending by half and drop half the bases but if the US pulled out of NATO, it would then be interesting to see what then happens.
> 
> The best and most funniest thing about her victory is the fact she beat someone that nobody thought she would. Establishment Democrats are probably reeling right now and worried, it's a mess they created themselves though.


Sure. It would be, apparently the US provide 3/4 (?) of the firepower for NATO, which is obviously disproportionate.

Absolutely, and they should be reeling. There was never a more thoroughly unimpressive "opposition" party.


Sincere said:


> I don't see how 'ridiculously over the top' automatically or necessarily implies 'they can't be done.' 'Ridiculously over the top' is actually a fairly nebulous statement that could have a number of intentions, meanings, or connotations.
> 
> As stated before, interpreting the opposition this way is a mistake. It's essentially a straw man--assigning meaning that wasn't necessarily indicated, and then arguing against that meaning that you've invented for the statement.


There's no straw man whatsoever. My aim was not to respond to "the opposition" broadly speaking. It was to address the commentary in this thread specifically, and point out that because the majority of the policies in her manifesto have been implemented elsewhere, it is disingenuous to dismiss them as too ridiculous to even countenance.


----------



## Reaper

This isn't me changing my mind on something but I've always questioned the idea of how possibly the president having the power to nominate judges for the Supreme Court can possibly maintain the core premise behind the idea of Separation of Powers. It's innately contradictory. 

No president should have that power.


----------



## virus21

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012400769612447744
> Not bad. :lol Rachel Maddow really thinks they can do something. Hilarious.


They just don't get it. Its over.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

virus21 said:


> They just don't get it. Its over.


You don't support Trump or the GOP or don't have a place in the US and that is not trolling that is the fucking truth. There is no place for anyone or anything in the US to exist that is not a part of that group.

His supporters are going to be able to see a lot of people they can't stand suffer


----------



## CamillePunk

The Hardcore Show said:


> You don't support Trump or the GOP or don't have a place in the US and that is not trolling that is the fucking truth. There is no place for anyone or anything in the US to exist that is not a part of that group.
> 
> His supporters are going to be able to see a lot of people they can't stand suffer


I'm sure the hysterical, irrational people on the right think the same way when the left is in power. Don't worry. This too shall pass.


----------



## Sincere

samizayn said:


> There's no straw man whatsoever. My aim was not to respond to "the opposition" broadly speaking. It was to address the commentary in this thread specifically, and point out that because the majority of the policies in her manifesto have been implemented elsewhere, it is disingenuous to dismiss them as too ridiculous to even countenance.


And my comment wasn't excluding the commentary in this thread. You're still applying your own meaning to someone elses words, and arguing against the meaning you invented for them. 

What's worse is that you're doubling down and refusing to even admit your original error. I suspect if you were really interested in a proper discussion you would have first asked for clarity from those you were criticizing before jumping to conclusions. Instead you just straw manned them in a rather self-righteous sort of way, no less. 

Disingenuous indeed.


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> https://globalnews.ca/news/4305235/manager-fired-maga-hat/
> 
> Survey says
> 
> - Vic


Wow you'll take any cheap meaningless victory anywhere you can.


----------



## Sincere

Reap said:


> This isn't me changing my mind on something but I've always questioned the idea of how possibly the president having the power to nominate judges for the Supreme Court can possibly maintain the core premise behind the idea of Separation of Powers. It's innately contradictory.
> 
> No president should have that power.


I suggest reading some of the Federalist papers on the topic. Number 76 would be a good place to start concerning SCOTUS nominations, appointments, and the reasoning behind the way such is structured. Though I believe the topic is also discussed in the next couple of publications as well, through to 78. 

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed76.asp


----------



## DesolationRow

The Democrats are presently confronting a long dark night of the soul, much as they did as a party fifty years ago in 1968. At that time it was insurgent and rebellious baby boomers spearheading the dramatic shift from a largely pro-Vietnam War, pro-U.S. interventionist foreign policy opposing the Soviet Union worldwide, to a significantly more "dovey" party, as the dropping out of the race by Lyndon Johnson and assassination of Robert F. Kennedy left many insurrectionist Democrats with a party that was steadfastly committed to the staid Hubert Humphrey. 

The Democrats are somehow finding ways to potentially blow what ought to be something of a slam dunk against a deeply controversial and divisive U.S. president and his ruling party in Congress. Democrats are probably still going to have a generally good night in early November but they are ostensibly putting together one strategy after another to mitigate against what should have been natural momentum in the mid-term elections. As signposted by Barack Obama's infamous "bitter clingers" remarks which were recorded and more bluntly and flamboyantly conveyed by Hillary Clinton's equally gleeful and hubristic "deplorables" speech, the demographic reality on which Democrats have correctly attached their long-term future hopes is nevertheless apparently all-too-tantalizing because the Democrats are jumping the proverbial gun with their rhetoric and at least some of their candidates. It's hardly surprising that 10-term incumbent Joe Crowley finally fell to 28-year-old Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez based on the demographic changes in New York's 14th District over the last ten years. Ocasio-Cortez was a bartender a mere year ago but she presented the correct demographic avatar as well as the politics of the future in the U.S. so long as the U.S.'s demographics continue their inexorable shift over the next quarter of a century. Crowley was such a foolishly arrogant figure that he, while nonchalantly outspending Ocasio-Cortez by a ten-to-one figure, having not been confronted by primary opposition since the summer of 2004, enjoyed the old, dying Democratic coalition's support, ringing about as it has for a century around labor unions, and Crowley, leader of the Queens Democratic Club, was so confident that Ocasio-Cortez posed no actual threat that he skipped a debate and sent a Latina politician in his stead to stand for him. Crowley, ever the opportunist, tried to catch up to the political stances of Ocasio-Cortez, and if hubris is followed by the goddess of retribution it was fitting that Crowley, who, in mimicking Ocasio-Cortez, opted to call ICE agents enforcing the borders of the U.S. and therefore providing the single most basic service of government in protecting the realm's sovereignty a "fascist" organization, perhaps akin to Ernst Rohm's Black Shirts. Crowley's groveling and pandering failed: his constituency had shifted and the party he once knew is not the same party in 2018 and it will not be this party in 2028, much less 2038. 

While the Maxine Waters wing of the Democratic Party is in many places ascendant, Democrats would be wise to be concerned about the short-term ramifications. Take the state of Georgia, for instance: the buffoonish Stacey Abrams would probably win the governorship of Georgia in a walk, say, twelve years from now in 2030 with Georgia's demographics tilting as they are in the Democrats' general favor. 2018, though, is simply too early. There are too many white middle class voters remaining in states such as Georgia, and unlike Virginia, where a mass swelling of foreign-born immigrants in northern Virginia, in the shadow of Washington, D.C., has forever changed the political landscape of Virginia entire, though Georgia's immigrant population is increasing by leaps and bounds, there is no single area that is so inundated so as to change the state's standing in the national electoral college, as of now.

It should also be noted that this is not merely a demographic matter, but also one of evolving political stances and inter-generational viewpoints. Bernie Sanders played a role that at times reminds one of Eduard Bernstein whose political career left an indelible legacy in Germany. Sanders's campaign convinced millions of young, new voters that college is a human right that needs to be paid for by government if necessary. Indeed, Ocasio-Cortez actually did better in areas of the district in which the Hispanic population was considerably lower than in other areas; much of her support came from young whites looking for their own district's Sanders or Kamala Harris. The fossilized heads of the Democrats, from Nancy Pelosi, to Steny Hoyer, to Joe Biden, to the recently fallen Crowley, are of the past.

The inter-party struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party, as evidenced in snide, sneering _New York Times_ articles that look at pockets of populations like blacks and other non-whites in Milwaukee who failed to do their duty and vote for Hillary Clinton in November of 2016--


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/992967440517750784
--is only just beginning, but it has already become the top political development of 2018 as the mid-terms approach.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

The Hardcore Show said:


> You don't support Trump or the GOP or don't have a place in the US and that is not trolling that is the fucking truth. There is no place for anyone or anything in the US to exist that is not a part of that group.
> 
> His supporters are going to be able to see a lot of people they can't stand suffer


----------



## skypod

This isn't a bait question or anything, but can I ask the people that are for small government and "the individual is responsible for their own outcome", does this really work with a place where people are not born equal? I love the idea of libertarian-ism, the issue that I have with it is that people aren't given the same start in life and are discriminated against from birth.


----------



## Sincere

skypod said:


> This isn't a bait question or anything, but can I ask the people that are for small government and "the individual is responsible for their own outcome", does this really work with a place where people are not born equal? I love the idea of libertarian-ism, the issue that I have with it is that people aren't given the same start in life and are discriminated against from birth.


No one has ever been born equal, anywhere, in the history of the world. There are various degrees of privilege, or inequality for everyone, everywhere. This has always been true and will always be true.

Yet, a philosophy of governance concerned specifically with limiting the State to an extent that has arguably never been seen before (at least not on this kind of scale), emerging from a foundational philosophy of individual liberty that holds the individual to be the ultimate minority, managed to create what would become the wealthiest, most influential, freest, and most powerful single nation in the history of the world.

Because in such an environment, it's not where or how you start, but the choices you make and the opportunities you seize that will necessarily determine how far and high you can go. This doesn't mean a particular goal will be equally easy, or equally difficult to reach for everyone. But it does mean that such a goal is conceivably reachable by everyone (within reason).

So, yes, I'd say it works pretty well based upon the feedback from observable reality. It may not be perfect, but it's been demonstrably better in every measurable way than every alternative we've seen thus far. 

You can also see how this general idea and philosophy can be applied in all kinds of ways through life too, not just governance of a nation. "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime." You'll notice the proverb doesn't say teach a man to complain, or envy, or wallow. It says, in essence, teach a man to take responsibility for [feeding] himself. Unfortunately, we've got a significant portion of the population teaching people the former, rather than the latter.


----------



## BruiserKC

skypod said:


> This isn't a bait question or anything, but can I ask the people that are for small government and "the individual is responsible for their own outcome", does this really work with a place where people are not born equal? I love the idea of libertarian-ism, the issue that I have with it is that people aren't given the same start in life and are discriminated against from birth.


No, not everyone is born equal and are in the same position. However, it's about equality of opportunity and not necessarily equality of outcomes. We all can find the opportunities to make our lives better. However, it is still up to the individual to take advantage of them to improve their lots in life.


----------



## Draykorinee

Every time I hear libertarianism I hear a widening financial divide between the rich and poor, with the rich continuing to say 'but you have the opportunity!' 

If libertarianism has the potential to work we'd have seen someone try it surely?

I'm not against a country giving it a go, I agree with a lot of the concepts, but I sure hope it's not the UK. 

When the state sold the national rail system it created one of the seemingly worst run and expensive systems in the world (may be hyperbole). When we sold our gas/electric services we got a broken convoluted system that is now mostly owned by foreign counties. Some free market guy tried to claim privatizing helped I've yet to see how.

When the French government and the Germans run your utility services ><

Market competition doesn't exist, monopolies took over and rack up debt while rewarding their shareholders. This is my experience of a 'free-ish market' can anyone tell me a positive story or convince me otherwise?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> When we sold our gas/electric services we got a broken convoluted system that is now mostly owned by foreign counties.


This isn't actually true, it's still majority British. British Gas/Centrica (English) has 15 mil customers and SSE has 9 million (Scottish.) The rest of the Big 6 together only come out at 22 mil so it's not quite owned by foreign countries just yet. I'd expect that to change post-Brexit though as the actually British companies are going to suffer majorly, we've been preparing for it for a while now tbh (I work for Centrica.) I agree with a lot of the rest of what you said though.


----------



## Draykorinee

RavishingRickRules said:


> This isn't actually true, it's still majority British. British Gas/Centrica (English) has 15 mil customers and SSE has 9 million (Scottish.) The rest of the Big 6 together only come out at 22 mil so it's not quite owned by foreign countries just yet. I'd expect that to change post-Brexit though as the actually British companies are going to suffer majorly, we've been preparing for it for a while now tbh (I work for Centrica.) I agree with a lot of the rest of what you said though.


Yeah, I wasn't 100% sure on numbers of customers, it's not going to get much better now if what we've been told is true and we've given Hinckley to the Chinese and French governments.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> Yeah, I wasn't 100% sure on numbers of customers, it's not going to get much better now if what we've been told is true and we've given Hinckley to the Chinese and French governments.


LOL, I wouldn't be too worried by the Hinckley "power station" tbh. General consensus is it'll be a miracle if they even finish building it. It's stupidly expensive and is going to cost ridiculous amounts in man hours to get it built in the first place, when juxtaposed with the rapidly cheaper renewable energy sources it won't actually do much of anything beyond take money from the taxpayer to top up their license fee for electricity because the Tories made a piss-poor deal in their desperation to get literally anybody to develop the site and make them look less foolish (relatively speaking, as in all things "energy" the Tories don't have a clue.)


----------



## Draykorinee

RavishingRickRules said:


> LOL, I wouldn't be too worried by the Hinckley "power station" tbh. General consensus is it'll be a miracle if they even finish building it. It's stupidly expensive and is going to cost ridiculous amounts in man hours to get it built in the first place, when juxtaposed with the rapidly cheaper renewable energy sources it won't actually do much of anything beyond take money from the taxpayer to top up their license fee for electricity because the Tories made a piss-poor deal in their desperation to get literally anybody to develop the site and make them look less foolish (relatively speaking, as in all things "energy" the Tories don't have a clue.)


Good to hear, although not about tax payers money being wasted.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> Good to hear, although not about tax payers money being wasted.


Nah that only happens IF (and that's a colossal if at this point tbh) it gets built. Essentially, if the rest of the country doesn't generated enough electricity (which it most likely would from renewable energy sources alone tbh) then the taxpayer has to pay the premium to EDF to cover the cost of using electricity over what the UK government is paying for. Regardless the whole thing is one of the worst deals ever made by a government with regards to energy, but on the flip side it's a chance it's just a huge money-pit for the French. :lol


----------



## Stephen90

Republicans are now afraid of Kathy Griffin, Madonna, Michelle Wolf and Snoop Dogg.


----------



## samizayn

Sincere said:


> And my comment wasn't excluding the commentary in this thread. You're still applying your own meaning to someone elses words, and arguing against the meaning you invented for them.
> 
> What's worse is that you're doubling down and refusing to even admit your original error. I suspect if you were really interested in a proper discussion you would have first asked for clarity from those you were criticizing before jumping to conclusions. Instead you just straw manned them in a rather self-righteous sort of way, no less.
> 
> Disingenuous indeed.


If you were at all interested in discussing those ideas you would have elaborated on the clearly unambiguous, correct interpretation you read instead of bleating at me with this da uhhhhh dats not wat dey seddd nonsense. Please @ someone else with this ridiculous indignation.


----------



## BRITLAND

draykorinee said:


> Every time I hear libertarianism I hear a widening financial divide between the rich and poor, with the rich continuing to say 'but you have the opportunity!'
> 
> If libertarianism has the potential to work we'd have seen someone try it surely?
> 
> I'm not against a country giving it a go, I agree with a lot of the concepts, but I sure hope it's not the UK.
> 
> When the state sold the national rail system it created one of the seemingly worst run and expensive systems in the world (may be hyperbole). When we sold our gas/electric services we got a broken convoluted system that is now mostly owned by foreign counties. Some free market guy tried to claim privatizing helped I've yet to see how.
> 
> When the French government and the Germans run your utility services ><
> 
> Market competition doesn't exist, monopolies took over and rack up debt while rewarding their shareholders. This is my experience of a 'free-ish market' can anyone tell me a positive story or convince me otherwise?


The privatisation of the railways has to be one of the biggest disasters ever done by a government. Even Margaret Thatcher said rail privatisation was a step too far!


----------



## yeahbaby!

Stephen90 said:


> Republicans are now afraid of Kathy Griffin, Madonna, Michelle Wolf and Snoop Dogg.


To be fair I think the Kathy fear is probably warranted but I'd be happy to have a drink with the others.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1013633361439412224


----------



## CamillePunk

Dilbert comic from 1990. :banderas


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak

Anybody see Ben Shapiro on Bill Maher?






So there's still a significant portion of the left that thinks Trump is in cahoots with Russia? Really? Is that really the hill you want to die on?

I mean.... This coming from Bill Maher the same guy who said he'd be happy if the US went into another recession if it meant Trump out of the white house. So who know's if he actually believes it or not.


----------



## CamillePunk

I'm a fan of Ben's, watch his show nearly every day. Disappointed by his showing on Maher. He let a crazy person who was largely spouting nonsense get the better of him. Pretty sad.


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak

While I didn't think Ben had a good showing.... Maher looked mostly like a deer in headlights during this. Sure the in house audience would clap like seals. But he didn't really have any good arguments. I really wish people could think about their responses sometimes.

Like when Ben asked him if he could decide whether Trump was a doofus or if he was an evil genius. And Maher said well Hitler was crazy and crafty. Yeah that's not what Ben asked you, and Hitler was many things. But I don't think an idiot was one of them.


----------



## Stephen90

yeahbaby! said:


> To be fair I think the Kathy fear is probably warranted but I'd be happy to have a drink with the others.


Her stand up is pretty horrifying.


----------



## MrMister

CamillePunk said:


> I'm a fan of Ben's, watch his show nearly every day. Disappointed by his showing on Maher. He let a crazy person who was largely spouting nonsense get the better of him. Pretty sad.


I think Ben wants back on the show. He might want to sit at the big table. This would be good exposure for him. So he plays nice with Bill to get future opportunities.


----------



## skypod

I'm confused by Ben's we should deal with facts and logic and not emotion. But is against abortion. That sounds like an emotional choice. 

And if he's so intent on cold hard logic, why don't we purge disabled children at birth we think are going to be a drain on society? Why don't we abandon family members that get cancer? If you're going to say nothing should be based on emotion then you should go 100%. At least then I'd think you were a shitty person but would have some respect that you'll stand for your supposed principals.


----------



## Reaper

Ron Paul falling victim to the "Cultural Marxism" bait this morning: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1013812979790499842
He retracted it pretty much immediately and posted a new tweet without the racist image. But you have got to be fucking kidding me?

Even IF he believes the cultural marxism propaganda and has bought into it, there are still better ways to communicate this. These people have all gone off the deep end.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/395176-ron-paul-tweets-racist-cartoon-faces-backlash

I'd say it's unbelievable, but these asswipes are themselves to blame for being called fascists by the far left.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> Ron Paul falling victim to the "Cultural Marxism" bait this morning:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1013812979790499842
> He retracted it pretty much immediately. But you have got to be fucking kidding me?
> 
> Even IF he believes the cultural marxism propaganda and has bought into it, there are still better ways to communicate this.


Isn't it the right-wing equivalent of the left calling everybody a Nazi to call everybody who isn't so far right a "Marxist?" Generally almost none of the people using it seem to have much of a grasp on what a Marxist actually is in my experience.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Isn't it the right-wing equivalent of the left calling everybody a Nazi to call everybody who isn't so far right a "Marxist?" Generally almost none of the people using it seem to have much of a grasp on what a Marxist actually is in my experience.


Yes it is. 

I went back over the last few weeks and did a complete refresher of Marxist theory and can safely say that you are absolutely correct.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> I went back over the last few weeks and did a complete refresher of Marxist theory and can safely say that you are absolutely correct.


The thing I find funniest? When people on the right keep talking about how the elites keep alienating the common man and that if it continues, a revolution of the lower and middle classes could occur - sounds very much like the theories of a certain German philosopher, no? :lol


----------



## Sincere

skypod said:


> I'm confused by Ben's we should deal with facts and logic and not emotion. But is against abortion. That sounds like an emotional choice.
> 
> And if he's so intent on cold hard logic, why don't we purge disabled children at birth we think are going to be a drain on society? Why don't we abandon family members that get cancer? If you're going to say nothing should be based on emotion then you should go 100%. At least then I'd think you were a shitty person but would have some respect that you'll stand for your supposed principals.


I believe he considers abortion to be murder.

We don't purge children at birth because that would be murder.

Being against murder isn't strictly an emotional position. That you may have an emotional response to something doesn't necessarily mean that is the basis of your position on it. 

I'm not aware of any law that criminalizes abandoning family members that have cancer.

I think his point is that emotion should not be replacing reason as the basis of monopolistic laws that govern hundreds of millions of people, especially since feelings are entirely subjective. That doesn't seem to be an unreasonable position.

The word you're looking for is principles. Principal is something else entirely.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> The thing I find funniest? When people on the right keep talking about how the elites keep alienating the common man and that if it continues, a revolution of the lower and middle classes could occur - sounds very much like the theories of a certain German philosopher, no? :lol


Can we also claim that "Americans should own their own means of production" sounds oddly familiar too :mj


----------



## skypod

Sincere said:


> I believe he considers abortion to be murder.
> 
> We don't purge children at birth because that would be murder.
> 
> Being against murder isn't strictly an emotional position. That you may have an emotional response to something doesn't necessarily mean that is the basis of your position on it.
> 
> I'm not aware of any law that criminalizes abandoning family members that have cancer.
> 
> I think his point is that emotion should not be replacing reason as the basis of monopolistic laws that govern hundreds of millions of people, especially since feelings are entirely subjective. That doesn't seem to be an unreasonable position.
> 
> The word you're looking for is principles. Principal is something else entirely.



Abortion currently isn't against the law is a lot of places though. 

If I look at how he would refuse to use a pronoun for a trans female to man, even if they are for all intents and purposes living life as a man, he says he's based that on the science of this person still being a woman. The emotion of people to "placate" to trans people is silly in his opinion and he thinks logic should determine how we deal with that.

If abortion is currently legal, why does his emotion on the subject matter? And even if we lived in some dystopian society in the future where weaklings are killed off at birth, he theoretically shouldn't have a problem with that because emotions are for retarded libtard cucks or whatever. It's all about building a strong workforce and making money

I'm just saying he should go into everything with facts and logic and not bother with human decency, because he's not very good at the latter, especially when he selectively chooses when to use it.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> Can we also claim that "Americans should own their own means of production" sounds oddly familiar too :mj


We certainly can, that's on point. I get the feeling most people using it as an insult/argument think Marxism = Communism, when Marxist theories have permeated so many different areas and politics at this point that one "Marxist" could be entirely different politically than another. Even Socialism and Communism are widely different things in truth. I think this is the problem I have with the particular conservatives who are "anti-progressive" in general. Without progressives, most of what's considered "Conservative" today wouldn't even exist, we wouldn't be able to vote either way and things would be a lot worse than they are. Without progress, nothing gets better.


----------



## Sincere

skypod said:


> Abortion currently isn't against the law is a lot of places though.


I don't see how or why that would be relevant to what Ben's position on abortion is.



skypod said:


> If I look at how he would refuse to use a pronoun for a trans female to man, even if they are for all intents and purposes living life as a man, he says he's based that on the science of this person still being a woman. The emotion of people to "placate" to trans people is silly in his opinion and he thinks logic should determine how we deal with that.
> 
> If abortion is currently legal, why does his emotion on the subject matter? And even if we lived in some dystopian society in the future where weaklings are killed off at birth, he theoretically shouldn't have a problem with that because emotions are for retarded libtard cucks or whatever. It's all about building a strong workforce and making money


I'm not sure what your argument here is. Are you saying that being against murder is an entirely emotional position with no basis in reason?


----------



## CamillePunk

skypod said:


> I'm confused by Ben's we should deal with facts and logic and not emotion. But is against abortion. That sounds like an emotional choice.
> 
> And if he's so intent on cold hard logic, why don't we purge disabled children at birth we think are going to be a drain on society? Why don't we abandon family members that get cancer? If you're going to say nothing should be based on emotion then you should go 100%. At least then I'd think you were a shitty person but would have some respect that you'll stand for your supposed principals.


Have you heard of morality, by chance?


----------



## skypod

Sincere said:


> I don't see how or why that would be relevant to what Ben's position on abortion is.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your argument here is. Are you saying that being against murder is an entirely emotional position with no basis in reason?



I'd say it was emotion that dictates it, unless someone is coming at it from a standpoint of "murder won't benefit me so I don't support it". 


My point is Ben looks at the trans debate (and many others) from a purely soul-less robotic logical way, so I'm saying he might as well do that with everything, including abortion. Stop letting "emotions" such as his feeling on babies being pulled away from potential life in the womb getting in the way because emotion is for pussies according to speakers on the Right.

He'd have a point if he was against abortion purely because he doesn't want to pay for women's healthcare in that way. That'd be consistent with his personality. But he's against it regardless.





CamillePunk said:


> Have you heard of morality, by chance?


Human beings have morality yes. Is it not moral to call someone by the pronouns they're living their life by or is that when we switch back to robotic logic and forget about morality/emotion? I'm not sure how Shapiro's position on that could be spun as being a moral one?


----------



## CamillePunk

skypod said:


> Human beings have morality yes. Is it not moral to call someone by the pronouns they're living their life by or is that when we switch back to robotic logic and forget about morality/emotion? I'm not sure how Shapiro's position on that could be spun as being a moral one?


What I'm saying is if abortion is immoral according to the system of values Ben Shapiro subscribes to (Judaism), then opposing it isn't an emotional act.

Using people's preferred pronouns isn't a part of Judaism as far as I know.


----------



## Sincere

skypod said:


> I'd say it was emotion that dictates it, unless someone is coming at it from a standpoint of "murder won't benefit me so I don't support it".


So, because _you_ can't imagine or don't know of a reasoned basis for being against murder, no one else could possibly have such a basis, and must therefore be against murder on a purely emotional level, only?


----------



## skypod

Sincere said:


> So, because _you_ can't imagine or don't know of a reasoned basis for being against murder, no one else could possibly have such a basis, and must therefore be against murder on a purely emotional level, only?



The reason we don't murder (other than it not benefitting us as we'd go to jail) is that it would make us sad, upset us, depress us, we feel that it would be wrong etc. These are all emotions. A reasoned basis is most likely going to come from emotion, and if it's not then it's purely a logical choice (I.E. going to jail for murder is not logical). 

I'm not the one who thinks emotion is the enemy like the Right does, i'm just trying to figure it out if you throw it out 100% of the time or just when it suits you, such as religious people selectively pointing out their text.


----------



## Stephen90

Stupid_Smark said:


> While I didn't think Ben had a good showing.... Maher looked mostly like a deer in headlights during this. Sure the in house audience would clap like seals. But he didn't really have any good arguments. I really wish people could think about their responses sometimes.
> 
> Like when Ben asked him if he could decide whether Trump was a doofus or if he was an evil genius. And Maher said well Hitler was crazy and crafty. Yeah that's not what Ben asked you, and Hitler was many things. But I don't think an idiot was one of them.


Ben only looks good against weak minded SJW'S. The fact that couldn't win against an old out of touch guy in his 60's kind of shows that he's not as bright as conservatives think he is.


----------



## Tater

Stupid_Smark said:


> Anybody see Ben Shapiro on Bill Maher?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there's still a significant portion of the left that thinks Trump is in cahoots with Russia? Really? Is that really the hill you want to die on?
> 
> I mean.... This coming from Bill Maher the same guy who said he'd be happy if the US went into another recession if it meant Trump out of the white house. So who know's if he actually believes it or not.


A: Maher is nothing even remotely resembling the left.

B: No, there's not a significant portion of the left that thinks Trump is in cahoots with Russia because you'd have to be a fucking retard to believe that.

C: Bill Maher is a fucking retard.



Reap said:


> Ron Paul falling victim to the "Cultural Marxism" bait this morning:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1013812979790499842
> He retracted it pretty much immediately and posted a new tweet without the racist image. But you have got to be fucking kidding me?
> 
> Even IF he believes the cultural marxism propaganda and has bought into it, there are still better ways to communicate this. These people have all gone off the deep end.
> 
> http://thehill.com/homenews/house/395176-ron-paul-tweets-racist-cartoon-faces-backlash
> 
> I'd say it's unbelievable, but these asswipes are themselves to blame for being called fascists by the far left.


I'm a big fan of Ron Paul because of how strongly he opposes the neocons in DC but he can say some pretty stupid shit at times on other topics. Shit like this is why many people call him racist. The whole "cultural marxism" thing is an oxymoron to begin with. I don't think he's a racist. I just think he doesn't know how to use the correct words to describe his feelings on the matter. That and he has no understanding whatsoever of marxism.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Is "Cultural Marxism" when the creative proletariat rises up against the dominant bourgeoisie who run the music, art, tv/film, theatre and literature industries and takes the means of our own production back? If so I'm all for that as a musician who's made more money for other people than I've ever made for myself. I kinda think that's just the internet though, not really something particularly threatening to the fabric of society... :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

Ron Paul ain't writing his own tweets. :lol 

Meanwhile Eric Trump risked his safety to help a random woman in New York who passed out on the street. 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...w-york-help-woman_us_5b3af62de4b05127ccebaadc



> Eric Trump, one of President Donald Trump’s sons, reportedly ran into traffic in New York last week to flag down an ambulance to help an ailing woman.
> 
> The Washington Examiner said Eric Trump and his security detail stopped to help the woman, who was passed out near the 57th Street subway station.
> 
> That’s about a block from Trump Tower, where he and older brother, Donald Trump Jr., run the Trump Organization.
> 
> Trump then ran into the street, almost getting hit by a bicycle, to flag down the ambulance, a witness told the newspaper.
> 
> “We just happened to be in the right place at the right time,” Trump told the Examiner. “I’m especially grateful to the EMTs who took over. It was certainly my first time hailing an ambulance in New York City.”


Those Trump kids were raised right.  Reminds me of that story of Donald Trump (aka the current US president) having his limo pull over so he could stop a mugging. :lol What a terrific family.


----------



## Miss Sally

In Ben's defense I've seen him destroy College Professors, TV hosts etc. I think he was holding back because he wants that TV time and he won't get it if he fights with Maher too much.

Ben's a little too conservative for my liking, I do like he's pro free speech and he's not big on identity politics etc but his stances on abortion etc are way too absurd. 

I think if he's going to be taken seriously he cannot hold back, he's not going to win any points with Maher's audience, they boo Maher when he's not over the top with his silliness.


----------



## Vic Capri

Bill Maher talking over guests that disagree with him is what he does best.

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

Of course Cultural Marxism is a thing, it is an application of a certain method of Marxist socioeconomic theory to the sociocultural. 

Marxists just get mad when their religion gets called to account for being shit that stains everything eventually.


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> Is "Cultural Marxism" when the creative proletariat rises up against the dominant bourgeoisie who run the music, art, tv/film, theatre and literature industries and takes the means of our own production back? If so I'm all for that as a musician who's made more money for other people than I've ever made for myself. I kinda think that's just the internet though, not really something particularly threatening to the fabric of society... :lol


I may be wrong but I think when Ron Paul talks about cultural marxism, he means an authoritarian approach to combining all different cultures. Marxism itself is a critique of capitalism and doesn't really have anything to do with culture. In that sense, I agree with Ron. If different cultures are going to co-mingle together, it should happen naturally and not forcefully.

Or, I could be completely misreading the situation. :shrug



Miss Sally said:


> In Ben's defense I've seen him destroy College Professors, TV hosts etc. I think he was holding back because he wants that TV time and he won't get it if he fights with Maher too much.
> 
> Ben's a little too conservative for my liking, I do like he's pro free speech and he's not big on identity politics etc but his stances on abortion etc are way too absurd.
> 
> I think if he's going to be taken seriously he cannot hold back, he's not going to win any points with Maher's audience, they boo Maher when he's not over the top with his silliness.


Maher, like Maddow and many other liberal, has had their brains melted by Trump. One of the things Ron Placone says on the TJDS is that even though he hates Trump, he's not going to let Trump take away his critical thinking skills like he has done to so many others.

Also, here's a little vid for you about Shapirotard:






Speaking of Kyle...

He's one of my favorite shows but one of the things he does that constanstly pisses me off is saying Dems are attacking Trump from the right when they say he isn't hawkish enough. Jimmy Dore does this too and it annoys the fuck out of me every single time. Using violence to achieve your goals vs using peace to achieve your goals, *IS NOT*, left v right. It's authoritarian v libertarian.






Someone please go explain to Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams that they are leftists for opposing the neocons running DC.

Kyle is supposedly a political science major, so he should understand this concept. Just to put it in layman's terms, left v right is the people v the power and libertarian v authoritarian is the peace v the violence. He makes an accurate breakdown of left v right when it comes to social democracy v democratic socialist but fails hard when it comes to issues of libertarian v authoritarian.

I might not agree with right wing libertarians on economic issues but I am 100% their ally when it comes to opposing neocons, war and the military industrial complex.

And for the last fucking time, guys sucking dick and people worshiping religion ain't got a goddamned thing to do with the political spectrum. Dick sucking fascists are still authoritarian right and gay bashing communists are still authoritarian left.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> I may be wrong but I think when Ron Paul talks about cultural marxism, he means an authoritarian approach to combining all different cultures. Marxism itself is a critique of capitalism and doesn't really have anything to do with culture. In that sense, I agree with Ron. If different cultures are going to co-mingle together, it should happen naturally and not forcefully.
> 
> Or, I could be completely misreading the situation. :shrug
> 
> 
> 
> Maher, like Maddow and many other liberal, has had their brains melted by Trump. One of the things Ron Placone says on the TJDS is that even though he hates Trump, he's not going to let Trump take away his critical thinking skills like he has done to so many others.
> 
> Also, here's a little vid for you about Shapirotard:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of Kyle...
> 
> He's one of my favorite shows but one of the things he does that constanstly pisses me off is saying Dems are attacking Trump from the right when they say he isn't hawkish enough. Jimmy Dore does this too and it annoys the fuck out of me every single time. Using violence to achieve your goals vs using peace to achieve your goals, *IS NOT*, left v right. It's authoritarian v libertarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone please go explain to Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams that they are leftists for opposing the neocons running DC.
> 
> Kyle is supposedly a political science major, so he should understand this concept. Just to put it in layman's terms, left v right is the people v the power and libertarian v authoritarian is the peace v the violence. He makes an accurate breakdown of left v right when it comes to social democracy v democratic socialist but fails hard when it comes to issues of libertarian v authoritarian.
> 
> I might not agree with right wing libertarians on economic issues but I am 100% their ally when it comes to opposing neocons, war and the military industrial complex.
> 
> And for the last fucking time, guys sucking dick and people worshiping religion ain't got a goddamned thing to do with the political spectrum. Dick sucking fascists are still authoritarian right and gay bashing communists are still authoritarian left.


I watch Kyle once in a while and I agree with him half the time but he falls into that "Left" thinking a lot and goes along with some of the Democrat silliness. I think that's because Politics are so skewed that if he doesn't, he'll be labeled as something I suppose.

His notion of Justice Democrats isn't completely bad but it's already showing signs of corruption from corporate means and by some toxic ideologies.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Ron Paul ain't writing his own tweets. :lol
> 
> Meanwhile Eric Trump risked his safety to help a random woman in New York who passed out on the street.
> 
> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...w-york-help-woman_us_5b3af62de4b05127ccebaadc
> 
> Those Trump kids were raised right.  Reminds me of that story of Donald Trump (aka the current US president) having his limo pull over so he could stop a mugging. :lol What a terrific family.


Kudos to Trump Jr, what a great guy - 'risking his safety' like that.

As for Trump's story, I'm assuming he Master-Persuaded the muggers out of the act?


----------



## Draykorinee

Tater said:


> I may be wrong but I think when Ron Paul talks about cultural marxism, he means an authoritarian approach to combining all different cultures. Marxism itself is a critique of capitalism and doesn't really have anything to do with culture. In that sense, I agree with Ron. If different cultures are going to co-mingle together, it should happen naturally and not forcefully.
> 
> Or, I could be completely misreading the situation. :shrug
> 
> 
> 
> Maher, like Maddow and many other liberal, has had their brains melted by Trump. One of the things Ron Placone says on the TJDS is that even though he hates Trump, he's not going to let Trump take away his critical thinking skills like he has done to so many others.
> 
> Also, here's a little vid for you about Shapirotard:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of Kyle...
> 
> He's one of my favorite shows but one of the things he does that constanstly pisses me off is saying Dems are attacking Trump from the right when they say he isn't hawkish enough. Jimmy Dore does this too and it annoys the fuck out of me every single time. Using violence to achieve your goals vs using peace to achieve your goals, *IS NOT*, left v right. It's authoritarian v libertarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone please go explain to Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams that they are leftists for opposing the neocons running DC.
> 
> Kyle is supposedly a political science major, so he should understand this concept. Just to put it in layman's terms, left v right is the people v the power and libertarian v authoritarian is the peace v the violence. He makes an accurate breakdown of left v right when it comes to social democracy v democratic socialist but fails hard when it comes to issues of libertarian v authoritarian.
> 
> I might not agree with right wing libertarians on economic issues but I am 100% their ally when it comes to opposing neocons, war and the military industrial complex.
> 
> And for the last fucking time, guys sucking dick and people worshiping religion ain't got a goddamned thing to do with the political spectrum. Dick sucking fascists are still authoritarian right and gay bashing communists are still authoritarian left.


Yup, really enjoyed his destruction of Shapiro, the guy reminds me of William Lane Craig, he's praised as this intellectual because of how he sounds and he can spin a great debate but he's also full of shit a lot of the time. Kyle has really been on the offensive this week since Cortez, his rant at Alex Jones was comical but he shouldn't have given the guy the airtime.


----------



## CamillePunk

https://www.socialmatter.net/2018/0...apology-rolling-stone-journalist-amanda-robb/

:sodone

This is the funniest shit I've read in my entire life.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> https://www.socialmatter.net/2018/0...apology-rolling-stone-journalist-amanda-robb/
> 
> :sodone
> 
> This is the funniest shit I've read in my entire life.


Really? Dude came across like a bit of an ass hat to me if I'm honest.


----------



## CamillePunk

Just a bit of one? :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> https://www.socialmatter.net/2018/0...apology-rolling-stone-journalist-amanda-robb/
> 
> :sodone
> 
> This is the funniest shit I've read in my entire life.





RavishingRickRules said:


> Really? Dude came across like a bit of an ass hat to me if I'm honest.


People are fucking weird.


----------



## CamillePunk

The context is that she's a leftist "journalist" who's trying to write a hit piece on right-wing comic book fans. "Journalists" do all this fake nice shit all the time when they're just setting you up to distort your views and push their agenda. She had it coming and it's hilarious how far this went on without her wising up in any way. :lol It's a feel-good story to be sure.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> The context is that she's a leftist "journalist" who's trying to write a hit piece on right-wing comic book fans. "Journalists" do all this fake nice shit all the time when they're just setting you up to distort your views and push their agenda. She had it coming and it's hilarious how far this went on without her wising up in any way. :lol It's a feel-good story to be sure.


I understand Rolling Stone is a cesspit and neither it nor its employees have any redeeming value whatsoever but I feel a bit uncomfortable with jerking someone around like this even if they are scum which Rolling Stone employees are.


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> I understand Rolling Stone is a cesspit and neither it nor its employees have any redeeming value whatsoever but I feel a bit uncomfortable with jerking someone around like this even if they are scum which Rolling Stone employees are.


If he was at all subtle about it I would agree with you.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> The context is that she's a leftist "journalist" who's trying to write a hit piece on right-wing comic book fans. "Journalists" do all this fake nice shit all the time when they're just setting you up to distort your views and push their agenda. She had it coming and it's hilarious how far this went on without her wising up in any way. :lol It's a feel-good story to be sure.


If you say so, seemed more like an "I'm bragging about being a cock without realising I just look like a massive bell end" story to me tbh.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1014187010473512961
Just in case anyone is still retarded enough to believe that tax plan was in the best interests of the working class.


----------



## CamillePunk

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...was_made_by_letting_him_become_president.html

Bill Maher seriously thinks Trump wouldn't leave office if he lost the 2020 election, or even after serving 2 terms. :lol Completely unhinged.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...was_made_by_letting_him_become_president.html
> 
> Bill Maher seriously thinks Trump wouldn't leave office if he lost the 2020 election, or even after serving 2 terms. :lol Completely unhinged.


By then he should have a few Chapters of Space Marines right? A President has to leave after two terms, an Emperor does not!

:gameon


----------



## Reaper

CamillePunk said:


> Ron Paul ain't writing his own tweets. :lol


Yah ... He's not a ray cisss ... he just hires them :mj


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...was_made_by_letting_him_become_president.html
> 
> Bill Maher seriously thinks Trump wouldn't leave office if he lost the 2020 election, or even after serving 2 terms. :lol Completely unhinged.


I used to be a fan but he's been a joke for a while.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...was_made_by_letting_him_become_president.html
> 
> Bill Maher seriously thinks Trump wouldn't leave office if he lost the 2020 election, or even after serving 2 terms. :lol Completely unhinged.


Maher, Maddow, Olbermann... just to name a few, have completely had their brains melted by Trump being in office. They've lost all capability of critical thinking skills.


----------



## Tater

RIP Ed Schultz.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1014317920799911936
Sounds about right.


----------



## Stephen90

draykorinee said:


> I used to be a fan but he's been a joke for a while.


I liked him when I was a teenager but started to see through him as I got older. He just embarrasses himself week after week with dumbass statements.


----------



## Zatiel

Peace out, Scott Pruitt.


----------



## Tater

Zatiel said:


> Peace out, Scott Pruitt.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1014977471437914112


----------



## yeahbaby!

Another one bites the dust, damn this place has more turnover than a high pressure life insurance call centre.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Trey Gowdy just named dropped Rc Flair as part of the Four Horseman on Hannity and now I suddenly like him more. :trips8


----------



## Sincere

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1014317920799911936
> Sounds about right.


Just democrat things. Meanwhile...



> During fiscal year (FY) 2017, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) arrested more than 127,000 aliens with criminal convictions or charges.
> 
> Criminal aliens arrested by ICE ERO in FY 2017 were responsible for:
> 
> More than 76,000 dangerous drug offenses;
> More than 48,000 assault offenses;
> More than 11,000 weapon offenses;
> More than 5,000 sexual assault offenses;
> More than 2,000 kidnapping offenses; and
> More than 1,800 homicide offenses.
> 
> ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) made 4,818 gang-related arrests in FY 2017.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...orders-open-floodgates-crime-drugs-terrorism/


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1014185248068755458
America, fuck yeah!


----------



## FITZ

That's not news. That's blaming Trump for doing what the US has been doing for years regardless of who the president is. In fact bringing attention to things like this is going to lead to Trump getting to be the one to claim responsibility for changing all of these policies that he inherited. 

http://immigrationimpact.com/2015/03/10/immigration-courts-ordering-unrepresented-children-deported/

It didn't go back further but it looks like Bush and Obama did. I would guess Clinton and the first Bush did the same thing. I would venture to guess that as long as we've had deportation hearings kids haven't got a lawyer. They've never been found to have a constitutional right to one and there is no statute giving one to them so I doubt there was a time where they were getting them for free anyway. I very well could be wrong about that though.

You want to change that policy fine. I get why you would want to. It seems ridiculous to not give a kid an attorney when they face deportation. But don't blame Trump for it. The legal system has never been favorable to illegal aliens.


Just saw someone post Trump doing his best impression of the CM Punk ROH heel turn on Twitter. Never realized he was doing it all the time during his campaign.


----------



## Sincere

FITZ said:


> It didn't go back further but it looks like Bush and Obama did. I would guess Clinton and the first Bush did the same thing. I would venture to guess that as long as we've had deportation hearings kids haven't got a lawyer. They've never been found to have a constitutional right to one and there is no statute giving one to them so I doubt there was a time where they were getting them for free anyway. I very well could be wrong about that though.


Sixth Amendment



> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


In 1963, the Supreme Court determined that this meant that criminal defendants who could not afford their own attorney are entitled to a court-appointed attorney. This does not apply to civil or immigration courts, so it's not even immigrants or children being 'targeted' or anything like that. I think some states have their own laws about court-appointed legal representation in addition. One can still get an attorney for these cases, they're just not constitutionally entitled to a court-appointed attorney if they don't have one or can't afford one. In fact, as I understand it, DHHS works with non-profits who help provide free legal aid for these types of cases.

This kind of situation has apparently existed and been happening since at least 2005 (though I'm sure that won't prevent a bunch of ignorant people from putting this all on Trump because they saw this manufactured video on social media and now suddenly think they're informed) but I suspect it has been occurring for a while beyond then, too. Ironically, but somehow unsurprisingly, it looks like the 9th circuit threw out a lawsuit against the Obama admin when they were sued over this very issue. Add it to the growing list of things Obama skated by on that Trump is now "literally Hitler" for.


----------



## Vic Capri

This is the type of crap I have to deal with on an every day basis because of my political beliefs and of course, some on the opposite side are okay with assault and theft.

But its all good because this asshole got doxxed and fired from his job. We will go down swinging when push comes to shove!





- Vic


----------



## Tater

FITZ said:


> That's not news. That's blaming Trump for doing what the US has been doing for years regardless of who the president is. In fact bringing attention to things like this is going to lead to Trump getting to be the one to claim responsibility for changing all of these policies that he inherited.


Oh, I 100% agree with you on this point. And the Establishment is desperate to pin all the blame on Trump for all the horrible shit that's been going on for decades. They don't hate Trump because he isn't doing what they want. They hate Trump because he is causing people to see how fucked up our government is. These are people who like operating in the dark, which is why they loved Obama so much and so desperately tried to install Hillary; neoliberalism puts a prettier face on the exact same shit.

Problem is, we live in a country full of propagandized retards who will believe everything is just fine and fucking dandy as soon as Trump is out of office, while the Deep State goes about repairing the status quo. Even mainstream Republicans are feigning outrage now. Not because they actually give a shit. They just don't like having a light shined on them.


----------



## Sincere

Vic Capri said:


> This is the type of crap I have to deal with on an every day basis because of my political beliefs and of course, some on the opposite side are okay with assault and theft.
> 
> But its all good because this asshole got doxxed and fired from his job. We will go down swinging when push comes to shove!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


He was also arrested.










SAPD: Suspect in assault over MAGA hat at Whataburger arrested

Meanwhile, looks like the kid is getting a new signed MAGA hat as well.










Parscale is named as Trump's 2020 re-election campaign manager. 










This kinda thing isn't even new though. It's been a fairly regular thing since even the 2016 campaign. MSM usually doesn't cover much of it, though.

Here's the guy who made the #WalkAway video. 










Here's a guy apparently being assaulted on July 4th for having a Trump flag.

Boynton Beach Man Claims He Was Assaulted Over Trump Flag in Yard



> Jeff Good told NBC affiliate WPTV that he was watching fireworks in the driveway of his Boynton Beach home on Wednesday when a man approached in a car and started yelling at him about the president.
> 
> After exchanging words, Good says the man punched him in the face and drove off with his arm stuck in the door. Good says he was dragged for about 30 feet and has bumps and bruises from the incident.


And these are just a couple of the most recent incidents like this, on top of the Democrat-backed harassment of Trump admin.

I've seen many, many stories like this that MSM mostly seems to ignore or disregard, probably because it doesn't help them push the narrative that Trump supporters are Nazis.


----------



## deepelemblues

Can't have it both ways, if illegally crossing the border is a civil and not criminal offense...

Then guess what, you are not ENTITLED to legal representation in a civil offense proceeding like you are in criminal offense proceedings.

So the open borders whores can cry moar about it.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Surely on the dude being refused service for a camera based on his political leanings that's exactly the same as the baker who didn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding? I'm sure everybody here is as supportive of the camera store as they were the baker...right?


----------



## Draykorinee

Vic Capri said:


> This is the type of crap I have to deal with on an every day basis because of my political beliefs and of course, some on the opposite side are okay with assault and theft.
> 
> But its all good because this asshole got doxxed and fired from his job. We will go down swinging when push comes to shove!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


Like fuck you do.

Anyways, a dickhead being a dickhead. Glad justice was done.


----------



## deepelemblues

RavishingRickRules said:


> Surely on the dude being refused service for a camera based on his political leanings that's exactly the same as the baker who didn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding? I'm sure everybody here is as supportive of the camera store as they were the baker...right?


Except that the baker did not refuse all service and the camera store owner did. There's a difference between saying "I won't do this one thing for you but these other things I will" and "I won't do anything for you, byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee."


----------



## Sincere

RavishingRickRules said:


> Surely on the dude being refused service for a camera based on his political leanings that's exactly the same as the baker who didn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding? I'm sure everybody here is as supportive of the camera store as they were the baker...right?


Wrong. It's not even close to exactly the same, not from a practical or legal perspective.

The gay wedding couple wanted a custom cake made. And if you knew anything about the kinds of custom cakes the baker makes, that would require quite a bit of his labor. He was willing to sell them a cake, he was not willing to custom design and make them a cake for their wedding. 

In the other case, it sounds like whoever refused Brandon Straka service refused to sell him anything at all. If the baker had refused to sell the gay couple anything at all, then it might be a closer parallel, but since that didn't happen in the baker's case, there isn't much of a similarity from that perspective.

Aside from that, and perhaps more importantly, as I understand it the baker's defense is a first amendment defense in contention with local anti-discrimination laws concerning sexual orientation. The state ruled against the baker, then the baker's appeal went up to the Supreme Court on first amendment grounds, as a means of preventing the state from compelling him to change his business policy and penalizing him. 

There are no federal laws or constitutional protections I'm aware of that would protect against political affiliation discrimination. There are, however, some more local laws here and there that do prohibit or ban political affiliation discrimination, particularly to clients. But I'm not sure where this incident with Straka took place, so there may be no political affiliation discrimination case wherever it happened. But even if there were, it doesn't seem like that would be in contention with a first amendment defense from whoever refused to sell him camera equipment. 

So, no. They're nothing alike, really, unless you just ignore all the relevant context, details, and actual laws regarding any of this.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Sincere said:


> Wrong. It's not even close to exactly the same, not from a practical or legal perspective.
> 
> The gay wedding couple wanted a custom cake made. And if you knew anything about the kinds of custom cakes the baker makes, that would require quite a bit of his labor. He was willing to sell them a cake, he was not willing to custom design and make them a cake for their wedding.
> 
> In the other case, it sounds like whoever refused Brandon Straka service refused to sell him anything at all. If the baker had refused to sell the gay couple anything at all, then it might be a closer parallel, but since that didn't happen in the baker's case, there isn't much of a similarity from that perspective.
> 
> Aside from that, and perhaps more importantly, as I understand it the baker's defense is a first amendment defense in contention with local anti-discrimination laws concerning sexual orientation. The state ruled against the baker, then the baker's appeal went up to the Supreme Court on first amendment grounds, as a means of preventing the state from compelling him to change his business policy and penalizing him.
> 
> There are no federal laws or constitutional protections I'm aware of that would protect against political affiliation discrimination. There are, however, some more local laws here and there that do prohibit or ban political affiliation discrimination, particularly to clients. But I'm not sure where this incident with Straka took place, so there may be no political affiliation discrimination case wherever it happened. But even if there were, it doesn't seem like that would be in contention with a first amendment defense from whoever refused to sell him camera equipment.
> 
> So, no. They're nothing alike, really, unless you just ignore all the relevant context, details, and actual laws regarding any of this.


"We retain the right to refuse service." You can't force anybody to serve anybody anything. That's exactly what people wanted to do to the baker, this is the EXACT same situation. Don't get it twisted, religion is about as important as political affiliation, in fight they're almost entirely the same thing in practise. So why do you have a big problem with these people being discriminated against but not homosexuals?


----------



## CamillePunk

I don't believe any tweet that begins with "I'm shaking right now". As well as tweets that involve woke children weighing in on political matters.


----------



## deepelemblues

RavishingRickRules said:


> Despite the two situations clearly not being the same, I will insist that they are EXACTLY the same because I'm :trolldoging it.


:hmm:

Care to explain how refusing provision of service in one particular, clearly defined, and limited situation, and offering provision of service in all other situations, is EXACTLY the same as blanket refusing provision of all service in all situations? 

You won't provide any such explanation of course, we already know this. You'll continue to :trolldog it.


----------



## Tater

There's a case to be made for certain services for safety reasons, like say you're the only gas station for a hundred miles in the desert, you can't not let someone fill their tank with gas, but for the most part, I'm a reserve the right to refuse service for any reason kind of guy. I don't believe it's the government's role to force people to associate with each other against their will in a free society. Of course, the government itself should treat everyone equally as well, which is why there should not be such a thing as protected classes. If you're an American citizen, you get the same rights and protections as everyone else. No citizen should be treated differently than anyone else for any reason. Certain ahem people say they want equality but what they really want is to be treated special.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Sincere

RavishingRickRules said:


> "We retain the right to refuse service." You can't force anybody to serve anybody anything. That's exactly what people wanted to do to the baker, this is the EXACT same situation. Don't get it twisted, religion is about as important as political affiliation, in fight they're almost entirely the same thing in practise. So why do you have a big problem with these people being discriminated against but not homosexuals?


I don't see where I made the argument that you can, or should be able to force anybody to serve anything, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything concerning me or the post I made.

I've already explained in concise detail how these situations are not the same, let alone the "EXACT" same. The two situations quite clearly are distinctly different. The only way these two situations are even remotely similar is at the most basic, elementary level--again, in disregard of all relevant detail, context, and law--being instances of discriminatory refusal of a service of some description; but even there, they are distinctly different when the services in question are accounted for, the reasons for refusal are accounted for, and the legal context is accounted for, etc.

What's more, as far as I'm aware, no government is attempting to penalize those who allegedly refused service to Straka, which is yet another distinct difference between the two situations. 

I don't think many among the devout of any religion would agree that political affiliations are as important as their religious beliefs or faith are. But perhaps more importantly the law in the US generally disagrees with that suggestion as well, considering the distinct lack of anti-discrimination law concerning political affiliation federally and in most instances locally (there are only a select few local laws that prohibit political affiliation discrimination that I'm aware of), versus the law of the land providing near blanket protection to religious belief and practice.

Moreover, in the case of the baker, this was not simply a freedom of religion defense, as I understand it. It was also a freedom of speech/expression defense, as well, though I think the Supreme Court was more interested in the free exercise clause of the first amendment in their ruling on the case, as I recall.

I don't tend to really have a problem with people deciding who they do or do not want to serve, generally; or at least, I don't think the federal government needs to be involved in legislating on this issue, as I think the market is equipped to handle it on its own. Again, I don't know where you think I said anything about whether or not this should or should not be happening in the case of Straka. All I did was use the alleged case of Straka as another recent example of hypocrisy and bigotry from the left against their political enemies, and then correct your mistake in attempting to claim Straka's alleged case was the same as the case involving the baker.

My main objection, if I were to have one on this subject more generally, would be one of consistency. As I said before, I'd prefer if the federal government weren't involved in this as a matter of principle, but if it's going to be involved, I'd rather see the law be consistent one way or the other. If there's going to be anti-discrimination laws, it is consistent to me that political affiliation discrimination (as well as what I'm sure are many other categories of discrimination that can be imagined) is included among the protected categories, otherwise do away with discrimination law entirely. I don't think it's consistent to prohibit discrimination in some cases, but not in others. 

But, ideally, I'd rather there be no federal anti-discrimination laws that are concerned with private exchange at all, because I think it gets abused, infringes on individual preferences, interferes with consensual market processes, produces frivolous applications of statist compulsion, is (as stated) inconsistently applied and as a result creates increasingly arbitrary protected classes with preferential treatment under the law which is the opposite of good law, IMO. And before you jump to another conclusion, this absolutely doesn't mean I think denying someone service because they're skin is a certain color, or they're a certain sex, or a certain sexual orientation, etc. is a good idea, or an intelligent choice. Nor does it mean I'd necessarily be opposed to local anti-discrimination laws concerning private exchange, so long as they are in accordance with the Constitution.

But no, I don't really care if someone denied Straka service, tbh. As far as I'm concerned, they have or ought to have every right, just as anyone else ought to have every right to deny anyone else service at their privately owned place of business for whatever reason they want.



CamillePunk said:


> I don't believe any tweet that begins with "I'm shaking right now". As well as tweets that involve woke children weighing in on political matters.


Actually, this is part of what helps convince me he is what he says he is, given the trope and meme about liberals and their "literal shaking."



Tater said:


> There's a case to be made for certain services for safety reasons, like say you're the only gas station for a hundred miles in the desert, you can't not let someone fill their tank with gas, but for the most part, I'm a reserve the right to refuse service for any reason kind of guy. I don't believe it's the government's role to force people to associate with each other against their will in a free society. Of course, the government itself should treat everyone equally as well, which is why there should not be such a thing as protected classes. If you're an American citizen, you get the same rights and protections as everyone else. No citizen should be treated differently than anyone else for any reason. Certain ahem people say they want equality but what they really want is to be treated special.


Yeah, I could probably understand certain limited, exceptions in hypothetical extreme lifeboat scenarios to my aforementioned position. I suppose you could nail it down to something more consistent by just creating a general blanket exception that prohibits discrimination that demonstrably leads to legitimate harm, somehow, and that would be reasonable. Though, now that I think about it, I wonder if there isn't something along the lines of a 'failure to render aid' law that would be better in this kind of situation.


----------



## Tater

I haven't heard much about this lately (maybe because too many people were noticing the holes in the story) but anyone not blinded by propaganda knew this was bullshit from day 1. How many false flags is it going to take before the public starts demanding actual evidence our "enemies" are doing these things before our government takes action? Do we need to bomb Syria again because Assad gassed his own people and kept a chemical weapons facility in his capital city?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1015502328617725952
Just in case anyone is too stupid to not see the writing on the wall, the kind of people we're talking about here use these false flags to keep the war machine going (or if they want to invade a country to topple it's government and install a puppet dictator who will give them easy access to their resources). Peace is bad for business.

Of course, there's always the good old fashioned let's get in bed with a terrorist organization if a particular country doesn't fall in line with the American Empire. The CIA has been using this one for a very long time. South America says hi.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1014918373984043011


----------



## Draykorinee

Its almost like Russia wouldn't benefit from killing a redundant old spy with pretty much the only easily traceable method possible.


----------



## MrMister

Tater said:


> I haven't heard much about this lately (maybe because too many people were noticing the holes in the story) but anyone not blinded by propaganda knew this was bullshit from day 1. How many false flags is it going to take before the public starts demanding actual evidence our "enemies" are doing these things before our government takes action? Do we need to bomb Syria again because Assad gassed his own people and kept a chemical weapons facility in his capital city?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1015502328617725952
> Just in case anyone is too stupid to not see the writing on the wall, the kind of people we're talking about here use these false flags to keep the war machine going (or if they want to invade a country to topple it's government and install a puppet dictator who will give them easy access to their resources). Peace is bad for business.
> 
> Of course, there's always the good old fashioned let's get in bed with a terrorist organization if a particular country doesn't fall in line with the American Empire. The CIA has been using this one for a very long time. South America says hi.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1014918373984043011


Yeah if we put on our tinfoil hats we realize that Trump is being used make the outrageous become vile. Then when actual vile things are manufactured, the populace is so bloodthirsty they're ready to kill anyone. We have always been at war with Eastasia.


----------



## Tater

MrMister said:


> Yeah if we put on our tinfoil hats we realize that Trump is being used make the outrageous become vile. Then when actual vile things are manufactured, the populace is so bloodthirsty they're ready to kill anyone. We have always been at war with Eastasia.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1015619258326319104


----------



## Tater

I don't post in the wrestling sections or even really watch wrestling anymore, so I'm just going to post this in here for fun. This thread could use a little fun every once in awhile.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1015354127788883968


----------



## Reaper

Almost everyone is fighting a war these days tbh. 

Unfortunately, those with power get to play with the weapons and that's something no one knows how to stop.


----------



## Tater

Reap said:


> Almost everyone is fighting a war these days tbh.
> 
> Unfortunately, those with power get to play with the weapons and that's something no one knows how to stop.


I wouldn't necessarily say that's something no one knows how to stop. It's actually making it happen that's the problem. They wouldn't work so hard on propagandizing and dividing the people if they didn't need consent and division. As the great Jim Morrison once said, they've got the guns but we've got the numbers. Where he got it wrong was in the next line because we haven't won and we haven't taken over. Americans are either too busy yelling libtard and deplorable at each other or are otherwise propagandized into believing the USA are the good guys rescuing poor innocent people around the world to ever come together in powerful enough numbers to stop those in power from doing what they do. 

Why do you think they do these false flags all the time? They need to lie to make themselves look like the heroes when they invade or otherwise topple governments who don't fall in line with the empire. If 300 million people ever woke up to the fact that the USA are the villains of this particular story, they might try to do something about it.

Although, at this point, they are barely even trying anymore with their false flags. Look at how flimsy the evidence was concerning the Skripals and Douma. It's so easily debunked, yet they went right ahead and acted on it anyways, because they know they've so successfully brainwashed and bred so much hatred amongst the population that the people aren't going to do anything to stop them.


----------



## virus21

Reap said:


> Almost everyone is fighting a war these days tbh.
> 
> Unfortunately, those with power get to play with the weapons and that's something no one knows how to stop.


I know how to stop it: Alien Invasion


----------



## Vic Capri

> White nationalists kicked out of Louisville rally by Trump supporters and Proud Boys


Can't wait to see how the liberal media spins this.

- Vic


----------



## Beatles123

What's going on, haven't been here in awi-*SWEET LORD!!!* 

Never mind!


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> I haven't heard much about this lately (maybe because too many people were noticing the holes in the story) but anyone not blinded by propaganda knew this was bullshit from day 1. How many false flags is it going to take before the public starts demanding actual evidence our "enemies" are doing these things before our government takes action? Do we need to bomb Syria again because Assad gassed his own people and kept a chemical weapons facility in his capital city?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1015502328617725952
> Just in case anyone is too stupid to not see the writing on the wall, the kind of people we're talking about here use these false flags to keep the war machine going (or if they want to invade a country to topple it's government and install a puppet dictator who will give them easy access to their resources). Peace is bad for business.
> 
> Of course, there's always the good old fashioned let's get in bed with a terrorist organization if a particular country doesn't fall in line with the American Empire. The CIA has been using this one for a very long time. South America says hi.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1014918373984043011


Me you and a few others were the first to call bullshit on that whole Russian spy thing. Yes, use a poison that can easily be traced to you that's SO DEADLY that it didn't kill when applied. A bullet is easier yet people were eating up.

There's been so many false flags and so many knee jerk reactions that it's pitiful but that's how our Governments and media work now, false flags, outrage culture and the ever persistent narrative that we need PC and we should only trust News from who the Government/Media says we should.

Fuck them :laugh:


----------



## DOPA

@DesolationRow @BruiserKC

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-social-security-trust-fund-goes-bust-1528411768



> The downward spirals have begun. The combined Social Security trust funds—one for disability, one for retirement—as well as Medicare’s hospital-insurance trust fund, will begin eating into their reserves this year, according to reports released this week by the programs’ trustees. The trust funds for these safety-net programs are now projected to diminish until they are depleted. The Medicare hospital-insurance fund is projected to run dry in 2026.
> 
> In one way, this week’s announcement was surprising. Last year the trustees said it wouldn’t be necessary to tap Social Security’s reserves until 2022; the Medicare fund was deemed stable until 2023. Then again, the bipartisan trustees have for several years been warning that Social Security and Medicare finances need fundamental repairs or people are going to get hurt. The benefit and revenue schedules are badly out of alignment. Repeatedly failing to address the problem heightens the risk that it eventually will become too large to solve.
> 
> Along with Robert D. Reischauer, I served as a public trustee of Social Security and Medicare from 2010-15. In 2014 we warned in our annual message to the public that “continued delay in legislating corrective measures is likely to make the challenge ever more difficult to resolve and result in undesirable consequences.” In 1993 the first public trustees to publish such messages warned of “the need for congressional action to ensure the continued viability and fiscal integrity of these important national programs.” Everyone in Washington was aware of the magnitude of the problem, the need for repair, and the danger that delay would make inevitable corrections more painful.
> 
> This year’s reports show that keeping Social Security solvent would require corrections equal to prospective benefit reductions of 21% across the board. Had lawmakers acted decades ago, such a severe solution might not have become necessary. If they continue to ignore the problem, the remedy will be even worse.
> 
> From the mid-1980s through 2009, Social Security took in more in tax revenue than it paid out in benefits, which allowed it to build up its trust-fund reserves. In 2010 Social Security’s expenditures began to exceed its tax income, so it began to rely on its trust funds’ interest earnings, paid from the government’s general fund.
> 
> Now Social Security’s tax and interest income are together no longer enough to cover its outlays, so the program needs to start dipping into the trust-fund principal. These reserves were never sufficient to keep Social Security afloat for the long haul, but their existence made it easier for lawmakers to defer action.
> 
> Medicare, by contrast, never maintained such substantial reserves. The assets in the hospital-insurance trust fund are currently sufficient to finance only about eight months of benefits. Medicare’s smaller trust-fund balance means that even modest changes to annual operations can dramatically accelerate its projected insolvency. This year that came in the form of updated data showing payroll-tax revenue lagging behind previous projections, while Medicare spending ran higher than expected.
> 
> The annual press focus on the projected insolvency dates has always been somewhat misplaced. What’s really important is the magnitude of the shortfalls and the difficulty of correcting them, which grows every year. Whether depletion was distant or near, the problem had to be confronted sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, later has come sooner than the trustees thought it would.


I've warned about this for the longest time and it's coming sooner than even I or anyone else talking about it thought.


----------



## DesolationRow

Not at all surprising, @DOPA; Indeed, as tax revenues continue to decline and spending increases, it would hardly be surprising to see the U.S. government reach as much as $40 trillion by the mid-2020s. The Federal Reserve is going to experience that scenario for which it is so ill-prepared, the losing control of interest rates while foreign investors throw U.S. bonds overboard. Setting Social Security aside, it is entirely predictable that interest costs will eclipse total tax revenue seven to ten years from now.

43% of government debt is owned by foreigners and they are, at large, growing increasingly skeptical about continuing to purchase U.S. debt. A few months ago the Treasury Department announced that the first quarter of 2018 saw a record amount of debt stacked up to the sky, borrowing approximately $488 billion. That was almost $50 billion over the common estimates as 2018 started. Foreign investment in U.S. debt, which has been slowly decreasing since 2008, is continuing to drop. Should foreign purchasing of debt simply continue to dwindle the deficit projections become poisonous for the U.S.'s economic well-being. Crowding out as it is bandied about as terminology would slowly but surely become endemic as U.S. investors would be compelled to pick up the tab and buy debt rather than active investments, which directly harms businesses. 

As of now the market remains robust and the numerical support of the ensemble of foreign buyers of debt is more than adequate to keep things humming along but the fracturing of the benefit and revenue schedules over the next ten years presents the U.S. with major hubs around which to navigate financially. The International Monetary Fund is predicting that in five short years the U.S. will have a considerably larger debt-to-G.D.P. ratio than Italy, whose astronomical debt is constantly berated for representing a clear and present danger to the European financial order. 

Medicare by itself is a behemoth and will only swell in size as the baby boomers inexorably continue to age and provide inordinate drainage of the system as it is so feebly set up. The Chinese economy is an intriguing signpost as they have created perhaps the world's greatest, most all-consuming bubble built on debt, sagaciously managed, to be fair, but it is also not surprising that the Shanghai composite is down 24% on the year. Turkey is down 22% this year and the Bovespa in Brazil is off a touch over 17%. While there are reasons to be sanguine about the Chinese bubble as it stands today the overall global asset bubble is quite real and already displaying signs of being strained. The Chinese have been attempting to hit the brakes of credit expansion so that the asset bubble does not burst but it is a little bit like riding the proverbial tiger. 

China has been, for roughly a calendar year now, gradually tightening the faucet of credit particularly in the property sector so as to avoid financial calamity. The symbiotic relationship between the U.S. Federal Reserve with its quantitative easing and Chinese credit targeting has engendered an almost dizzying conveyor belt of liquidity, with China representing about 48% of the world's growth in credit. Unfortunately the economic "masters of the universe" have the waters of the economic seas propped up with one asset bubble atop another, and while the corrections and contractions may be staved off, some reckoning will doubtless be confronted. The toothpaste, sadly, is not easy to be packed back into the tube. 

In any event, once again, all too predictable, *DOPA*. Thank you for passing that story along and for your commentary as well.


----------



## Draykorinee

What we need is tax cuts and increased government spending said Trump.


----------



## Miss Sally

draykorinee said:


> What we need is tax cuts and increased government spending said Trump.


The last time people tried raising taxes on the American people they started the war of Independence. Just mentioning taxes around some people here will get your ass kicked.


----------



## Tater

DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow @BruiserKC
> 
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-social-security-trust-fund-goes-bust-1528411768
> 
> 
> 
> I've warned about this for the longest time and it's coming sooner than even I or anyone else talking about it thought.





DesolationRow said:


> Not at all surprising, @DOPA; Indeed, as tax revenues continue to decline and spending increases, it would hardly be surprising to see the U.S. government reach as much as $40 trillion by the mid-2020s. The Federal Reserve is going to experience that scenario for which it is so ill-prepared, the losing control of interest rates while foreign investors throw U.S. bonds overboard. Setting Social Security aside, it is entirely predictable that interest costs will eclipse total tax revenue seven to ten years from now.
> 
> 43% of government debt is owned by foreigners and they are, at large, growing increasingly skeptical about continuing to purchase U.S. debt. A few months ago the Treasury Department announced that the first quarter of 2018 saw a record amount of debt stacked up to the sky, borrowing approximately $488 billion. That was almost $50 billion over the common estimates as 2018 started. Foreign investment in U.S. debt, which has been slowly decreasing since 2008, is continuing to drop. Should foreign purchasing of debt simply continue to dwindle the deficit projections become poisonous for the U.S.'s economic well-being. Crowding out as it is bandied about as terminology would slowly but surely become endemic as U.S. investors would be compelled to pick up the tab and buy debt rather than active investments, which directly harms businesses.
> 
> As of now the market remains robust and the numerical support of the ensemble of foreign buyers of debt is more than adequate to keep things humming along but the fracturing of the benefit and revenue schedules over the next ten years presents the U.S. with major hubs around which to navigate financially. The International Monetary Fund is predicting that in five short years the U.S. will have a considerably larger debt-to-G.D.P. ratio than Italy, whose astronomical debt is constantly berated for representing a clear and present danger to the European financial order.
> 
> Medicare by itself is a behemoth and will only swell in size as the baby boomers inexorably continue to age and provide inordinate drainage of the system as it is so feebly set up. The Chinese economy is an intriguing signpost as they have created perhaps the world's greatest, most all-consuming bubble built on debt, sagaciously managed, to be fair, but it is also not surprising that the Shanghai composite is down 24% on the year. Turkey is down 22% this year and the Bovespa in Brazil is off a touch over 17%. While there are reasons to be sanguine about the Chinese bubble as it stands today the overall global asset bubble is quite real and already displaying signs of being strained. The Chinese have been attempting to hit the brakes of credit expansion so that the asset bubble does not burst but it is a little bit like riding the proverbial tiger.
> 
> China has been, for roughly a calendar year now, gradually tightening the faucet of credit particularly in the property sector so as to avoid financial calamity. The symbiotic relationship between the U.S. Federal Reserve with its quantitative easing and Chinese credit targeting has engendered an almost dizzying conveyor belt of liquidity, with China representing about 48% of the world's growth in credit. Unfortunately the economic "masters of the universe" have the waters of the economic seas propped up with one asset bubble atop another, and while the corrections and contractions may be staved off, some reckoning will doubtless be confronted. The toothpaste, sadly, is not easy to be packed back into the tube.
> 
> In any event, once again, all too predictable, *DOPA*. Thank you for passing that story along and for your commentary as well.


And yet, for some reason, people still don't believe me when I tell them capitalism is going to collapse. I wonder why that is.

All of the above is talking about how things will play out over the next decade. Would it be a bad time to remind you of the robotics/automation/AI revolution that's already happening and how many millions of jobs that will wipe out?

All the king's horse and all the king's men, couldn't put capitalism back together again...


----------



## DesoloutionRow

DesolationRow said:


> 43% of government debt is owned by foreigners and they are, at large, growing increasingly skeptical about continuing to purchase U.S. debt. A few months ago the Treasury Department announced that the first quarter of 2018 saw a record amount of debt stacked up to the sky, borrowing approximately $488 billion. That was almost $50 billion over the common estimates as 2018 started. Foreign investment in U.S. debt, which has been slowly decreasing since 2008, is continuing to drop. Should foreign purchasing of debt simply continue to dwindle the deficit projections become poisonous for the U.S.'s economic well-being. Crowding out as it is bandied about as terminology would slowly but surely become endemic as U.S. investors would be compelled to pick up the tab and buy debt rather than active investments, which directly harms businesses.


The foreigners have already started dumping U.S. debt. If you read a lot of the commentary, people are talking about how miniscule the numbers are. But what do they think? That once confidence starts eroding, that everyone will dump at once? It's a slow process and many decades of belief that U.S. was good for its debt. We're watching the tide shift in the other direction, perhaps for the first time in history. It's going to be a slow process, but it's definitely happening.

Another argument that doubters are using is that China can't dump U.S. treasuries. This is entirely wrong. Not only can they if they decide to, but they also have the option of letting them mature and not repurchasing. This in turn would force da Fed to have to print more money in order to pick these up, causing further inflation.


----------



## DesolationRow

Big Louisiana Skunt said:


> The foreigners have already started dumping U.S. debt. If you read a lot of the commentary, people are talking about how miniscule the numbers are. But what do they think? That once confidence starts eroding, that everyone will dump at once? It's a slow process and many decades of belief that U.S. was good for its debt. We're watching the tide shift in the other direction, perhaps for the first time in history. It's going to be a slow process, but it's definitely happening.
> 
> Another argument that doubters are using is that China can't dump U.S. treasuries. This is entirely wrong. Not only can they if they decide to, but they also have the option of letting them mature and not repurchasing. This in turn would force da Fed to have to print more money in order to pick these up, causing further inflation.


Quite true. Foreigners refusing to buy more U.S. debt may be analogous to the old saw about how one goes bankrupt: very slowly and then all at once. The sort of financial Gordian Knot the U.S. drifting toward has no easy way to slice through it, and as the article @DOPA; quoted notes, the trends for Social Security alone have been moving in the wrong direction since 2009 with benefits destined to having to be slashed to keep it afloat. You're also wholly correct that the Chinese may well allow their U.S. treasures to mature; in fact the word out of China some months ago suggested that they are keen toward moving in that direction. However, the Chinese are also concerned about creeping U.S. inflation because they remain reliant upon the U.S. market of deal-seeking consumers, consumers whose purchasing power being eaten away by way of inflation which is why they will, for the time being, at least, remain hooked to a steady I.V. morphine drip of U.S. debt.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Tater

@DOPA @DesolationRow


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016026633118126080
:draper2


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> @DOPA @DesolationRow
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016026633118126080
> :draper2


There's a short drone documentary that's a few years old that had drones flying in unison and figure 8's by themselves, flying around navigating etc. It was nuts!

Still, this means nothing. Go out and breed endlessly humanity, there's no change coming, the future is not here! :wink2:


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016480318172299265
Leave it to the showman :trump2 White House to create a sort of movie trailer for the president's announcement for the new Supreme Court vacancy pick.


----------



## deepelemblues

:trump sounding rather subdued tonight


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Kavanaugh nominated. :bjpenn


----------



## Tater

The USA is becoming more fascist by the day.


----------



## DesolationRow

Tater said:


> @DOPA @DesolationRow
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016026633118126080
> :draper2


I wanted a techno version of the _Rocky_ theme for that video! :mark: Thanks for sharing, *Tater*!


----------



## deepelemblues

Tater said:


> The USA is becoming more fascist by the day.


:heston

And yet, there will never be any consequences for you saying so.

:hmm:


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016519055434506241
Haha.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016525219014553600
:lmao Chris Cillizza...


----------



## deepelemblues

Eh, he seems like a pretty good pick

There are very few of his well-known written opinions that I find largely disagreeable

The point of him being the choice is I suspect the same as during the last Republican administration. Not to nominate conservative firebrands, but to shore up the ranks who will line up behind such a firebrand. Alito and Gorsuch are such Justices. Kavanaugh should be another. Roberts outside of Obamacare has been pretty good but no doubt there are those who would like to get at least 1 more "reliable" conservative vote so Roberts can be sidelined if necessary. Thomas is of course the only candidate for conservative firebrand leading the Court, but I doubt it will be him. Some future Justice will fill that role, if the Republicans have the good fortune of controlling the next pick or two and end up with a 5-4 majority without Roberts and a 6-3 one with him.


----------



## Sincere

Next:


----------



## BruiserKC

DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow @BruiserKC
> 
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-social-security-trust-fund-goes-bust-1528411768
> 
> 
> 
> I've warned about this for the longest time and it's coming sooner than even I or anyone else talking about it thought.


The national debt has been spiraling out of control for years now. At some point, nations like China that own a chunk of that debt are going to start wanting to call in their markers and then the shit is really going to hit the fan. Meanwhile, the GOP has finally shown their true colors in that they really have no interest in fiscal responsibility. And we're running out of road rather quickly to keep kicking that can down. 

As for Medicare and Social Security, I don't know what the answer is really. The baby boomers have already put a strain on all other aspects of our lives, now putting that footprint on Social Security as they are retiring. I know I have been very good at investing over the years and have a good nest egg put away. I don't want to be fully dependent on Social Security to provide my lifestyle when I retire, but what does that do for the people that have been unable or unwilling to invest for their retirement?

The day of reckoning is coming, and it's coming in a hurry.


----------



## Sincere

BruiserKC said:


> The national debt has been spiraling out of control for years now. At some point, nations like China that own a chunk of that debt are going to start wanting to call in their markers and then the shit is really going to hit the fan.


Years? Try, since basically forever. The US has only ever been debt free once, for like a year in 1835 (before there was a federal income tax, no less).

What exactly do you imagine will happen if China decided to "call in their markers?" 

I don't think you (and others, for that matter) really understand the situation, quite frankly. China buys US debt to manipulate its own currency in order to keep its export market competitive as a matter of necessity, since its export market is basically the backbone of its economy and the economic growth it has been enjoying. Its export market, by the way, is extremely dependent on the US dollar, which remains the overwhelmingly dominant reserve currency in the world, and the US consumer market, which literally no other country in the world can even come close to replacing at the moment, or any time in the foreseeable future.

People need to do away with this fantasy that China would ever, in its wildest dreams, decide to call in all its debt at once. That will never happen for a variety of reasons. It would be absolute suicide, to put it mildly. If China ever decided to get rid of its US debt holdings, it would be a very gradual process, and even then there's still a lot of risk of self-harm in doing so. But they're not even in a position to do that right now, anyway... especially not with this 'trade war' taking place.

Foreign held US debt is actively monitored and assessed as a matter of national security. And if there was a legitimate threat there, the US has a veritable armory of economic tools at its disposal.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Kavanaugh nominated.


There was a flash flood warning in my area last night after a sudden pour of liberal tears.

- Vic


----------



## Tater

BruiserKC said:


> The national debt has been spiraling out of control for years now. At some point, nations like China that own a chunk of that debt are going to start wanting to call in their markers and then the shit is really going to hit the fan. Meanwhile, the GOP has finally shown their true colors in that they really have no interest in fiscal responsibility. And we're running out of road rather quickly to keep kicking that can down.
> 
> As for Medicare and Social Security, I don't know what the answer is really. The baby boomers have already put a strain on all other aspects of our lives, now putting that footprint on Social Security as they are retiring. I know I have been very good at investing over the years and have a good nest egg put away. I don't want to be fully dependent on Social Security to provide my lifestyle when I retire, but what does that do for the people that have been unable or unwilling to invest for their retirement?
> 
> The day of reckoning is coming, and it's coming in a hurry.





Sincere said:


> Years? Try, since basically forever. The US has only ever been debt free once, for like a year in 1835 (before there was a federal income tax, no less).
> 
> What exactly do you imagine will happen if China decided to "call in their markers?"
> 
> I don't think you (and others, for that matter) really understand the situation, quite frankly. China buys US debt to manipulate its own currency in order to keep its export market competitive as a matter of necessity, since its export market is basically the backbone of its economy and the economic growth it has been enjoying. Its export market, by the way, is extremely dependent on the US dollar, which remains the overwhelmingly dominant reserve currency in the world, and the US consumer market, which literally no other country in the world can even come close to replacing at the moment, or any time in the foreseeable future.
> 
> People need to do away with this fantasy that China would ever, in its wildest dreams, decide to call in all its debt at once. That will never happen for a variety of reasons. It would be absolute suicide, to put it mildly. If China ever decided to get rid of its US debt holdings, it would be a very gradual process, and even then there's still a lot of risk of self-harm in doing so. But they're not even in a position to do that right now, anyway... especially not with this 'trade war' taking place.
> 
> Foreign held US debt is actively monitored and assessed as a matter of national security. And if there was a legitimate threat there, the US has a veritable armory of economic tools at its disposal.


People need to stop thinking of the national debt as a real thing. It's just numbers on a computer that is used for the manipulation of global capitalism. It's not a real thing in the sense that it will ever be paid or future generations will have to be worried about being saddled with debt. That is a line used by politicians to propagandize people into believing we can't have nice things in the USA, because the government cannot afford them. Which is, of course, bullshit. 

Look into MMT. Our money is fiat. It's not like in the old days when we were on the gold standard. The dollar isn't backed by anything substantive anymore. Inevitably, when the collapse of capitalism happens due to the obsolescence of human labor thanks to advanced technology, the debts of the past will more or less become irrelevant. I mean, China isn't going to start nuking the USA because the money will be worthless at that point. 

What's valuable is actual resources and control of them. How those resources are used under whatever post-capitalism future economy is devised is the real question here.


----------



## Sincere

Tater said:


> Look into MMT. Our money is fiat. It's not like in the old days when we were on the gold standard. The dollar isn't backed by anything substantive anymore.


Wow... breaking news... from over 40 years ago when the last links to gold were removed from the dollar in 1976. Mind blown.



Tater said:


> Inevitably, when the collapse of capitalism happens due to the obsolescence of human labor thanks to advanced technology, the debts of the past will more or less become irrelevant. I mean, China isn't going to start nuking the USA because the money will be worthless at that point.
> 
> What's valuable is actual resources and control of them. How those resources are used under whatever post-capitalism future economy is devised is the real question here.


Technology advances don't make human labor obsolete. This is a myth that has been debunked over, and over, and over. In fact, it seems the exact opposite is true wherever you look. Where there have been technological advances that would seem to ostensibly make human labor in that respective field obsolete, you tend to see employment increases in that same industry, not decreases. You also tend to see wage increases. New technology means new tasks to perform that were not in demand before, i.e. entirely new jobs that didn't exist yesterday. New technology can often also mean entirely new industries or sectors. New technology means greater productivity per worker, which can mean wage increases, cheaper and more abundant production, so both workers and consumers benefit. New technology means a company is now producing more, which means they can do more, hire more, diversify, and expand as they grow and become even more productive, and provide even more goods, services, and jobs.

History demonstrates all of this. Data demonstrates all of this. Long term trends and analysis demonstrates all of this. It's no coincidence that the most technologically developed nations tend to be among the most wealthy and employed. Btw, the record number of blacksmiths working today all say hi.

Capitalism isn't going anywhere any time soon, if ever. And it certainly isn't going anywhere but up on account of technological advancement.

Maybe toss the tea leaves and pick up a book.

Recommendation: Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, Part Two, The Curse of Machinery.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Stupid question but I will ask it anyway would the Trump supporters want to live in this country without any Democrat or liberals in it? I get that vibe from people in this thread.


----------



## Tater

Sincere said:


> Wow... breaking news... from over 40 years ago when the last links to gold were removed from the dollar in 1976. Mind blown.
> 
> 
> 
> Technology advances don't make human labor obsolete. This is a myth that has been debunked over, and over, and over. In fact, it seems the exact opposite is true wherever you look. Where there have been technological advances that would seem to ostensibly make human labor in that respective field obsolete, you tend to see employment increases in that same industry, not decreases. You also tend to see wage increases. New technology means new tasks to perform that were not in demand before, i.e. entirely new jobs that didn't exist yesterday. New technology can often also mean entirely new industries or sectors. New technology means greater productivity per worker, which can mean wage increases, cheaper and more abundant production, so both workers and consumers benefit. New technology means a company is now producing more, which means they can do more, hire more, diversify, and expand as they grow and become even more productive, and provide even more goods, services, and jobs.
> 
> History demonstrates all of this. Data demonstrates all of this. Long term trends and analysis demonstrates all of this. It's no coincidence that the most technologically developed nations tend to be among the most wealthy and employed. Btw, the record number of blacksmiths working today all say hi.
> 
> Capitalism isn't going anywhere any time soon, if ever. And it certainly isn't going anywhere but up on account of technological advancement.
> 
> Maybe toss the tea leaves and pick up a book.
> 
> Recommendation: Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, Part Two, The Curse of Machinery.


Ah you're one of those people. Nevermind. Carry on in your blissful ignorance.


----------



## deepelemblues

The Hardcore Show said:


> Stupid question but I will ask it anyway would the Trump supporters want to live in this country without any Democrat or liberals in it? I get that vibe from people in this thread.


I want to live in a country where people don't ask such silly questions


----------



## CamillePunk

The Hardcore Show said:


> Stupid question but I will ask it anyway would the Trump supporters want to live in this country without any Democrat or liberals in it? I get that vibe from people in this thread.


I live in California. Not just California, but the Bay Area. Clearly I'm fine being surrounded not by just "Democrats or liberals", but outright socialists and communists. :lol It's whatever. Pay a bit more in taxes than I'd like, but the weather's perfect and there's a lot of fun stuff to do all the time so it's worth it for me. :cool2


----------



## The Hardcore Show

deepelemblues said:


> I want to live in a country where people don't ask such silly questions


Is it really silly when the first thing you think of when Trump does something is how many people that don't like him suffer from his decisions You get off on tears from liberals. At this point why have them in the country other than to be your punching bag?


----------



## CamillePunk

The Hardcore Show said:


> Is it really silly when the first thing you think of when Trump does something is how many people that don't like him suffer from his decisions You get off on tears from liberals. At this point why have them in the country other than to be your punching bag?


They don't actually suffer from his decisions though, they're just being hysterical. :lol That's the joke.


----------



## deepelemblues

The Hardcore Show said:


> Is it really silly when the first thing you think of when Trump does something is how many people that don't like him suffer from his decisions You get off on tears from liberals. At this point why have them in the country other than to be your punching bag?


The only thing political I get off on is Tater's frustration and babyrage at how awesome capitalism is and how terrible socialism is and how everybody makes this face when he raves about fascism :jericho2

Mr. The Hardcore Show isn't this like the 10th time you've had this breakdown and made this exact same post

Did you see too many MAGA hats today or something

Pls seek halp like these people did

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-trump-therapists-20170223-story.html


----------



## CamillePunk

Look at this crazy lunatic's eyes. :lol He's the one who needs the psych evaluation.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Look at this crazy lunatic's eyes. :lol He's the one who needs the psych evaluation.


And some people seriously think this deranged old fart would have defeated :trump

:heston


----------



## yeahbaby!

Sorry if already mentioned but lol at Trump at a rally attacking Liz Warren by saying he'll throw an ancestry kit at her during debate, paying her to do 'it a nice soft way because of #metoo, to see if she's 'Indian'.

I could just imagine PC meters exploding around the world.


Just on that, have past presidents campaigned and rallied so much so early? Seems a bit weird, especially when you've still got Obamacare to destroy and the wall to build and the swamp to drain among other pressing issues.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016719866424946690
:sodone


----------



## Tater

yeahbaby! said:


> Just on that, have past presidents campaigned and rallied so much so early? Seems a bit weird, especially when you've still got Obamacare to destroy and the wall to build and the swamp to drain among other pressing issues.


It's not just that he's campaigning and rallying so early. He never stopped doing the rallies, even after he was elected. It's been a regular routine during his entire time in office. To the best of my knowledge, this is not something past presidents have done. 

TBH, it's a smart move politically. It's easier to keep conning the people when you keep spewing bullshit at them. It's when you disappear off to DC after being elected and people are left to feel the results of your actions that they start turning on you. Some have turned on him nonetheless but these rallies have gone a long way towards keeping up the facade amongst his base that he's the outsider in DC sticking up for the forgotten man; when, in reality, if you look at his actual policies, he is the most establishment president of all time. 

People will figure it out eventually, when they start suffering the consequences of his policies (well, some will, some are diehards who will never stop drinking the kool-aid), but in the meantime, whether Trump is being politically savvy by continuing to do the rallies or whether he is just an egomaniac who needs to hear the crowd cheer, it's still going to help him by continuing to do the rallies. Whether or not it will be enough to get him elected again depends entirely on who runs against him. If it's another Clintonite or Clinton herself, he could win again.


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> Sorry if already mentioned but lol at Trump at a rally attacking Liz Warren by saying he'll throw an ancestry kit at her during debate, paying her to do 'it a nice soft way because of #metoo, to see if she's 'Indian'.
> 
> I could just imagine PC meters exploding around the world.
> 
> 
> Just on that, have past presidents campaigned and rallied so much so early? Seems a bit weird, especially when you've still got Obamacare to destroy and the wall to build and the swamp to drain among other pressing issues.


All rallies all the time won him the presidency so I can see why he would keep it up. Those rallies are what generated the enthusiasm that delivered him Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Dance with that what brung ya to the ball.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/10/17556144/fcc-charge-225-review-complaints



> *The FCC wants to charge you $225 to review your complaints*
> 
> On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission will be voting to ensure they won’t have to read your complaints anymore — and Democratic House members are not happy about it.
> 
> Two high-ranking Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee sent a letter addressed to the Commission’s chairman Ajit Pai earlier today to voice their disapproval of a proposed rule that, if approved, would send informal consumer complaints directly through to the company in question. “At a time when consumers are highly dissatisfied with their communications companies, this abrupt change in policy troubles us,” the congressmen wrote.
> 
> If the consumer isn’t happy with the outcome of the informal complaint, their only other option would be filing a formal complaint and paying the $225 to do so. The fee for a formal complaint isn’t new, but under these rules, it’s the only option to get your opinion to the FCC’s staff. The Commission’s docket called this move an attempt at streamlining and consolidating “the procedural rules governing formal complaints.” But the procedure has the potential to shut out the voices of consumers when it comes to telecommunications-involved issues.
> 
> Last December’s notice of proposed rule-making regarding rolling back the 2015 Open Internet Order received over 20 million comments from advocacy groups and consumers. Under existing rules, all of those comments were required to pass through the agency’s staff, and commissioners were required to take comments into consideration prior to voting on a rule. Under the new rules, those comments wouldn’t pass through the commission at all.
> 
> “We have all heard countless stories of consumers complaining to the FCC about waiting months to have an erroneous charge removed from their bill or for a refund for a service they never ordered or about accessibility services that are not working,” the congressman wrote. ”Oftentimes these issues are corrected for consumers as a result of the FCC’s advocacy on their behalf.” Without the FCC addressing those issues, consumers would be left to wrangle with massive telecommunication corporations on their own, or pay a hefty fee to the FCC.
> 
> The vote will be held on Thursday during the commission’s Open Meeting, along with a slew of other measures.


----------



## deepelemblues

Tater said:


> It's easier to keep conning the people when you keep spewing bullshit at them.


Why is it so hard for you with your endless unspecified predictions of the collapse of capitalism then? Surely you should have won over a few by now.



> It's when you disappear off to DC after being elected and people are left to feel the results of your actions that they start turning on you.


When will that be? 



> Some have turned on him nonetheless


Who? 90%+ approval rating among Republicans.



> but these rallies have gone a long way towards keeping up the facade amongst his base that he's the outsider in DC sticking up for the forgotten man; when, in reality, if you look at his actual policies, he is the most establishment president of all time.


Do you ever have anything to say other than to make assertions that you never back up and predictions that never come to pass? Oh, and saying that I'm retarded when I point out that your remarks are the rhetorical equivalent of an empty suit.



> People will figure it out eventually,


Will they now? 



> when they start suffering the consequences of his policies


And when will that be? Oh, some unspecified point in the future, just like the collapse of capitalism?



> (well, some will, some are diehards who will never stop drinking the kool-aid),


The irony. 



> but in the meantime, whether Trump is being politically savvy by continuing to do the rallies or whether he is just an egomaniac who needs to hear the crowd cheer, it's still going to help him by continuing to do the rallies. Whether or not it will be enough to get him elected again depends entirely on who runs against him. If it's another Clintonite or Clinton herself, he could win again.


Bill Clinton was right.


----------



## CamillePunk

Our economic system isn't nearly capitalistic enough in my view. :draper2


----------



## Sincere

Tater said:


> Ah you're one of those people. Nevermind. Carry on in your blissful ignorance.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

#SPAM


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016956445307400193
The Red Breakfast. :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

The idea that any government should pay 2% of its budget on military because of NATO is just ludicrous, fuck that. Fucking Americans trying to force everyone to pile money in to the military machine.

Who cares if we get our gas from Russia, typical Ruskiphobia.

US embassy warns Americans that w're going to kick the shit out of them when we protest trump. Fucking idiots.


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> US embassy warns Americans that w're going to kick the shit out of them when we protest trump. Fucking idiots.


You've got unhinged communists in your country, just like we do and just like a lot of other western countries where the kids have grown fat on capitalism and are biting the hand that fed them. The warning is appropriate.

Also:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016956445307400193
Awesome. :lol :clap


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017015939961942018
Yet the chief intellectuals of the left, aka late night comedians and the pundits found on MSNBC and TYT, regularly invoke the hilariously dumb idea that Trump is somehow in cahoots with Russia or subservient to Putin. :lol These are not serious people. These are mentally ill people. Trump is somewhat responsible for their mental illness given he has shattered the illusion of our "shared" reality, but given what a force of nature he is one must question whether or not he can be truly held responsible for the chaos left in his wake.


----------



## Reaper

We know the answer to why Trump has done a complete about-face with regards to foreign interventionalism. 

Notice how the Russia ties hysteria has disappeared ever since Trump decided to forget his foreign policy realism to be a neo-con and continue to push imperialism?


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> You've got unhinged communists in your country, just like we do and just like a lot of other western countries where the kids have grown fat on capitalism and are biting the hand that fed them. The warning is appropriate.
> .


That's nonsense but feel free to show any precedence for violence towards Americans in the UK.


----------



## Vic Capri

US Congressman Daniel M. Donovan (R-NY) introduces the Unmasking Antifa Act

Under the act, anyone wearing a mask who injures, threatens, intimidates, or oppresses people “in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege” will be imprisoned for up to 15 years.

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

RavishingRickRules said:


> #SPAM


What's this about? Weren't there a bunch of people saying Monty Python is too white or something?


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump now wants the EU to DOUBLE their military spending. Fucking warmongerer, wonder if he'd want us to buy it from the biggest exporter of weapons?


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> Trump now wants the EU to DOUBLE their military spending. Fucking warmongerer, wonder if he'd want us to buy it from the biggest exporter of weapons?


Live up to your NATO treaty obligations please. If you don't, why should we live up to ours? What other treaties between the United States and European countries should be reconsidered? Since not adhering to what was agreed seems to be just fine when it comes to the NATO treaty. 

Britain does abide by its NATO obligations so thumbs up to you limeys no complaints about you.

It gets a bit irritating when when we're spending tens of billions of dollars every year to station tens of thousands of soldiers in Europe and only two countries in Western Europe have functioning defense forces (France and Britain) that could actually successfully defend their countries. If we said bye Felecia take care of yourselves and something crazy happened with Russia, Germany wouldn't last longer than a month once Russia got past Poland (which would be a hell of a tough fight, the Poles actually have a real army too).


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> Live up to your NATO treaty obligations please. If you don't, why should we live up to ours? What other treaties between the United States and European countries should be reconsidered? Since not adhering to what was agreed seems to be just fine when it comes to the NATO treaty.
> 
> Britain does abide by its NATO obligations so thumbs up to you limeys no complaints about you.
> 
> It gets a bit irritating when when we're spending tens of billions of dollars every year to station tens of thousands of soldiers in Europe and only two countries in Western Europe have functioning defense forces (France and Britain) that could actually successfully defend their countries. If we said bye Felecia take care of yourselves and something crazy happened with Russia, Germany wouldn't last longer than a month once Russia got past Poland (which would be a hell of a tough fight, the Poles actually have a real army too).


It was agreed to do it by 2024. We don't even want 2% and Trump wants 4.
.


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> It was agreed to do it by 2024. We don't even want 2% and Trump wants 4.
> .


Everybody knows you won't get to 2% by 2024 anyway and have no intention of doing so. 

You don't want 2%? You agreed to it. You don't want it, then let's end NATO. No one will be expecting 2% from you then. Why do you get to enjoy the benefits without contributing the share you agreed to contribute? 

4% is what Europe should be paying to make up for the 30 years most of you didn't even pay 2%. Which, again, you agreed to. If you don't want to pay 4% then don't sign any agreement obligating you to that. Although of course even if you did agree to 4% you'd show the value of your word (nothing) by not doing the 4% anyway. 

The fuck do you get off thinking you can not live up to your obligations but expect us to live up to ours? You go into high dudgeon when :trump says he wants 4%, which is just him saying what he wants, not an actual obligation imposed on you, but we're supposed to say "yeah okay" and not be upset when you say "we aren't going to do the 2% we agreed to, we aren't going to live up to the obligations we said we would, because we don't feel like it"? Uh, okay. Double standard central, as usual.


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> Everybody knows you won't get to 2% by 2024 anyway and have no intention of doing so.
> 
> You don't want 2%? You agreed to it. You don't want it, then let's end NATO. No one will be expecting 2% from you then. Why do you get to enjoy the benefits without contributing the share you agreed to contribute?
> 
> 4% is what Europe should be paying to make up for the 30 years most of you didn't even pay 2%. Which, again, you agreed to. If you don't want to pay 4% then don't sign any agreement obligating you to that. Although of course even if you did agree to 4% you'd show the value of your word (nothing) by not doing the 4% anyway.
> 
> The fuck do you get off thinking you can not live up to your obligations but expect us to live up to ours? You go into high dudgeon when :trump says he wants 4%, which is just him saying what he wants, not an actual obligation imposed on you, but we're supposed to say "yeah okay" and not be upset when you say "we aren't going to do the 2% we agreed to, we aren't going to live up to the obligations we said we would, because we don't feel like it"? Uh, okay. Double standard central, as usual.


Nice rant, next time you get a loan to pay for 5 years you'll not be mad when the bank complains you haven't paid it all off in the first 2 years and come claiming extra interest.


----------



## CamillePunk

I agree that European countries shouldn't have to increase their military spending. We should just disband NATO instead. The US doesn't need to have a military presence all over the world. Bring it all home. Let Europe and the Middle East and our East Asian friends look after their own defenses. We'll show up to help if anyone tries anything (they won't).


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> Nice rant, next time you get a loan to pay for 5 years you'll not be mad when the bank complains you haven't paid it all off in the first 2 years and come claiming extra interest.


Nice rant, next time you get a loan to pay for 10 years and pay half of what you're supposed to for the first 5 years and it's obvious you won't be paid up after the next 5 years, so the bank gives you an extension... Then tell the bank well I don't really want to pay this either, I know I agreed but I'm just telling you I really don't want to. The implication being that I'm not going to hold up my end even after I've been cut a break. 

Obviously you have done nothing wrong and your word is not worthless and it is actually the bank that is in the wrong. Somehow. :draper2

The entitlement and selfishness is breathtaking. Does your word mean anything to you? Obviously it doesn't. Say whatever, have people put their trust in you, and then not honor that trust. Because you don't feel like it. A fine show of character.



CamillePunk said:


> We'll show up to help if anyone tries anything (they won't).


Pure. Delusion.

Never been the case in all of human history that nobody tries anything when they think they can pull it off. We're living in an aberrantly peaceful period of history where the major powers don't fight each other because they don't think they can pull it off. See what happens when people start thinking they can pull it off again.


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> Nice rant, next time you get a loan to pay for 10 years and pay half of what you're supposed to for the first 5 years and it's obvious you won't be paid up after the next 5 years, so the bank gives you an extension... Then tell the bank well I don't really want to pay this either, I know I agreed but I'm just telling you I really don't want to. The implication being that I'm not going to hold up my end even after I've been cut a break.
> 
> Obviously you have done nothing wrong and your word is not worthless and it is actually the bank that is in the wrong. Somehow. :draper2
> 
> The entitlement and selfishness is breathtaking. Does your word mean anything to you? Obviously it doesn't. Say whatever, have people put their trust in you, and then not honor that trust. Because you don't feel like it. A fine show of character.


You haven't proven that they won't meet their targets, you've taking the word of your good emperor. Let's double military spending, the moronic input of a war mongerer.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> I agree that European countries shouldn't have to increase their military spending. We should just disband NATO instead. The US doesn't need to have a military presence all over the world. Bring it all home. Let Europe and the Middle East and our East Asian friends look after their own defenses. We'll show up to help if anyone tries anything (they won't).


I agree. Which is weird.


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> Pure. Delusion.
> 
> Never been the case in all of human history that nobody tries anything when they think they can pull it off. We're living in an aberrantly peaceful period of history where the major powers don't fight each other because they don't think they can pull it off. See what happens when people start thinking they can pull it off again.


Okay. Who are the aggressors in this scenario where the US totally withdraws? Who is going to attack a US ally just because the US doesn't have troops/bases there?


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> You haven't proven that they won't meet their targets, you've taking the word of your good emperor. Let's double military spending, the moronic input of a war mongerer.


The agreement was made in 2014.

At the current rate only a handful of the 24 NATO countries will meet the goal. 

I'm not taking the word of the president, I'm taking the word of you. You're the one that said Europe doesn't even want 2%. 

What wars would Europe be waging if its countries spent 4% of their GDP on their militaries? They gonna invade Turkey? Maybe France will do a reconquista on Algeria? Italy wants Cyrenaica and Tripolitania back? What kind of stupidity is it where increasing military spending is warmongering? 

Most of your militaries are currently so shitty, 4% would barely be enough to be able to defend yourselves, much less attack someone. It would take several years of 4% just to rebuild the embarrassments that are most European armed forces to the point where they wouldn't fold within a month if they were attacked by an actual major power.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Okay. Who are the aggressors in this scenario where the US totally withdraws? Who is going to attack a US ally just because the US doesn't have troops/bases there?


Can I borrow your crystal ball, I wanna go to Vegas and clean up.

Fifteen years ago nobody thought Russia would attack Georgia or the Ukraine. Or that they would have rebuilt their military to be able to project significant land forces hundreds of miles from Russia's borders. 

Ten years nobody thought China would be building up a string of fortresses in disputed waters hundreds of miles off its coasts, rapidly building its naval strength and repeatedly speaking in a bellicose manner. Ten years ago nobody thought that China and India would be jostling each other and jockeying for position in the Aksai Chin again. Or that China would be engaged in other territorial disputes with Japan, with the Philippines, with Vietnam, with Malaysia, with Brunei, with Indonesia, throwing its weight around and talking down in a threatening manner to these countries, and continuing to bang the war drums against Taiwan, all at the same time. 

The world is on a clear trend of rising regional tensions between the major powers of Russia and China and the countries that border them or are separated from them by a relatively short stretches of ocean, and you're asking me oh well what could happen with the clear implication being that nothing will happen?

Just what makes you think history has ended? Even Fukuyama admitted he was wrong.


----------



## CamillePunk

So Russia or China is going to attack a US ally if we don't have troops and bases nearby?


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> The agreement was made in 2014.
> 
> At the current rate only a handful of the 24 NATO countries will meet the goal.
> 
> I'm not taking the word of the president, I'm taking the word of you. You're the one that said Europe doesn't even want 2%.
> 
> What wars would Europe be waging if its countries spent 4% of their GDP on their militaries? They gonna invade Turkey? Maybe France will do a reconquista on Algeria? Italy wants Cyrenaica and Tripolitania back? What kind of stupidity is it where increasing military spending is warmongering?
> 
> Most of your militaries are currently so shitty, 4% would barely be enough to be able to defend yourselves, much less attack someone. It would take several years of 4% just to rebuild the embarrassments that are most European armed forces to the point where they wouldn't fold within a month if they were attacked by an actual major power.


What you're saying is patently bullshit, the UK army alone could defeat a multitude of nation's if it wanted to. Not that size is everything seeing as you got smashed by the Vietnamese. So doubling our combined army would be a substantial change.

I'm not replying anymore, anyone who thinks even a 10% GDP rise would stop Russia or China are fucking idiots,, so why the fuck do we need a bigger military machine.

Disband NATO and stop wasting our resources on funding arms companies.


----------



## GothicBohemian

You US folks need to watch out for one key player in particular - Russia. If NATO disbands - which appears to be Trump's goal - and Trump continues to legitimize Russia in Crimea, that opens doors to further Russian incursion into the Baltics which will destabilize Eastern Europe. Russia also has their eyes on northern Canada and Alaska. Russia is already building forces and making excursions towards the Canadian North and without NATO...well, worst case scenario you may wind up with Russia right on your doorstep, or hanging out in Alaska, America. And China might look to find some space in North or South America, though they're more interested in Africa right now. 

It's no secret to me that y'all think I'm a loony who knows nothing. Look, I'm not, and never have been, a conspiracy theorist. This isn't theorizing about shadowy international organizations (which, btw, I don't believe exist, at least not as portrayed by the conspiracy nutter culture - international politics is actually pretty boring, or so I've been told  ). All I'm doing is applying logic and all those useless history credits I accumulated over my years of university. People, and the governments they control, behave in predictable ways; even those who seem unpredictable based on the chaos they spread are easily understood if you step back and look at the patterns. 

I told you Trump was going to alter America's relationships with traditional allies. He's doing that - today's rant about Germany being entirely controlled by Russia was a charmer - and there's a reason he's creating these divisions, even if he may or may not fully understand it himself. In fact, I believe he has his own motivations, what he sees as negotiation by bullying, but that others smarter than him have motivations that his actions simply empower. You best all hope saner minds prevail and congress reins in Trumpy before he does further lasting damage, not just to international trade and relations but to the environment and the American education system. It may be too late for your social safety net but that's the combined work of multiple administrations. 

Anyway, just passing through. Enjoy all that winning. Bye.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

GothicBohemian said:


> You US folks need to watch out for one key player in particular - Russia. If NATO disbands - which appears to be Trump's goal - and Trump continues to legitimize Russia in Crimea, that opens doors to further Russian incursion into the Baltics which will destabilize Eastern Europe. Russia also has their eyes on northern Canada and Alaska. Russia is already building forces and making excursions towards the Canadian North and without NATO...well, worst case scenario you may wind up with Russia right on your doorstep, or hanging out in Alaska, America. And China might look to find some space in North or South America, though they're more interested in Africa right now.
> 
> It's no secret to me that y'all think I'm a loony who knows nothing. Look, I'm not, and never have been, a conspiracy theorist. This isn't theorizing about shadowy international organizations (which, btw, I don't believe exist, at least not as portrayed by the conspiracy nutter culture - international politics is actually pretty boring, or so I've been told  ). All I'm doing is applying logic and all those useless history credits I accumulated over my years of university. People, and the governments they control, behave in predictable ways; even those who seem unpredictable based on the chaos they spread are easily understood if you step back and look at the patterns.
> 
> I told you Trump was going to alter America's relationships with traditional allies. He's doing that - today's rant about Germany being entirely controlled by Russia was a charmer - and there's a reason he's creating these divisions, even if he may or may not fully understand it himself. In fact, I believe he has his own motivations, what he sees as negotiation by bullying, but that others smarter than him have motivations that his actions simply empower. You best all hope saner minds prevail and congress reins in Trumpy before he does further lasting damage, not just to international trade and relations but to the environment and the American education system. It may be too late for your social safety net but that's the combined work of multiple administrations.
> 
> Anyway, just passing through. Enjoy all that winning. Bye.


I think it's clear to most people that Trump is Putin's puppet, I just think the American right believe so strongly in Putin's agenda that they don't care. Russia isn't our enemy, globalization is and Trump is the weapon to bring the whole system down. What I don't know is if they're truly naive enough to believe every country is going exist peacefully in it's own vacuum, or if they're actually looking forward to the constant armed conflagration globalization has largely prevented.


----------



## CamillePunk

Trump is Putin's puppet while criticizing Germany for buying their energy from Russia instead of the US. :banderas Now who is pushing 4D Chess?


----------



## Tag89

russia to invade croatia for some revenge


----------



## Miss Sally

NATO was nothing more than an excuse for America to establish a Global presence in order to protect American interests. The trade deals which do not favor the US were also set up to keep Nations from dealing with Russia. Now that the whole red scare is done and over with and the US wants better deals on trade and for people to actually pay for NATO commitments, suddenly the US is mean and they're not doing what's best for everyone. Funny coming from peoples who constantly talk of fairness and being anti-military or anti-intervention. 

So which is it? The US should end it's global military domination or should it keep it? Cannot have both.

I guess it further proves my thought that people only like "fairness" that benefits them more than others. 

Globalization has done as much good as it has bad. It's seen the wealthiest of people get more wealthy beyond their imagination and created problems of pollution and dependence of underdeveloped countries on their larger developed masters. It's not like this will continue anyways, when automation kicks in there won't be a real need for these countries to be used as slave labor for cheap goods anymore. It's not like global trade will end either, where there is a dollar to be made, people will be there. 

What further makes me laugh is the "MUH RUSSIA" narrative, this was right wing propaganda of the Cold War. I guess Politics are like fashion, it recycles, what was hardliner Right Wing stances of yesteryear are now "Liberal" stances of today.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> I agree that European countries shouldn't have to increase their military spending. We should just disband NATO instead. The US doesn't need to have a military presence all over the world. Bring it all home. Let Europe and the Middle East and our East Asian friends look after their own defenses. We'll show up to help if anyone tries anything (they won't).





CamillePunk said:


> Trump is Putin's puppet while criticizing Germany for buying their energy from Russia instead of the US. :banderas Now who is pushing 4D Chess?


You've been on a roll today. :clap


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Trump is Putin's puppet while criticizing Germany for buying their energy from Russia instead of the US. :banderas Now who is pushing 4D Chess?


I'm not on the Putin bandwagon, but taking anything Trump says at face value at this point is very naive. He's proven on many occasions he's happy to backflip in the same week in some cases.


----------



## Sincere

GothicBohemian said:


> If NATO disbands - which appears to be Trump's goal


Based on what? He hasn't done anything to suggest he has a preference for NATO to disband. And, of those who are causing the most tensions among NATO, Trump is nothing compared to the internal disaster that has become the EU under Merkel. Trump's most egregious act has been putting his foot down over the largely unfulfilled defense spending obligations. As such, to the contrary, his agenda with NATO has been one concerned with the strengthening of NATO.



GothicBohemian said:


> and Trump continues to legitimize Russia in Crimea


This isn't true. He's never legitimized Russian annexation of Crimea and his administration has openly stated they will not be recognizing Russia's claims in Crimea. NATO as a whole has condemned it. Meanwhile, he has been arming Ukranians, killing Russians in Syria, attacking/sanctioning Russian allies, and sanctioning Russia itself. Objectively speaking, he's done more against Russia than Obama ever did, and he's only about half way through his first term. In fact, you could easily make the argument that Russia's position today was the result of Obama's gross lack of concern for Russia and foreign policy competence. Another mess dropped in Trump's lap. Incidentally, Russia's greatest influence seems to be over Germany, who couldn't even work up the fortitude to put the pipeline on hold when Russia started misbehaving (again).

But he gets in front of the camera and offers some flowery words (as he does with everyone, regardless of how adversarial his relationship or actions actually are), and the MSM keeps pushing this nonsensical Trump-Russia narrative, and people gobble it up because they can't be bothered to look further than five feet in front of their faces. Why judge actions when you can jump to conclusions based on nothing but biased interpretations of words? You may be able to criticize Trump in a number of ways, but the suggestion that he is somehow in league with Russia is demonstrably and obviously false.

If you want to lecture someone about Russia, go lecture Merkel.



GothicBohemian said:


> that opens doors to further Russian incursion into the Baltics which will destabilize Eastern Europe.


Oh, another WWIII prediction. New and exciting. How many times does this make now? I lost count.



GothicBohemian said:


> Russia also has their eyes on northern Canada and Alaska.


And even if they did, so what? Russia hasn't even achieved 1/3 of the naval tonnage compared to the US alone, not to mention the rest of NATO. If this reality means nothing to you, that only demonstrates how unqualified you are to be discussing any of this authoritatively. 



GothicBohemian said:


> Russia is already building forces and making excursions towards the Canadian North and without NATO...well, worst case scenario you may wind up with Russia right on your doorstep, or hanging out in Alaska, America.


Lol. Case in point.



GothicBohemian said:


> And China might look to find some space in North or South America, though they're more interested in Africa right now.


China's concerned with not having their economy collapse as a result of a trade war that threatens to cut their export market off at the knees. Economic illiterates have a gross underestimation of the US position relative to China because the extent of their knowledge about such things begins and ends with the magical light box that feeds them nonsense. (News flash, folks, these aren't topics that can be condensed by unremarkable mouthpieces or media personalities into 30 second segments between commercials. If you haven't already realized that, I feel sorry for you.) The reality is, they're quite literally our bitch. They realize this. They are hoping and trying to coerce Trump into blinking soon, before they will inevitably have to. Much like Putin, they probably wish Obama was back in office so the boot wasn't being applied to their neck.



GothicBohemian said:


> It's no secret to me that y'all think I'm a loony who knows nothing.


Can't imagine why anyone would think that, what with all the brilliance you've demonstrated thus far.



GothicBohemian said:


> Look, I'm not, and never have been, a conspiracy theorist.


Fooled me.



GothicBohemian said:


> All I'm doing is applying logic and all those useless history credits I accumulated over my years of university.


Get a refund.



GothicBohemian said:


> I told you Trump was going to alter America's relationships with traditional allies.


I should hope so, since he made that part of his 2016 campaign platform.



GothicBohemian said:


> He's doing that


It's about time someone did.



GothicBohemian said:


> today's rant about Germany being entirely controlled by Russia was a charmer - and there's a reason he's creating these divisions, even if he may or may not fully understand it himself.


Hyperbole aside, he's not wrong. When your country becomes energy dependent with an adversary (particularly one that everyone is incessantly hyperventilating over), that doesn't exactly bode well. It's actually even worse in the case of Germany since they're also serving as a proxy by which the rest of Europe may develop a dependency on Russian energy exports, which will also help to mitigate against the sanctions Trump has applied to Russia's economic position. Germany is becoming Russia's energy pusher to the rest of Europe. It's pathetic. And their excuse? "Well, we already began construction of the pipeline... so... *shrug*"

But it's Trump that is endangering NATO, right? Lol.



GothicBohemian said:


> In fact, I believe he has his own motivations, what he sees as negotiation by bullying, but that others smarter than him have motivations that his actions simply empower.


Do you ever stop and ask yourself how you've arrived at baseless assertion after baseless assertion? Or does that not even occur to you? Critical thinking. Get some.



GothicBohemian said:


> You best all hope saner minds prevail and congress reins in Trumpy before he does further lasting damage


The fact that you think banking on the sanity of Congress is somehow a superior alternative only betrays how underwhelming your grasp on any of this is.



GothicBohemian said:


> Enjoy all that winning.


Will do.


----------



## Vic Capri

> If NATO disbands - which appears to be Trump's goal


NATO is not going to disband over having to pay the US more money.

- Vic


----------



## Sincere

Vic Capri said:


> NATO is not going to disband over having to pay the US more money.
> 
> - Vic


It's not even about paying the US, it's just about meeting the obligations they agreed to with regard to increasing their respective defense spending to 2% of their respective GDP.

And given the fact that they all agreed to this, and several have already met the obligation with others implementing plans and taking steps toward meeting this obligation, and the NATO Secretary General spending the summit agreeing with Trump's general position, while also crediting Trump's leadership in achieving positive results toward this obligation, and reaffirming the obligation of NATO allies, I'm not sure how anyone imagines this will somehow spell the end of NATO.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> What you're saying is patently bullshit, the UK army alone could defeat a multitude of nation's alone if it wanted to. Not that size is everything seeing as you got smashed by the Vietnamese. So doubling our combined army would be a substantial change.
> 
> I'm not replying anymore, anyone who thinks even a 10% GDP rise would stop Russia or China are fucking idiots,, so why the fuck do we need a bigger military machine.
> 
> Disband NATO and stop wasting our resources on funding arms companies.


Apparently he doesn't realise that most of the best US troops are hand-trained by the UK military. My brother trains the engineers on their nuclear subs and gets paid a MASSIVE bonus for the time they're out in the states. Like you said, size isn't everything (especially when you're the best trained military on the planet :grin2: )


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

No reason to believe Trump is trying to disband NATO and yet it generated a bipartisan 97-2 Senate vote to reaffirm commitment to NATO, including specific language about fighting Russian aggression. 

If our representatives, even republicans, believe NATO is important, believe Russia is an aggressor and believe Trump is too cozy with Putin, why is it so hard for the people on the right to believe? It's not like Senators are getting fake news from CNN, they see the direct security reports. 

The notion that everyone in the intelligence community, everyone in the Pentagon, everyone in the White House, and everyone in Congress could be wrong about the Russian threat and the only person who's right about them is Trump, the guy who refuses his daily security briefings, boggles the mind. How did the cult of Trump become the cult of Putin? Why do you think Putin/Trump knows what's better for the world than the last 70 years of democratically elected officials and the institutions they forged to bring stability to the world?

Did Fury Road seem so cool you guys are actually looking forward to living in Mad Max times?


----------



## Reaper

Gothic and JeriGOAT need to stop with the Russia mastermind nonsense because it really isn't helping anyone at all. Russia/Trump conspiracy theory is not the hill you want the rest of your politics to be judged against. 

Meanwhile. The media continues to be shit fpalm


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017079090996760576
The ENTIRE NATO "fiasco" is simply a matter of principles. 

Imagine you had a free-loader who said he'd pay $500/month in rent to use your house and facilities. That means he has to pay $6,000 a year. Now the cheap bastard has spent $4,000 of his $6000 that he owes you on french wine and says that it can only pay you $2000 when he owes you 6000. So you ask him to pay you the 6000 and he starts spitting blood at you for asking it for the money it owes you and then squats claiming you're the bad person. 

It doesn't make any european govts look good with this nonsense because all it does is tell us that they're a bunch of french wine sipping free-loaders who can't carry their own weight. Would you trust a squatter who says you're the one in the wrong when they refuse to pay you for an agreed commitment? :shrug

No offense to any actually principled europeans with this post. But seriously, it's shady politics like these that continue to make me want to support the right even though I'd rather not.


----------



## God Of Anger Juno

Stormy Daniels was just arrested in Ohio while stripping on a stint operation lol.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

Reap said:


> Gothic and JeriGOAT need to stop with the Russia mastermind nonsense because it really isn't helping anyone at all. Russia/Trump conspiracy theory is not the hill you want the rest of your politics to be judged against.
> 
> Meanwhile. The media continues to be shit fpalm
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017079090996760576
> The ENTIRE NATO "fiasco" is simply a matter of principles.
> 
> Imagine you had a free-loader who said he'd pay $500/month in rent to use your house and facilities. That means he has to pay $6,000 a year. Now the cheap bastard has spent $4,000 of his $6000 that he owes you on french wine and says that it can only pay you $2000 when he owes you 6000. So you ask him to pay you the 6000 and he starts spitting blood at you for asking it for the money it owes you and then squats claiming you're the bad person.
> 
> It doesn't make any european govts look good with this nonsense because all it does is tell us that they're a bunch of french wine sipping free-loaders who can't carry their own weight. Would you trust a squatter who says you're the one in the wrong when they refuse to pay you for an agreed commitment? :shrug
> 
> No offense to any actually principled europeans with this post. But seriously, it's shady politics like these that continue to make me want to support the right even though I'd rather not.


Call it a conspiracy theory, judge my politics anyway you want, until the right can come up with an answer as to why Trump is obsessed with being close to Putin, won't acknowledge the Russian interference in our election like the entire intelligence community and all of Congress has, won't say a bad word about Putin's autocratic and strongman tactics, and spends all his time attacking our allies and trying to tear down western globalist alliances, which every educated pundit, member of Congress and the intelligence community agree is Putin's ultimate goal, Donald Trump will always be a Russian agent in my eyes. 

You want to talk about the principle behind attacking Europe for being freeloaders? Fine. But there's no way you can convince me your roomate not paying his full rent is a more pressing matter than the guy who's trying to break in your backdoor to burn your house down. The only bipartisan agreement in this country right now is that Russia is an aggressor and Trump is not only actively trying to befriend this fucker but he's shifting our politics towards Putin's end goal; I'm all for Occam's Razor so if there's a logical explanation to why our president is so unabashedly pro-Russia that's simpler than him being a traitor, I'd love to hear it.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reap said:


> Gothic and JeriGOAT need to stop with the Russia mastermind nonsense because it really isn't helping anyone at all. Russia/Trump conspiracy theory is not the hill you want the rest of your politics to be judged against.
> 
> Meanwhile. The media continues to be shit fpalm
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017079090996760576
> The ENTIRE NATO "fiasco" is simply a matter of principles.
> 
> Imagine you had a free-loader who said he'd pay $500/month in rent to use your house and facilities. That means he has to pay $6,000 a year. Now the cheap bastard has spent $4,000 of his $6000 that he owes you on french wine and says that it can only pay you $2000 when he owes you 6000. So you ask him to pay you the 6000 and he starts spitting blood at you for asking it for the money it owes you and then squats claiming you're the bad person.
> 
> It doesn't make any european govts look good with this nonsense because all it does is tell us that they're a bunch of french wine sipping free-loaders who can't carry their own weight. Would you trust a squatter who says you're the one in the wrong when they refuse to pay you for an agreed commitment? :shrug
> 
> No offense to any actually principled europeans with this post. But seriously, it's shady politics like these that continue to make me want to support the right even though I'd rather not.


In your scenario he'd have to be asking for the $6000 5 months in instead of the end of the year as agreed for it to make any sense. There are 6 more years to go out of the 10, Trump is probably right to press them, but you guys are wrong with your analogies.
I wouldn't trust a bully landlord trying to make me pay my rent early. I do however agree that if my tenant said he wasn't going to pay I'd be right to raise the issue.

2% is such an arbitrary number, military spending should be on need not meaningless numbers. NATO setting this target was always a stupid idea, it does nothing to improve security, just feeds the arms market.



> "We should be at four percent. I think four percent is the right number."


 quick spend more money on weapons! The guys an idiot.



> Together, the European NATO members spent $254 billion in 2016—over 3 times more than Russia.


 somebody Explain to me why we're supposed to be scared of Russia? Explain why we need a bigger military budget?


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017488903090114561
:clap 

Amazing to listen to all of these fools rush to the defense of an adulterer. :lol Wonder how many of them felt a sharp stab of guilt themselves when the GENTLEMAN/SAVAGE asked his question.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> In your scenario he'd have to be asking for the $6000 5 months in instead of the end of the year as agreed for it to make any sense. There are 6 more years to go out of the 10, Trump is probably right to press them, but you guys are wrong with your analogies.
> I wouldn't trust a bully landlord trying to make me pay my rent early. I do however agree that if my tenant said he wasn't going to pay I'd be right to raise the issue.
> 
> 2% is such an arbitrary number, military spending should be on need not meaningless numbers. NATO setting this target was always a stupid idea, it does nothing to improve security, just feeds the arms market.


Trump has been in power for a year and a half. The Europeans have been squatting on the NATO payments for much longer than that. You really think that a squatter is gonna "pay up in full" :lmao Eh. No. The squatter will stall as much as possible and then find a way to give itself "relief". 

So ... 

I hate neocons and I want the military machine to die, but at the same time, let's stop making excuses too though and at least show some sort of ethical metal.


----------



## deepelemblues

:trump comes to Britain to say, 

"We need British accents in Space Force, the way you people talk is just great, gotta have that in space. Australia and New Zealand and Canada too, I just can't think of Space Force without 'tee and crumpits' you know." 

Centuries later this will be regarded as the first real step towards the glorious reunion of the English-speaking peoples under one flag. 

:trump2
:trump3


----------



## Headliner

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017488903090114561
> :clap
> 
> Amazing to listen to all of these fools rush to the defense of an adulterer. :lol Wonder how many of them felt a sharp stab of guilt themselves when the GENTLEMAN/SAVAGE asked his question.


But Trump himself is an adulterer so every Republican that rushes to his defense are fools too by that logic? (Legit question)


----------



## CamillePunk

Headliner said:


> But Trump himself is an adulterer so every Republican that rushes to his defense are fools too by that logic? (Legit question)


If they're shouting down people for calling it out in a context where it's relevant, yes. That's not something that should be defended.


----------



## Headliner

CamillePunk said:


> If they're shouting down people for calling it out in a context where it's relevant, yes. That's not something that should be defended.


Cool. So, what Louie Gohmert did wasn't a scumbag move in the highest order? That's the type of thing you can get punched in the face or even killed for on the streets. He had no business saying that.


----------



## CamillePunk

Headliner said:


> Cool. So, what Louie Gohmert did wasn't a scumbag move in the highest order? That's the type of thing you can get punched in the face or even killed for on the streets. He had no business saying that.


Nope. Peter Strzok was going on about his integrity and belief in the principles of the FBI and how he'd never betray them blah blah blah. Seems fair to point out he was willing to betray his wife. :draper2

What would occur on "the streets" has no bearing on what should occur in a civilized society, btw.


----------



## Headliner

CamillePunk said:


> Nope. Peter Strzok was going on about his integrity and belief in the principles of the FBI and how he'd never betray them blah blah blah. Seems fair to point out he was willing to betray his wife. :draper2
> 
> What would occur on "the streets" has no bearing on what should occur in a civilized society, btw.


So you and the other Trump supporters always like to bring up liberals when they fail to live up to a moral standard or isn't politically incorrect enough, but you refuse to do the same for a Republican when he clearly makes an inappropriate comment that wasn't necessary to the hearing. It's ok for them to be a piece of shit and take personal shots in what's suppose to be a professional setting. Got the memo.


----------



## CamillePunk

Headliner said:


> So you and the other Trump supporters always like to bring up liberals when they fail to live up to a moral standard or isn't politically incorrect enough, but you refuse to do the same for a Republican when he clearly makes an inappropriate comment that wasn't necessary to the hearing. It's ok for them to be a piece of shit and take personal shots in what's suppose to be a professional setting. Got the memo.


Hey, that's not fair! I am the one who brought it up! :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017488903090114561
> :clap
> 
> Amazing to listen to all of these fools rush to the defense of an adulterer. :lol Wonder how many of them felt a sharp stab of guilt themselves when the GENTLEMAN/SAVAGE asked his question.


Jeez the majority have probably cheated at some point, you'd be better off asking who hasn't.


----------



## God Of Anger Juno

Headliner said:


> So you and the other Trump supporters always like to bring up liberals when they fail to live up to a moral standard or isn't politically incorrect enough, but you refuse to do the same for a Republican when he clearly makes an inappropriate comment that wasn't necessary to the hearing. It's ok for them to be a piece of shit and take personal shots in what's suppose to be a professional setting. Got the memo.


That's what conservatives do though. They love calling hypocrisy except their own and when someone calls their hypocrisy they deflect from it by making excuses such as but Obama this and crooked Hillary that.


----------



## CamillePunk

God Of Anger Juno said:


> That's what conservatives do though. They love calling hypocrisy except their own and when someone calls their hypocrisy they deflect from it by making excuses such as but Obama this and crooked Hillary that.


That's what everyone who is partisan does. :lol As a free-thinking individual who is neither liberal or conservative, the constant hypocrisy on both sides makes for quite the comedy.


----------



## yeahbaby!

^ Now I've heard it all Camille...


----------



## DesolationRow

Were the Peter Strzok hearings part of a Hollywood film, and Strzok was playing a character envisioned by the screenwriter and director as wanton, supercilious, conceited, haughty, creepy and possibly downright mentally unbalanced or troubled, the director would have yelled, "Cut!" a few minutes into the experience and sat down with Strzok, saying, "Please, Peter, you really need to dial this down. There isn't a smidgen of subtlety here, you're like a demonically possessed Snidely Whiplash caricature." 

Those mannerisms, the way he seemed to want to make himself look like a viper ala Randy Orton with his eyes, in-between shaking his body with self-satisfaction. 

Positively hilarious.


----------



## deepelemblues

Kinda like how it's okay to call some dude a race traitor because he don't agree with your politics and that makes umadbro then say other people are stormfront then always have some excuse as to why you were justified saying such things then tell people to shut up :draper2


----------



## Reaper

This thread needs a little humor. 

This is not meant to indicate any sort of partisanship on my part so it's still hilarious tho...


----------



## DOPA

If NATO is going to continue to be a cornerstone of western foreign policy (and it will be), then it only makes sense from an American perspective that they are going to want to make sure all the countries involved meets their obligations, at least at the bare minimum which the alliance has agreed upon. The US as much as I don't like it, contributes by far the most money and resources to NATO and as already mentioned, only a handful of countries are actually meeting the 2% threshold currently speaking. This I think is about making sure everyone is serious and committed to the military alliance. If most of the countries aren't showing that, then if I was an American, I'd be thinking what is the point in us committing so much if the rest of the countries involved aren't taking it seriously? As much as we rely on the US to defend us and "save the day", we can't just rely on them. We have to be able to defend ourselves. Truth be told, I'm not too worried on the British side of things as we have been meeting those targets and we are no slouch militarily, but I can understand why Trump is putting his foot down on this issue.

Having said all that, honestly my position on NATO is that it should be disbanded. First of all, it is a relic of the old cold war which should have ended decades ago but continues to persist. The goal of NATO is supposed to be neutralize Russia's influence and Russian aggression and yet NATO's and the west's escalation and intervention in regards to Russia has not only escalated tensions and made relations the worst they've been since the height of the cold war but have actually done the opposite of what it has been intended; namely that our actions have actually emboldened Russian ambitions as a state.

There are two very key moves which have caused this: firstly the continued build up of troops around the Balkans. This has in no uncertain terms been seen by Russia as an act of aggression against them and a big concern in terms of their national security. And frankly, who can blame them? If any western country had a build up of Russian or Chinese troops on their border we would be alarmed if not downright hostile. It is little wonder then that relations between Russia and the west in general has gotten worse over the last several years. The longer NATO continues the policy, the harder it will be to actually have fruitful talks which leads to a more peaceful and less hostile international relationship.

The second is essentially the key event which really increased hostility and tension between Russia and the west at large, that being what happened in Ukraine a number of years back. Essentially what happened was the then elected Ukrainian government who was Russian friendly was toppled in a coup which was supported and backed by the EU at large and the west as a whole and was replaced by a much more EU friendly regime. Not only did this escalate tensions with Russia but if you are of the mindset that Putin is the big bad evil wolf in current international relations, it actually helped and emboldened Russia on the political stage as they used the crisis to help prop up Russian separatists in the Crimea who now wanted to be under Russian rule after witnessing what had happened in Ukraine. Far from containing Russian aggression and ambition, it actually helped embolden Russian action in the region. Yet another western foreign policy blunder in the 21st century. We have been used to too many of those since the Iraq war.

Not only that but there are other problems with NATO. It is supposed to be a military alliance with trusted countries and allies involved yet we have the likes of Turkey involved who are no friend of the west, especially of Europe and the European Union. Erdogan for a number of years has continued to act like an authoritarian tyrant and has tried to push Turkey more and more into a theocratic state which is completely at odds with the values of other NATO countries who are opposing Russia because we view them to have an authoritarian autocratic system (which they do). Not only that but Turkey has had the EU and European countries over a lock and barrel over the migrant crisis and have used that for their own political gain and advantage. The Turkish government are not our friends yet we're supposed to trust them in one of the most important western foreign policy pieces? Insanity.

But the most alarming part right now in terms of NATO is the push for expansion to include old Soviet countries. This to me is the most dangerous proposal because we would gain nothing and yet it in theory could put us in a dangerous position. One such country which has been suggested we put in the NATO alliance is Montenegro. They have a population of just *300,000* which is less than some military forces. They would contribute absolutely to NATO and we would gain absolutely zero for pushing them into the fold. It would once again be seen as an act of aggression and once again escalate tensions with Russia for no good reason and we would be bound by NATO protocol that if they were to be attacked that we would have to intervene. Just how many people would be willing to send their friends and family to risk their lives in a war for a country that most Europeans yet alone Americans couldn't even find on a map? We've already had way too many pointless wars and military interventions since the turn of the century, why the hell would we risk yet another one no matter how big or small the chances of it happening when it can easily be avoided? I can't think of a worse idea than expanding NATO to include Montenegro or Georgia.

*But DOPA, everyone knows now Trump is the puppet of Vladimir Putin?*

Really? Because pretty much every major foreign policy decision taken by the US in regards to Russia shows the exact opposite:

* A Putin puppet would not only maintain the Obama era sanctions but increase them.

* A Putin puppet wouldn't continue to contribute towards NATO troop expansion along the Balkans.

* A Putin puppet wouldn't arm and fund Ukrainian resistance groups to oppose Russian separatists in the Crimea. Some of whom by the way are *legitimate Neo-Nazi groups.* Where is the outrage against that? Nowhere to be found.

* A Putin puppet wouldn't call for increased military intervention in Syria directly against the Assad government whose main ally is Russia.


There has been much rhetoric about the Trump/Putin relationship but looking at policy where it matters, the Trump is Putin/Russia's puppet argument is patent bullshit. All the evidence points to the opposite conclusion yet the modern day McCarthyists and Russian conspiracy theorists are so caught up in "resisting Trump" that they've actually opposed Trump by becoming more hawkish in their foreign policy and acting more like Neo-Conservatives. The Democrats and the left at large used to be better on the issue of foreign policy, there were loud voices of dissent and protests against the Iraq War. Those principles have been long dead since 2008 and are certainly dead now. Anti-War principles be damned, as long as we are opposed or for the right people that's all that matters right? The Resistance movement is an absolute joke.

If Trump is a puppet of anyone it is the military industrial complex and the Neo-Conservative establishment in Washington.....who oppose Russia and want to escalate tensions against them.

I don't like Putin or the Russian government, they are a literal oligarchy who suppresses and arrests political opponents, have sham elections which are rigged so the regime always wins and the treatment of homosexuals particularly in Chechnya is disgusting. But I don't want to risk war with them and I don't think our current trajectory is helping, it's time to change course.


----------



## DesolationRow

A fine post, @DOPA;


Circling back around to the Peter Strzok hearings for but one last moment, skipping past both the laughter and the derisive outrage being thrown toward Louie Gohmert's dredging up of Strzok's unfaithfulness to his wife, far more interesting is Gohmert's claim that the Intelligence Community Inspector General--or ICIG--informed Strzok that all of Hillary Clinton's emails as Secretary of State were being forwarded to an unspecified foreign power. 

A "foreign entity," to be precise.

Now, it is fairly old history that the ICIG found numerous problems with Hillary Clinton's server that the FBI simply missed.

Chiefly, the ICIG picked up on the point that completely eluded the Federal Bureau of Investigation, namely that a fair number of emails had been openly marked classified with a "(C)" at the time they were sent. As the texts between FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Strzok's mistress, and Strzok himself demonstrate, it was the ICIG that spotted this well after the FBI had combed over the emails and somehow missed this conspicuous point. As Strzok wrote, "Holy cow... if the FBI missed this, what else was missed? ... Remind me to tell you to flag for Andy [redacted] emails we (actually ICIG) found that have portion marks (C) on a couple of paras. DoJ was Very Concerned about this." Last autumn ICIG Chuck McCullough took the precaution of airing publicly the point that he perceived what he termed as push-back once he had commenced ringing the alarm bell concerning the myriad problems with Hillary Clinton's servers to at-the-time Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. 

Beyond that, the FBI evidently never followed up on the finding that the emails had been forwarded to the nameless foreign entity. The ICG reportedly found what was described as an "anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list," as Gohmert said during the Strzok hearing. As Gohmert continued, "It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia."

According to Gohmert ICIG investigator Frank Rucker presented all of the findings to Strzok, and following this the FBI official never acted on the information brought to him. In the hearings Strzok happily acknowledges that he met with Rucker but contends that he does not today recall the "specific content" of that encounter. 

Gohmert rather angrily noted, "The forensic examination was done by the ICIG and they can document that, but you were given that information and you did nothing with it." Gohmert would go on to comment on the information pertaining to the timeline of the investigation, which turned on someone alerting Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz to this.

Gohmert was adamant about this, saying, "Mr. Horowitz got a call four times from someone wanting to brief him about this, and he never returned the call." Strzok did not contradict these points. He did, however, insist on not recalling the specifics of the meeting with Rucker; in fact, he said that he met with Rucker once or twice, and could not remember if it had been once or twice, and he could not remember the specifics of the meeting or meetings.

Plenty of popcorn may be consumed watching this spectacle, haha.


----------



## Vic Capri

Liberals protesting in London. This is why they lost the World Cup.

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> Jeez the majority have probably cheated at some point, you'd be better off asking who hasn't.


How many times have you cheated on your wife? :frown2:


----------



## Headliner

deepelemblues said:


> Kinda like how it's okay to call some dude a race traitor because he don't agree with your politics and that makes umadbro then say other people are stormfront then always have some excuse as to why you were justified saying such things then tell people to shut up :draper2


I have every right to challenge another black person's beliefs if they are wildly off the spectrum. This really isn't a situation that qualifies you to poke your nose in.


----------



## Kiz

Vic Capri said:


> Liberals protesting in London. This is why they lost the World Cup.
> 
> - Vic


is voting in trump why murica didnt make the world cup?

-kiz


----------



## Draykorinee

Miss Sally said:


> How many times have you cheated on your wife? :frown2:


Pretty sure he's talking about politicians.


----------



## Hangman

Urghh so many cuck liberals in London.


----------



## Sensei Utero

I'm sorta middle of the road with politics these days, but some of these anti-Trump protests are just embarrassing to watch. How much did that blimp cost? Why are people flying all these flags yet using their phones? Hasn't the UK invited over worse? Don't get me wrong, I don't stand up a lot for Trump, but it's not like it's some evil general comin' over. There's even a protest apparently in BELFAST for goodness sake. :lmao just........:wow


----------



## Lesnar Turtle

Anti-Trump protester argument bingo:

"Racist"
"Sexist"
"Homophobic"
"Nazi Germany"


----------



## RavishingRickRules

:lol people getting salty because a few people don't like Trump. Once again the right-wing proves they are the biggest snowflakes of all (time.)


----------



## God Of Anger Juno

Vic Capri said:


> Liberals protesting in London. This is why they lost the World Cup.
> 
> - Vic


Don't you ever get tired of this worn out gimmick dude?

-Juno


----------



## virus21

As You Were said:


> I'm sorta middle of the road with politics these days, but some of these anti-Trump protests are just embarrassing to watch. How much did that blimp cost? Why are people flying all these flags yet using their phones? Hasn't the UK invited over worse? Don't get me wrong, I don't stand up a lot for Trump, but it's not like it's some evil general comin' over. There's even a protest apparently in BELFAST for goodness sake. :lmao just........:wow


Its what happens when you raise a generation via TV and Internet and not send them out into the real world.


----------



## Draykorinee

Fantastic to see these protests of a president that no one should respect. All these snowflakes offended by a balloon, and not a single American was hurt, what a surprise.

Fuck Trump and all the weak right wingers who can't take a bit of free speech. Probably the same assholes who thought charlottesville had some very fine people in it.

Anyone against this protest	:loss


----------



## Vic Capri

Priceless.

- Vic


----------



## TripleG

See here's the thing. 

I am not a Trump fan, and I think people should have the right to protest. 

But then I see these people and I'm like "Nope! I'm not with them. Bye!". 

I get so much second hand embarrassment that its sad.


----------



## Draykorinee

Not a Trump fan but embarrassed by the protesters. Pathetic.


----------



## CamillePunk

That Trump baby blimp is a lot smaller than I thought it was gonna be. :lol What the heck. How disappointing.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

The protests not turning violent. :mark:

This. is. freedom. That freedom of assembly in action. :sundin


----------



## virus21

Oda Nobunaga said:


> The protests not turning violent. :mark:
> 
> This. is. freedom. That freedom of assembly in action. :sundin


Because they're learning that the people in masks with a communist symbol are more trouble than help.


----------



## Vic Capri

:lol

- Vic


----------



## Sincere

CamillePunk said:


> That Trump baby blimp is a lot smaller than I thought it was gonna be. :lol What the heck. How disappointing.


Did they really spend $40k on that thing?

He wasn't even in London...


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

Vic Capri said:


> :lol
> 
> - Vic


The reason for this is Scarlette Johnansson who is playing him in a biopic want's to study his mannerisms and perspective while inside the cave to prepare for her film role.


----------



## Draykorinee

The blimp could have cost a million for all I care, it got people talking, a lot. It achieved exactly what it needed to.

It was much smaller than I thought it though lol.


----------



## Lesnar Turtle




----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> The blimp could have cost a million for all I care, it got people talking, a lot. It achieved exactly what it needed to.
> 
> It was much smaller than I thought it though lol.


It achieved nothing. :lol


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

How did Baby Trump balloon compare in size to Pink Floyd's pig?


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> It achieved nothing. :lol


Even the most brain dead person can see it did. Don't talk shit just to confirm your own bias.


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> Even the most brain dead person can see it did. Don't talk shit just to confirm your own bias.


What did it achieve?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

virus21 said:


> Because they're learning that the people in masks with a communist symbol are more trouble than help.


Nah, we just don't really have those in the UK. Almost all of our protests are peaceful until the far-right thugs show up and start attacking things or damaging property.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

He stood in front of THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND with his back to her whilst she had to walk around him!! He is oblivious to anyone without the surname Trump.

I’m not a royalist by any stretch of the imagination, but if she had smacked him round the back of the head with her handbag, I’d have been singing Liz’s name in the street. If he can’t show any social decorum in front of the Queen of a nation, then what must he think of the rest of the humans on the planet?

Is it time for him to go home yet? Please take him back


----------



## CamillePunk

The fact your country still has a royal family is really dumb.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> The fact your country still has a royal family is really dumb.


The fact so many Americans think guns give them more freedom is dumb but we all have our crosses to bear.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

CamillePunk said:


> The fact your country still has a royal family is really dumb.


I’d much rather have a royal family (that the majority of people aren’t embarrassed by), than to have elected an orange, racist, sexist piece of shit to represent me on the world stage.

I don’t know many people who think the queen is a massive bellend. Not many streets filled with protesters when she visits other countries. People are actually pleased to see her


----------



## CamillePunk

Popularity isn't a metric I care much for.


----------



## DOPA

I gotta admit this is pretty funny :lol.










A celebration for free speech? Only when we agree about the content apparently. Absolute hypocrites we are in the UK, embarrassing.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

DOPA said:


> I gotta admit this is pretty funny :lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A celebration for free speech? Only when we agree about the content apparently. Absolute hypocrites we are in the UK, embarrassing.


No, freedom of speech as long as it's not targeted towards a number of protected categories that come under hate speech. It's really not that difficult to understand tbh mate, it's not that "right wing people don't get to say what they want and left wing do" at all. It's very simply "everybody is allowed to say what they like until they become bigoted or incite violence." If right-wingers find it more difficult to follow the laws then it's similar to the people on here who can't refrain from insults outside of rants more than anything else. It has nothing to do with a particular bias, just that one side has a lot more bigoted twunts. :wink2:


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017589038419791873
This makes me recall my reading of the Holy Bible, specifically as the two verses 13 and 14 from chapter 16 of the Book of Revelation put it, "Then I saw three evil spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. They are spirits of demons performing miraculous signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty." 

:curry2


----------



## DOPA

RavishingRickRules said:


> No, freedom of speech as long as it's not targeted towards a number of protected categories that come under hate speech. It's really not that difficult to understand tbh mate, it's not that "right wing people don't get to say what they want and left wing do" at all. It's very simply "everybody is allowed to say what they like until they become bigoted or incite violence." If right-wingers find it more difficult to follow the laws then it's similar to the people on here who can't refrain from insults outside of rants more than anything else. It has nothing to do with a particular bias, just that one side has a lot more bigoted twunts. :wink2:


Um no, "hate speech" is a part of free speech, at least it should be. Free speech is a universal concept, it should apply to all so long as you are not either inciting violence (so you got it half right) or committing liable/slander. Even if you find what some people to be horrific, and believe me you'll find it in corners of both the left and right (you only have to look at the blatant anti-semitism which exists within the fringes of the labour party) they should not be censored. Not only is it hypocritical but you end up both driving unsavory opinions and movements underground where they can be fostered and grow unchallenged and you give them the excuse to feel as though they are victims. Neither are good things.

This isn't about "bias towards the right", it's about principle and consistency. If you favour free speech for some and not for others because you deem what they are saying is "hateful" then you are not for free speech. Period.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

CamillePunk said:


> Popularity isn't a metric I care much for.


I’m concerned that you’ve confused human decency with popularity.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

DOPA said:


> Um no, "hate speech" is a part of free speech, at least it should be. Free speech is a universal concept, it should apply to all so long as you are not either inciting violence (so you got it half right) or committing liable/slander. Even if you find what some people to be horrific, and believe me you'll find it in corners of both the left and right (you only have to look at the blatant anti-semitism which exists within the fringes of the labour party) they should not be censored. Not only is it hypocritical but you end up both driving unsavory opinions and movements underground where they can be fostered and grow unchallenged and you give them the excuse to feel as though they are victims. Neither are good things.
> 
> This isn't about "bias towards the right", it's about principle and consistency. If you favour free speech for some and not for others because you deem what they are saying is "hateful" then you are not for free speech. Period.



Again, you don't understand the laws. It's not "something you deem hateful" at all. It's "anything that directly insults/promotes hate against/discriminates against people for: their age (any), gender/sex (any), religion (any), race/ethnicity (any) and disability." It's not a list of things predefined towards a bias of "we think this is hate" everybody is protected the EXACT same way. I'm all for free speech until it becomes discrimination, of any kind. Then those people get ALL they deserve. It's a fair system, to suggest otherwise is to be either wilfully ignorant or just to admit you don't ACTUALLY understand how the UK legal system works.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> What did it achieve?


Had every single news outlet talking about it. Trump talked about it



> “I guess when they put out blimps to make me feel unwelcome, no reason for me to go to London,” he told the paper. “I used to love London as a city. I haven’t been there in a long time. But when they make you feel unwelcome, why would I stay there?”


. 

That was 100% its aim. You can disagree with it being done, think it cost too much, whatever, but it still achieved its aim. To make Trump feel unwelcome.

And it worked.

Sorry your own bias can't see that.


----------



## DOPA

RavishingRickRules said:


> Again, you don't understand the laws. It's not *"something you deem hateful"* at all.





RavishingRickRules said:


> It's "anything that directly insults/*promotes hate against/discriminates* against people for: their age (any), gender/sex (any), religion (any), race/ethnicity (any) and disability."


You literally just spelled out that the law works against speech that is deemed hateful towards a particular group of people. Do you not read your own posts?




RavishingRickRules said:


> It's not a list of things predefined towards a bias of "we think this is hate" everybody is protected the EXACT same way.


Once again, my point wasn't bias but principle and consistency. You are taking my argument out of context, I already stated this and yet you are using the same talking point again.



RavishingRickRules said:


> I'm all for free speech *until* it becomes discrimination, of any kind.


Then you are not for free speech. There is no but or until. It is a universal concept that should apply to everyone so long as they do not incite violence or commit slander/liable.

If you believe in free speech for some and not for others due to the content of what they are saying (excluding the clear parameters I've pointed out) then you do not believe in the concept and you are not being consistent, principled or honest.



RavishingRickRules said:


> Then those people get ALL they deserve. It's a fair system, to suggest otherwise is to be either wilfully ignorant or just to admit you don't ACTUALLY understand how the UK legal system works.


And you do not think the state wouldn't take the laws out of context and punish people who "don't deserve it?".

Just this year, a man known by the Youtube name Count Dankula was arrested and almost thrown in jail in Scotland because he made a joke around Nazism using his Pug dog to annoy his girlfriend. He would have been thrown in jail had there not be a big backlash.

During the trial, the judge ruled on the case that the "context of the joke in question had no baring whatsoever to the ruling" to which the jury agreed. So if the context does not matter, then theoretically someone like John Cleese who was making jokes at the expense of Nazis in Fawlty Towers could be arrested and potentially thrown in jail. Do you not see the problem here? Do you not see the slippery slope that can occur if you are not consistent with the principle of free speech?

Hell, to prove the point even further, Jonathon Pie, a well known political commentator and personality, made a video on this very topic and made the same points as I did, made a joke that would have not gone out of place in Fawlty Towers and he was *investigated for hate speech.*

Here is the video in question:







I understand how the legal system works but that doesn't mean it is right. Nor does it mean that it can't be abuse or stop governments extending the parameters of what is considered to be unacceptable speech in the eyes of the law (Does Islamophobia ring a bell?). Do you honestly trust the state surrounding this issue of "hate speech" with cases like this? Because I certainly do not.


It's very simple, I have a clear and consistent position on free speech: it should be a universal right applied to all so long as there is no incitement of violence or liable/slander. You and those who support hate speech laws do not.

At least the Americans got this one right, it's something I can admire them for  : https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...o-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.419032b6953d




> From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:
> 
> *[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”*
> 
> Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:
> 
> A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
> 
> And the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions. In Matal, the government refused to register “The Slants” as a band’s trademark, on the ground that the name might be seen as demeaning to Asian Americans. The government wasn’t trying to forbid the band from using the mark; it was just denying it certain protections that trademarks get against unauthorized use by third parties. But even in this sort of program, the court held, viewpoint discrimination — including against allegedly racially offensive viewpoints — is unconstitutional. And this no-viewpoint-discrimination principle has long been seen as applying to exclusion of speakers from universities, denial of tax exemptions to nonprofits, and much more.
> 
> (Justice Neil Gorsuch wasn’t on the court when the case was argued, so only eight justices participated.)



Read the bolded part. That is what consistent and clear principles in regards to free speech looks like .


----------



## RavishingRickRules

DOPA said:


> TL;DR


I always wonder why people go to such lengths to defend people's right to be a bigot? The law literally only punishes discrimination, hate or inciting to violence against those protected groups. Seems massively suspect to me when people go so hard on defending people's right to discrimination. Super suspect.


----------



## DOPA

RavishingRickRules said:


> I always wonder why people go to such lengths to defend people's right to be a bigot? The law literally only punishes discrimination, hate or inciting to violence against those protected groups. Seems massively suspect to me when people go so hard on defending people's right to discrimination. Super suspect.


Because a government that can throw people in jail for having the wrong opinions that are seen as hateful can always extend the parameters of what is acceptable behaviour and speech. I literally just gave you an example of this in my last post.

The other reason why honestly is because I'd rather let those people share their bigoted and hateful opinions rather than have it bubble up underground where it cannot be challenged. Sunlight is often the best disinfectant in these cases. One great example which you should be very familiar with was when Nick Griffin was on question time. This was at a pretty dark moment in British politics where the BNP were gaining popularity and had a number of Councillors. There were loud voices saying that he should never be allowed on due to his bigoted and racist views. Yet literally within 10 minutes of being on the show, he was exposed for who he truly was and support for the British National Party collapsed. It was allowing him a national platform that became his undoing. If he weren't allowed on the show and his views were remained unchallenged in the public eye, then the BNP would have continued to grow in support. It was only when he was put in the spotlight that the BNP were put to rest for good.

But considering you see me as suspect for having a principled view of free speech then I assume that you consider the ACLU, a *center-left* non-profit organization that defended the free speech rights of the KKK and the Alt Right to be suspect too? What about notable left wing personalities like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Joe Rogan, Maajid Nawaz, Abby Martin, Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kulinski? Are they suspect as well? How far are you willing to take this.

Attacking my character over this isn't going to work. There are plenty of left wing people who have the same opinion as me on free speech. This is a matter of civil liberties and rights which apply to all.


----------



## Draykorinee

I can't believe any adult believes free speech exists.


----------



## Miss Sally

You don't have free speech when you have to go to trial over a dog raising it's paw. 

Saying you have free speech but then have a list of stuff you cannot say or talk about isn't free in the least. Judging from what people report to the cops on what is a violation, I'd say it's hilariously un-free. 

I find it odd that the people who say "Hate speech isn't free speech" tend to be the ones who spit out hateful rhetoric to anyone that disagrees with them, I guess these people want to be the only ones to talk, well until the pendulum swings.. Then we'll hear about how there's a need for free speech. PC Left/Right tards go fuck yourselves or better yet go fuck each other, society would be better without your shared hypocrisy.


----------



## Rozalia

There is no free speech or expression in Briton. The same Sad-dick Khan who says the balloon is a sign of commitment to such things is the guy who bans images of half naked woman, images mocking him, and is more concerned with what people say on social media than you know all the stabbings, acid attacks, and so on that happen in the city. In fact the police don't have enough for those crimes and yet they have a silly amount to police the internet. Why? Because the police (guys at the top) and cretins like Khan have no interest in protecting people, they care only about protecting the current order.

Anyway, as for the people on the street, you have these funny characters:










But they're just idiots. More concerning is signs like those ITV were taking interviews in front of with no care in the world. One saying they dream of a guillotine, but lampposts and a rope will do. Literally taking an interview where some idiot calls Trump a bad man while in front of people cool with lynching the president.

London is as ever a disgrace to the country. #NotMyCapital


----------



## virus21

Rozalia said:


> There is no free speech or expression in Briton. The same Sad-dick Khan who says the balloon is a sign of commitment to such things is the guy who bans images of half naked woman, images mocking him, and is more concerned with what people say on social media than you know all the stabbings, acid attacks, and so on that happen in the city. In fact the police don't have enough for those crimes and yet they have a silly amount to police the internet. Why? Because the police (guys at the top) and cretins like Khan have no interest in protecting people, they care only about protecting the current order.
> 
> Anyway, as for the people on the street, you have these funny characters:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they're just idiots. More concerning is signs like those ITV were taking interviews in front of with no care in the world. One saying they dream of a guillotine, but lampposts and a rope will do. Literally taking an interview where some idiot calls Trump a bad man while in front of people cool with lynching the president.
> 
> London is as ever a disgrace to the country. #NotMyCapital


Jesus fucking Christ! This is your "resistance"? That is a freakshow. How the fuck is someone, no matter what side of the political fence they are, suppose to take that seriously?


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> I can't believe any adult believes free speech exists.


It only exists if people fight to maintain it.  People who still revere queens and kings wouldn't understand.


----------



## Unorthodox

Trump supporters are some miserable bastards, it's an inflatable for gods sake it's not really suppose to be taken seriously plus the resemblance is uncanny :lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

People on /r/The_Donald thought it was cute and largely posted positively about it.  They've got a great sense of humor over there.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose

virus21 said:


> Jesus fucking Christ! This is your "resistance"? That is a freakshow. How the fuck is someone, no matter what side of the political fence they are, suppose to take that seriously?


At no point when writing this did you think, "Hey, maybe if you look at pictures taken from literally thousands upon thousands of people of the same event, you'll be able to find some who look like buffoons."?

You know this wasn't, like, the protest representative team. They weren't proffered forwards as the scouting party. 

"The resistance" isn't standing behind those people. Partly because those people aren't the best representative of "The resistance". But mostly because "The resistance" isn't actually a thing that exists as an actual entity.


----------



## Miss Sally

Unorthodox said:


> Trump supporters are some miserable bastards, it's an inflatable for gods sake it's not really suppose to be taken seriously plus the resemblance is uncanny :lmao


Anyone who complains about the balloon is silly and anyone saying these people shouldn't be able to protest is wrong. Nothing to be offended at.


----------



## Vic Capri

> He stood in front of THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND with his back to her whilst she had to walk around him!! He is oblivious to anyone without the surname Trump.


What a coincidence. I protested Great Britain last week with fireworks, BBQ, and beer!

- Vic


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

Vic Capri said:


> What a coincidence. I protested Great Britain last week with fireworks, BBQ, and beer!
> 
> - Vic


Congratulations. I hope you had a great time.

What does that have to do with what you quoted though? What does this man’s ignorance of protocol, in a country he is visiting, have to do with Independence Day?


----------



## virus21

ipickthiswhiterose said:


> At no point when writing this did you think, "Hey, maybe if you look at pictures taken from literally thousands upon thousands of people of the same event, you'll be able to find some who look like buffoons."?
> 
> You know this wasn't, like, the protest representative team. They weren't proffered forwards as the scouting party.
> 
> "The resistance" isn't standing behind those people. Partly because those people aren't the best representative of "The resistance". But mostly because "The resistance" isn't actually a thing that exists as an actual entity.


Well may be its my bias as an American, but to often when we see these protests over here, they a lot of the time tend to be weird.


----------



## TripleG

virus21 said:


> Well may be its my bias as an American, but to often when we see these protests over here, they a lot of the time tend to be weird.


Pussy hats anyone. 

Again, I fully support the right to protest, and I guess as long as you aren't violent, do what you want, but...just...why the fuck are protesters so fucking weird?!


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

draykorinee said:


> I can't believe any adult believes free speech exists.


It really doesn't. 

No one can say _anything_ or express themselves _completely_ with absolute indiscretion without some kind of impediment, whether it be societal, governmental, or so on.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

As You Were said:


> I'm sorta middle of the road with politics these days, but some of these anti-Trump protests are just embarrassing to watch. How much did that blimp cost? Why are people flying all these flags yet using their phones? *Hasn't the UK invited over worse?* Don't get me wrong, I don't stand up a lot for Trump, but it's not like it's some evil general comin' over. There's even a protest apparently in BELFAST for goodness sake. :lmao just........:wow


Yup:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-prince-in-push-for-international-credibility

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-uk-state-visit-jailed-journalists-terrorists

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34571436

Trump has done his fair share of asinine shit (Syria airstrike; not cutting government spending simultaneously with that sweet tax cut; sporadically trying to appease both sides by saying foolishness like "I'm a nationalist and globalist"), but overall, he's done a perfectly reasonable job so far.

I honestly believe that the real reason that common, everyday folks who detest him is that they've never had a gruff, off the cuff father figure who is firm, but nevertheless fair. He's certainly not everyone's cup of tea, but no amount of buzzwords, screaming at the sky and "wokeness" is gonna make people honestly think that the alternative to him is any better. Especially when it's presented with such a nauseating degree of holier-than-thou vitriol.


----------



## Draykorinee

I'm really glad no Americans were harmed in the protests, it must have been very scary with the notorious violence towards Americans.

Thank you to the state department for warning everyone to be afraid.


----------



## Rozalia

virus21 said:


> Jesus fucking Christ! This is your "resistance"? That is a freakshow. How the fuck is someone, no matter what side of the political fence they are, suppose to take that seriously?


Some of them yes. However as said these guys are just jokes. The "serious" protesters who say Trump is a nazi or needs to be killed are the real nasty and crazy guys.



Unorthodox said:


> Trump supporters are some miserable bastards, it's an inflatable for gods sake it's not really suppose to be taken seriously plus the resemblance is uncanny :lmao


Actually online supporters such as those on the Donald love it. Where it causes an issue especially for me is when cretins like Sad-dick Khan says the balloon shows how committed to free speech they are... while putting people in jail for tweets. 



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Yup:
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-prince-in-push-for-international-credibility
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-uk-state-visit-jailed-journalists-terrorists
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34571436
> 
> Trump has done his fair share of asinine shit (Syria airstrike; not cutting government spending simultaneously with that sweet tax cut; sporadically trying to appease both sides by saying foolishness like "I'm a nationalist and globalist"), but overall, he's done a perfectly reasonable job so far.
> 
> I honestly believe that the real reason that common, everyday folks who detest him is that they've never had a gruff, off the cuff father figure who is firm, but nevertheless fair. He's certainly not everyone's cup of tea, but no amount of buzzwords, screaming at the sky and "wokeness" is gonna make people honestly think that the alternative to him is any better. Especially when it's presented with such a nauseating degree of holier-than-thou vitriol.


Nah. They're just totally controlled by the forces of globalism that recognise Trump as a threat as he is a western leader who opposes them. An Arab leader could be known to have personally raped and killed 10 women and when he comes over there would be much less protest and general hatred than with Trump. Reason being that such an Arab isn't a threat to the order and so they won't try to raise their useful idiots up.



draykorinee said:


> I'm really glad no Americans were harmed in the priests, it must have been very scary with the notorious violence towards Americans.
> 
> Thank you to the state department for warning everyone to be afraid.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...bassador-us-christopher-meyer-attacked-london

Something did happen before them to justify such a comment actually. Also I don't know if you've heard but London is crime central, has loads of gangs, and the "protesters" coming to town are crazed having signs calling for the death of Trump. Yes, there is reason to tell people to be careful.


----------



## Draykorinee

Rozalia said:


> Some of them yes. However as said these guys are just jokes. The "serious" protesters who say Trump is a nazi or needs to be killed are the real nasty and crazy guys.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually online supporters such as those on the Donald love it. Where it causes an issue especially for me is when cretins like Sad-dick Khan says the balloon shows how committed to free speech they are... while putting people in jail for tweets.
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. They're just totally controlled by the forces of globalism that recognise Trump as a threat as he is a western leader who opposes them. An Arab leader could be known to have personally raped and killed 10 women and when he comes over there would be much less protest and general hatred than with Trump. Reason being that such an Arab isn't a threat to the order and so they won't try to raise their useful idiots up.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...bassador-us-christopher-meyer-attacked-london
> 
> Something did happen before them to justify such a comment actually. Also I don't know if you've heard but London is crime central, has loads of gangs, and the "protesters" coming to town are crazed having signs calling for the death of Trump. Yes, there is reason to tell people to be careful.


Not believed to be politically motivated.

Get back in your box ya daftie.

Plus this happened a day AFTER the announcement. You're a rank amateur mate, don't bother.


----------



## Rozalia

draykorinee said:


> Not believed to be politically motivated.
> 
> Get back in your box ya daftie.
> 
> Plus this happened a day AFTER the announcement. You're a rank amateur mate, don't bother.


Where did I say it was? "Before them", them being the protests. You're the amateur mate, respond when you can say something that doesn't get dismantled in a second.


----------



## Draykorinee

Rozalia said:


> Where did I say it was? "Before them", them being the protests. You're the amateur mate, respond when you can say something that doesn't get dismantled in a second.


So a non politically motivated incident involving an American is your justification for Americans to be careful at a political protest. 

kay


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Rozalia said:


> Nah. They're just totally controlled by the forces of globalism that recognise Trump as a threat as he is a western leader who opposes them. An Arab leader could be known to have personally raped and killed 10 women and when he comes over there would be much less protest and general hatred than with Trump. Reason being that such an Arab isn't a threat to the order and so they won't try to raise their useful idiots up.


Useful idiots are plentiful on both sides, but there's no denying that the left has overwhelmingly taken the reins from the right in that regard over the last few years.

If normies realize that the likes of CNN and The New York Times aren't the only MSM outlets that need to be given a free helicopter ride (even NPR is susceptible to partisan hackery: https://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/npr-admits-liberal-bias), then there might be hope yet for bipartisanship and reasonable compromise to finally take the spotlight back in regard to politics.


----------



## Draykorinee

The day the left drive cars in to protestors like the right have, is the day the left claim ownership of the reins of idiocy.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018530173006692352:lol When your president is funnier than people whose entire job is to be funny (late night comedians).


----------



## Draykorinee

I love a president going to a meeting and shitting all over the country you're supposed to be be having diplomatic talks with.

Or is he sarcastically saying Russia has committed all these sins.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Wow, America must have some terrible comedians. :lmao


----------



## Hangman

I LOVE how terrorist Khan got triggered by Trump.

Can we keep him and ya'll take Spineless May and Calamity Corbyn?


----------



## CamillePunk

RavishingRickRules said:


> Wow, America must have some terrible comedians. :lmao


Our late night comedians are all terribly unfunny partisan hacks.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ultron said:


> I LOVE how terrorist Khan got triggered by Trump.
> 
> Can we keep him and ya'll take Spineless May and Calamity Corbyn?


When did Khan become a terrorist? I must've missed that one. Or is this akin to "Tommy Robinson was locked up in an attack on free speech" as opposed to him pleading guilty to contempt of court (the actual truth?)


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> Our late night comedians are all terribly unfunny partisan hacks.


Sounds awful. You should check out Paul Chowdhry (British comedian,) he's very "non PC" and slams pretty much everybody. Probably my favourite "current" comedian. I don't know how I'd live with nothing but bad comedy, I've never really experienced it.


----------



## Hangman

RavishingRickRules said:


> When did Khan become a terrorist? I must've missed that one. Or is this akin to "Tommy Robinson was locked up in an attack on free speech" as opposed to him pleading guilty to contempt of court (the actual truth?)


You mean the guy that wants the terrorists to win, that's allowed London to not only turn into a Muslim ghetto but also a complete warzone.

And Tommy Robinson is a hero to the people.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ultron said:


> You mean the guy that wants the terrorists to win, that's allowed London to not only turn into a Muslim ghetto but also a complete warzone.
> 
> And Tommy Robinson is a hero to the people.


Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is simply a career criminal (seriously, have you seen how many convictions he's had?) and bigot who's VERY good at duping stupid people into thinking he's a paragon of justice. I must've missed the Muslim ghetto though, I go to London 3 or 4 times a month and I've literally never seen anything remotely resembling that. Nice to know you're one of those EDL loonies though, I'll bear that in mind. :lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

RavishingRickRules said:


> Sounds awful. You should check out Paul Chowdhry (British comedian,) he's very "non PC" and slams pretty much everybody. Probably my favourite "current" comedian. I don't know how I'd live with nothing but bad comedy, I've never really experienced it.


There are other comedians besides late night. Although my current favorite is James Acaster, who's from England. :lol


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> There are other comedians besides late night. Although my current favorite is James Acaster, who's from England. :lol


Yeah he's not bad at all, I've not seen a ton of his stand up but he's been on a few panel shows (game shows with comedian contestants, I dunno if you all have those) and he's usually funny. I used to love American comics but I must admit I can't think of one I've seen in the last few years I thought was particularly funny, I think we're a bit stronger on that front these days. Used to be a time where I almost exclusively watched American comedians.


----------



## CamillePunk

Didn't Tommy Robinson leave and disavow the EDL for being racist and neo nazi?


----------



## Draykorinee

RavishingRickRules said:


> Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is simply a career criminal (seriously, have you seen how many convictions he's had?) and bigot who's VERY good at duping stupid people into thinking he's a paragon of justice. I must've missed the Muslim ghetto though, I go to London 3 or 4 times a month and I've literally never seen anything remotely resembling that. Nice to know you're one of those EDL loonies though, I'll bear that in mind. :lmao


He's being sarcastic surely? I can't believe that's a real person.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> Didn't Tommy Robinson leave and disavow the EDL for being racist and neo nazi?


And then promptly joined again. At the time he left he was also claiming to have changed his mind on Islam and was working with a Muslim think-tank to change his ways (so basically, paying lip-service to try and get himself out of hot water - again.) He's one of the biggest scam artists around, likes to make up a lot of nonsense about "we just want them to follow our laws" when he can barely follow them himself hence his colourful criminal past and other gems like "this is against freedom of speech" when in fact he plead guilty to contempt of court whilst already serving a suspended sentence for contempt of court. Hardly a "hero to the people" in all honesty. Multiple convictions including fraud and violent crime - what a hero! :lmao

edit: I forgot to add, he was convicted of trying to enter the USA on false documents too, isn't that exactly the sort of people all you American dudes are against? >


----------



## CamillePunk

RavishingRickRules said:


> And then promptly joined again. At the time he left he was also claiming to have changed his mind on Islam and was working with a Muslim think-tank to change his ways (so basically, paying lip-service to try and get himself out of hot water - again.) He's one of the biggest scam artists around, likes to make up a lot of nonsense about "we just want them to follow our laws" when he can barely follow them himself hence his colourful criminal past and other gems like "this is against freedom of speech" when in fact he plead guilty to contempt of court whilst already serving a suspended sentence for contempt of court. Hardly a "hero to the people" in all honesty. Multiple convictions including fraud and violent crime - what a hero! :lmao
> 
> edit: I forgot to add, he was convicted of trying to enter the USA on false documents too, isn't that exactly the sort of people all you American dudes are against? >


Huh, I can't find any information about him re-joining the EDL.


----------



## Hangman

RavishingRickRules said:


> Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is simply a career criminal (seriously, have you seen how many convictions he's had?) and bigot who's VERY good at duping stupid people into thinking he's a paragon of justice. I must've missed the Muslim ghetto though, I go to London 3 or 4 times a month and I've literally never seen anything remotely resembling that. Nice to know you're one of those EDL loonies though, I'll bear that in mind. :lmao


So if I disagree with you I'm a EDL loonie? 

Let me guess you voted for Corbyn? :lmao


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ultron said:


> So if I disagree with you I'm a EDL loonie?
> 
> Let me guess you voted for Corbyn? :lmao


No, because you called a violent career criminal a hero you're an EDL loonie, I don't know any other group of people who supports that. And no, I'm a centrist capitalist, why the fuck would I vote for a socialist? Let me guess, you voted for either May (good job standing behind that decision :lol ) or possibly even more hilarious - UKIP, the poster boys for "politicians who can't even get elected enough to think about getting a job done? :lmao


----------



## Hangman

RavishingRickRules said:


> No, because you called a violent career criminal a hero you're an EDL loonie, I don't know any other group of people who supports that. And no, I'm a centrist capitalist, why the fuck would I vote for a socialist? Let me guess, you voted for either May (good job standing behind that decision :lol ) or possibly even more hilarious - UKIP, the poster boys for "politicians who can't even get elected enough to think about getting a job done? :lmao


You seriously telling me you've never been arrested for fighting?

He ain't perfect but he spoke the TRUTH and was locked up for it.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ultron said:


> You seriously telling me you've never been arrested for fighting?
> 
> He ain't perfect but he spoke the TRUTH and was locked up for it.


He's been arrested, and convicted of assault multiple times, more than one count of fraud, contempt of court - you think this is a hero? And no, why the fuck would I have been arrested for fighting, I'm not a thug?


----------



## Hangman

RavishingRickRules said:


> He's been arrested, and convicted of assault multiple times, more than one count of fraud, contempt of court - you think this is a hero? And no, why the fuck would I have been arrested for fighting, I'm not a thug?


I never said he was perfect let's not forget Nelson Mandela was a terrorist and look what happened when he got out...


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ultron said:


> I never said he was perfect let's not forget Nelson Mandela was a terrorist and look what happened when he got out...


He's not perfect, or a hero. He's a violent, bigoted, criminal. But let's face it, this discussion is over - you let us all know EXACTLY what sort of person you are when you implied that it's a typical thing to have been arrested for assault.


----------



## Draykorinee

Ultron said:


> You seriously telling me you've never been arrested for fighting?
> 
> He ain't perfect but he spoke the TRUTH and was locked up for it.


The truth is fine, when it's not contempt of court.

As a career dickhead, this time in prison will actually be a great thing for Tommy, he'll come out trying to be the next Mandela, all this 'free Tommy' business is a waste of time, he admitted his guilt Ffs.

Edit:, I just saw I was beaten to the Mandela analogy I jokingly used.


----------



## Hangman

RavishingRickRules said:


> He's not perfect, or a hero. He's a violent, bigoted, criminal. But let's face it, this discussion is over - you let us all know EXACTLY what sort of person you are when you implied that it's a typical thing to have been arrested for assault.


Well you call him what you want and I'll call him what I want. 

(Of topic) how old are you homie?


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

Ultron said:


> You seriously telling me you've never been arrested for fighting?
> 
> He ain't perfect but he spoke the TRUTH and was locked up for it.


Believe it or not, but the majority of people don’t go around assaulting each other. That’s mainly for the knuckle dragging mouth breathers to enjoy


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ultron said:


> Well you call him what you want and I'll call him what I want.
> 
> (Of topic) how old are you homie?


I'm in my mid-30's. And I'm not your homie or friend, I don't associate with thugs and supporters of violent criminals.


----------



## Draykorinee

Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> Believe it or not, but the majority of people don’t go around assaulting each other. That’s mainly for the knuckle dragging mouth breathers to enjoy


You're seriously telling me you're one of the vast majority of people who haven't been arrested for violence.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

draykorinee said:


> You're seriously telling me you're one of the vast majority of people who haven't been arrested for violence.


I know it sounds almost impossible, but my first instinct in situations isn’t to attack people physically.


----------



## Rozalia

RavishingRickRules said:


> And then promptly joined again. At the time he left he was also claiming to have changed his mind on Islam and was working with a Muslim think-tank to change his ways (so basically, paying lip-service to try and get himself out of hot water - again.) He's one of the biggest scam artists around, likes to make up a lot of nonsense about "we just want them to follow our laws" when he can barely follow them himself hence his colourful criminal past and other gems like "this is against freedom of speech" when in fact he plead guilty to contempt of court whilst already serving a suspended sentence for contempt of court. Hardly a "hero to the people" in all honesty. Multiple convictions including fraud and violent crime - what a hero! :lmao
> 
> edit: I forgot to add, he was convicted of trying to enter the USA on false documents too, isn't that exactly the sort of people all you American dudes are against? >


He is not a member of EDL, and the think tank would be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quilliam_(think_tank)#Foundation

One ran by Muslims who fight the good fight against Islamism and have been labelled as a hate group by certain organisations for it. So what then? Him being against Islam means he can't work with Muslims who agree with him? He should be racist and say no to them? You'd love that wouldn't you.

Also he got arrested for filming outside court, whatever they got him to admit afterwards is irrelevant. Muslim paedophile rapists, and no, I'm not calling all Muslims that but literally that were the people he was there to do work on, have been treated with more respect as when their supporters turn up they don't get arrested. 

No shock you'd defend Sadick Khan. Fools do that and you fit that bill.



Ultron said:


> You mean the guy that wants the terrorists to win, that's allowed London to not only turn into a Muslim ghetto but also a complete warzone.
> 
> And Tommy Robinson is a hero to the people.


The ghettos have been developing for a long time and aren't exclusively just Muslim, to be fair. However, outside that yes, you're basically on the money. The police force literally don't have the numbers to deal with robberies and other such crime because Sadick Khan has told them to put huge amounts of officers on dealing with twitter posts and other hate speech.

This whole feud with Donald Trump where now and then he lobs some stupid attack on Trump, as if he was some national leader, is all to get away from the job he has done in London. Crime has spiked massively and he can't fix it as that would mean he'd have to stop the massive policing effort on the net so... distract, attack Trump, make myself look like a good guy to people who'll eat it up and forget all about the fact I'm doing a terrible job.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Rozalia said:


> Didn't read


I told you I don't converse with fascist sympathisers. You didn't get the message so you're going on ignore now, see ya!


----------



## Hangman

RavishingRickRules said:


> I'm in my mid-30's. And I'm not your homie or friend, I don't associate with thugs and supporters of violent criminals.


So you're mid 30s have you ever been in a fight? The world ain't a nice place mate try living in Portsmouth. 

I'm not a thug though lol


----------



## Rozalia

RavishingRickRules said:


> I told you I don't converse with fascist sympathisers. You didn't get the message so you're going on ignore now, see ya!


Look at this people. Him and two others jump me, call me everything under the son and it is they who run and hide. Note how this coward after saying he was done with me still took shots at me, so he wanted to stop... but keep the snide comments towards me as he certainly can't debate me. 

In the words of some slime you guys like; Weak, Weak, Weak. None of you can handle The Roz, no matter how many of you get gathered up. For that I'll respond to another comment to show what a fool you are.



RavishingRickRules said:


> I'm in my mid-30's. And I'm not your homie or friend, I don't associate with thugs and supporters of violent criminals.


Says this while he and his buddy on here today have shown support for the thugs of Cabal street who attacked the police in large numbers, such was their desire to beat on a group of peaceful protesters.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ultron said:


> So you're mid 30s have you ever been in a fight? The world ain't a nice place mate try living in Portsmouth.
> 
> I'm not a thug though lol


I've never been arrested. And LOL, Portsmouth, land of the badmen? Please. I grew up on a council estate in Bradford, full of those immigrants you're all so terrified of. We wished we were as rich as poor people, and guess what? Never been arrested. If you've been arrested for fighting, you're not the typical person, you're the person who doesn't have enough self control not to be a violent thug. Not my fault, it's yours.


----------



## Hangman

RavishingRickRules said:


> I've never been arrested. And LOL, Portsmouth, land of the badmen? Please. I grew up on a council estate in Bradford, full of those immigrants you're all so terrified of. We wished we were as rich as poor people, and guess what? Never been arrested. If you've been arrested for fighting, you're not the typical person, you're the person who doesn't have enough self control not to be a violent thug. Not my fault, it's yours.


So if someone punks you out on the street or bad mouths your lady do you walk away or act like a man?

And I don't fear immigrants, I work in construction, Im good friends with polish and Romanian hard working lads. Immigration works when they want to work and not rape, steal and stab as they please look at London in recent months.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ultron said:


> So if someone punks you out on the street or bad mouths your lady do you walk away or act like a man?
> 
> And I don't fear immigrants, I work in construction, Im good friends with polish and Romanian hard working lads. Immigration works when they want to work and not rape, steal and stab as they please look at London in recent months.


"Punks me out" what the fuck are you talking about? I'm a grown adult, with a rational brain. I'd laugh at the pathetic child and walk away. You'd punch somebody and get arrested like a chump I'm sure. Funny, when my brother was training with the navy he didn't tell me about all the vicious street thug culture of people "punking people out" in the streets of hardcore Portsmouth. The fact you even think you'd need to get violent with somebody for being an insulting little tool pretty much confirms what I thought about you though. :lmao


----------



## Rozalia

.... This is just shocking. Hard man from the big bad council estate pretends that random attacks on the street can't happen.

I've personally had someone try to rob me on the street. Thankfully I knew the guy so he stopped when he realised who I was. He was quite a well known criminal in the area but the guy is cool to me as when I was young and being chased by a pack of Muslim boys to beat the crap out of me, he stepped in and stopped it. A bit of good in everybody as they say.


----------



## Hangman

RavishingRickRules said:


> "Punks me out" what the fuck are you talking about? I'm a grown adult, with a rational brain. I'd laugh at the pathetic child and walk away. You'd punch somebody and get arrested like a chump I'm sure. Funny, when my brother was training with the navy he didn't tell me about all the vicious street thug culture of people "punking people out" in the streets of hardcore Portsmouth. The fact you even think you'd need to get violent with somebody for being an insulting little tool pretty much confirms what I thought about you though. :lmao


Wow you've literally blown me away.

So you would not defend yourself if attacked? You would walk away humbled and humiliated.

And trust me Portsmouth has its hell hole areas, Summerstown and Lee Park are rough areas. Southsea's alright.

If would never condone seeking out fights but if one comes your way you can't walk away.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ultron said:


> Wow you've literally blown me away.
> 
> So you would not defend yourself if attacked? You would walk away humbled and humiliated.
> 
> And trust me Portsmouth has its hell hole areas, Summerstown and Lee Park are rough areas. Southsea's alright.
> 
> If would never condone seeking out fights but if one comes your way you can't walk away.


So you expect me to risk my 6 figure salary by breaking the morality clause in my contract to punch somebody when I could just call the police, not get arrested and laugh at the person who does? Interesting. It's not the route I'd personally take after working hard for decades to get to the position I'm in but I'm sure the knowledge that I was super "macho" or whatever you think you are would comfort me, right? :lol


----------



## Rozalia

Man keeps talking about hard background. Admits that he wouldn't defend himself and let criminals beat on him. Were you actually from a tough area you'd know that you in such situations have to take a stand. It's a basic lesson you pick up as a child.


----------



## Hangman

RavishingRickRules said:


> So you expect me to risk my 6 figure salary by breaking the morality clause in my contract to punch somebody when I could just call the police, not get arrested and laugh at the person who does? Interesting. It's not the route I'd personally take after working hard for decades to get to the position I'm in but I'm sure the knowledge that I was super "macho" or whatever you think you are would comfort me, right? :lol



You've clearly never been in a real fight. Walking away isn't an option 9 times out of 10, you defend yourself or get beat to death. Real world son. 

And by all means call the police but trust me they will never do anything until its to late, I know that from personal experience.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ultron said:


> You've clearly never been in a real fight. Walking away isn't an option 9 times out of 10, you defend yourself or get beat to death. Real world son.
> 
> And by all means call the police but trust me they will never do anything until its to late, I know that from personal experience.


No, that's the fantasy world you and other thugs think you live in. In the real world, I worked my arse off to get scholarships to private school, then worked even harder to get to Cambridge University and then worked even harder to become management in a huge corporation where I now earn more than 4 times what my parents earned. I don't need to go to ghetto ass areas any more, I moved past that life. You seem to think there's something to be proud of in violence and thug shit? Cool, I guess? I think it's laughable that you think I'd ever be caught in a situation where random people attack me in the street, and think you're an idiot for suggesting I risk my income after decades of hard work because I'd instantly lose my job for getting arrested. That's the difference. Be hard all you want, I'm not going to risk over £100,000 a year to punch somebody. Simple.


----------



## Hangman

RavishingRickRules said:


> No, that's the fantasy world you and other thugs think you live in. In the real world, I worked my arse off to get scholarships to private school, then worked even harder to get to Cambridge University and then worked even harder to become management in a huge corporation where I now earn more than 4 times what my parents earned. I don't need to go to ghetto ass areas any more, I moved past that life. You seem to think there's something to be proud of in violence and thug shit? Cool, I guess? I think it's laughable that you think I'd ever be caught in a situation where random people attack me in the street, and think you're an idiot for suggesting I risk my income after decades of hard work because I'd instantly lose my job for getting arrested. That's the difference. Be hard all you want, I'm not going to risk over £100,000 a year to punch somebody. Simple.


Why do you hide behind your money? I do more than OK with what I get but I don't use that as a shield.

Oh a private school lad? Explains a lot. 

Remember my friend all your money won't save you if your cornered in an alley.

And fighting isn't something to be proud of. Soaking your knuckles and supporting a black eye is no picnic.

My point is when you're in a hairy situation you don't come out looking clean.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ultron said:


> Why do you hide behind your money? I do more than OK with what I get but I don't use that as a shield.
> 
> Oh a private school lad? Explains a lot.
> 
> Remember my friend all your money won't save you if your cornered in an alley.
> 
> And fighting isn't something to be proud of. Soaking your knuckles and supporting a black eye is no picnic.
> 
> My point is when you're in a hairy situation you don't come out looking clean.


Why the hell would I be cornered in an alley? Did you not pay attention? I worked my arse off so that I could have the finer things in life, not hang around in alleys like some tragic little criminal who thinks he's hard. I don't hide behind my money, I just use it. When you have money you really don't need to hang around on the streets or in alleyways, what is actually wrong with you? Are you like 15-22 ish because you don't sound very adult in all honesty?


----------



## Hangman

RavishingRickRules said:


> Why the hell would I be cornered in an alley? Did you not pay attention? I worked my arse off so that I could have the finer things in life, not hang around in alleys like some tragic little criminal who thinks he's hard. I don't hide behind my money, I just use it. When you have money you really don't need to hang around on the streets or in alleyways, what is actually wrong with you? Are you like 15-22 ish because you don't sound very adult in all honesty?


You remind me of an old site manager we had, used to brag about his money and his car and his house, the whole time one of the ground works lads was fucking his wife :lmao

I'm 27 thank you for asking.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

Ultron said:


> So if someone punks you out on the street or bad mouths your lady do you walk away *or act like a man*?
> 
> And I don't fear immigrants, I work in construction, Im good friends with polish and Romanian hard working lads. Immigration works when they want to work and not rape, steal and stab as they please look at London in recent months.


Yeah, because you need to fight to “act like a man”. Fucking caveman thinking.

As for your second “point”, so only immigrants are responsible for rape, theft, and knife crime? No doubt you’ll respond with “tell me where I said only immigrants do that”. You clearly feel they are mostly responsible or you wouldn’t have bought it up. The fact the vast majority of immigrants are decent people, who in your own words are “good, hard working lads” is irrelevant when it comes to condemning all the evil brown people though.

I can’t remember if it was you or someone else, but whoever was going on about the emergence of Muslim ghettos in London, what the actual fuck are you on about?!? Perhaps you’re confusing the rise in ghettos of evil foreigners with the poor areas of a major city. You know, something that has existed in every major city since the dawn of major cities. But no, it much easier to condemn a mayor that is Muslim for letting the city get infested with his own kind right?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ultron said:


> You remind me of an old site manager we had, used to brag about his money and his car and his house, the whole time one of the ground works lads was fucking his wife :lmao
> 
> I'm 27 thank you for asking.


Sounds like a nice piece of shit you worked with, and not the manager. I wasn't even bragging about money, I was illustrating to you that I've got way too much to lose by punching somebody when I never actually need to punch anybody. You seem to have some really bizarre impression that I'm supposed to be ashamed of being successful, and should be more worried about being "hard" or "street." It's idiotic. I'm not remotely ashamed of working my arse off to escape the bullshit you seem to be proud of, I'm unashamedly over the moon at my success. Feel free to laugh at me all you like, I'll be laughing at your machismo whilst I sit here having to deal with none of the bullshit you seem to think is commonplace. So I went to private school and an elite University, is that supposed to be a bad thing? Nope, just means I got a better education than you. I'm sure I'm massively upset that some random dude from Portsmouth thinks punching people is more important than being a success in life, no, really. :lol


----------



## Hangman

Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> Yeah, because you need to fight to “act like a man”. Fucking caveman thinking.
> 
> As for your second “point”, so only immigrants are responsible for rape, theft, and knife crime? No doubt you’ll respond with “tell me where I said only immigrants do that”. You clearly feel they are mostly responsible or you wouldn’t have bought it up. The fact the vast majority of immigrants are decent people, who in your own words are “good, hard working lads” is irrelevant when it comes to condemning all the evil brown people though.
> 
> I can’t remember if it was you or someone else, but whoever was going on about the emergence of Muslim ghettos in London, what the actual fuck are you on about?!? Perhaps you’re confusing the rise in ghettos of evil foreigners with the poor areas of a major city. You know, something that has existed in every major city since the dawn of major cities. But no, it much easier to condemn a mayor that is Muslim for letting the city get infested with his own kind right?


Whoa what the actual fuck are you talking about? 

The MAJORITY of recent crime in London has been committed by immigrants. Fact.

I have no problem with Muslims. Its the terrorists that I don't like. 

I've driven through London recently and trust me it is a cesspit.

My problem with Khan is he has let his City fall to fucking ruin. He's not doing HIS JOB. And whilst people are stabbing each other and motor cycle thieves and old ladies being mugged he is paying for a blimp to distract idiots from the fact he is doing a shit job.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ultron said:


> Whoa what the actual fuck are you talking about?
> 
> The MAJORITY of recent crime in London has been committed by immigrants. Fact.
> 
> I have no problem with Muslims. Its the terrorists that I don't like.
> 
> I've driven through London recently and trust me it is a cesspit.
> 
> My problem with Khan is he has let his City fall to fucking ruin. He's not doing HIS JOB. And whilst people are stabbing each other and motor cycle thieves and old ladies being mugged he is paying for a blimp to distract idiots from the fact he is doing a shit job.


Where's the cesspit? I travel throughout London all the time and I've never seen this in the slightest. You're full of shit. Flat out, unashamedly full of shit. London isn't remotely a "Muslim ghetto" what the fuck are you talking about? 12.4% of the population of a city apparently turns it into a Muslim ghetto, are you even serious? You should be less worried about my education, and more worried about your own. :lol


----------



## Hangman

RavishingRickRules said:


> Sounds like a nice piece of shit you worked with, and not the manager. I wasn't even bragging about money, I was illustrating to you that I've got way too much to lose by punching somebody when I never actually need to punch anybody. You seem to have some really bizarre impression that I'm supposed to be ashamed of being successful, and should be more worried about being "hard" or "street." It's idiotic. I'm not remotely ashamed of working my arse off to escape the bullshit you seem to be proud of, I'm unashamedly over the moon at my success. Feel free to laugh at me all you like, I'll be laughing at your machismo whilst I sit here having to deal with none of the bullshit you seem to think is commonplace. So I went to private school and an elite University, is that supposed to be a bad thing? Nope, just means I got a better education than you. I'm sure I'm massively upset that some random dude from Portsmouth thinks punching people is more important than being a success in life, no, really. :lol


Wow. That was not my point at all. For someone that's meant to be smart you are posting silly stuff. Did I say be ashamed? No.
Did I say you shouldn't do well? No. 
Do I secretly enjoy ordering people around on site that are twice my age? (I'm a Snagging Manager) Absolutely.

You can shove your head up your own ass all you want I do not give a fuck.

But if you're going to quote me understand my point first.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ultron said:


> Wow. That was not my point at all. For someone that's meant to be smart you are posting silly stuff. Did I say be ashamed? No.
> Did I say you shouldn't do well? No.
> Do I secretly enjoy ordering people around on site that are twice my age? (I'm a Snagging Manager) Absolutely.
> 
> You can shove your head up your own ass all you want I do not give a fuck.
> 
> But if you're going to quote me understand my point first.


What point? You haven't made one yet. Unless you think acting like being violent to "be a man" was somehow a valid point you were making? :lol


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

Ultron said:


> Whoa what the actual fuck are you talking about?
> 
> The MAJORITY of recent crime in London has been committed by immigrants. Fact.
> 
> I have no problem with Muslims. Its the terrorists that I don't like.
> 
> I've driven through London recently and trust me it is a cesspit.
> 
> My problem with Khan is he has let his City fall to fucking ruin. He's not doing HIS JOB. And whilst people are stabbing each other and motor cycle thieves and old ladies being mugged he is paying for a blimp to distract idiots from the fact he is doing a shit job.


Oh shit, I didn’t realise you had driven through the whole of London recently. I live and work in London, but I’ll take your word for it :eyeroll

Sadiq Khan didn’t pay for the blimp. It was crowdfunded. He gave approval for them to use it. Fact


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> Oh shit, I didn’t realise you had driven through the whole of London recently. I live and work in London, but I’ll take your word for it :eyeroll
> 
> Sadiq Khan didn’t pay for the blimp. It was crowdfunded. He gave approval for them to use it. Fact


Didn't you know? Bad men from Portsmouth know way more about London than Londoners, it's a cesspit Muslim ghetto dammit! :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

All right guys nobody really cares about a minor power like the UK. We were only talking about them for a brief spell because someone important (Donald J Trump, POTUS) was there for a couple of days. He's off to Helsinki to meet with Vlad the Lad now so it's done with.


----------



## Hangman

Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> Oh shit, I didn’t realise you had driven through the whole of London recently. I live and work in London, but I’ll take your word for it :eyeroll
> 
> Sadiq Khan didn’t pay for the blimp. It was crowdfunded. He gave approval for them to use it. Fact


Approval 

He buries he head in the sand with everything else and encourages the terrorists, and approves a blimp meant to insult a foreign guest. 

And trust me almost anywhere is nicer than London, it is a shit hole.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

Ultron said:


> Approval
> 
> He buries he head in the sand with everything else and encourages the terrorists, and approves a blimp meant to insult a foreign guest.
> 
> And trust me almost anywhere is nicer than London, it is a shit hole.


Enjoy Portsmouth :lol


----------



## Hangman

RavishingRickRules said:


> Didn't you know? Bad men from Portsmouth know way more about London than Londoners, it's a cesspit Muslim ghetto dammit! :lol


If you're trying to bait me into insulting you it won't work lad. I've never claimed to be a "bad man"

You can meet me in Rants if you like?


----------



## DesolationRow

CamillePunk said:


> All right guys nobody really cares about a minor power like the UK. We were only talking about them for a brief spell because someone important (Donald J Trump, POTUS) was there for a couple of days. He's off to Helsinki to meet with Vlad the Lad now so it's done with.


Yes, it's time for half a dozen Finns to take over this thread and argue with one another about their country.
@Banez; who else needs to arrive? Please be prompt. 





Just kidding around here everyone. Humor salves much in life.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018576435559260162
So Germany can pay Russia billions of dollars for energy and that's fine, but Trump meeting with Putin is a no-no. :mj 

Sad what Trump Derangement Syndrome has done to the New York Times.


----------



## Hangman

Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> Enjoy Portsmouth :lol


Enjoy the knife crime and the gang rapes (London) :lol


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ultron said:


> If you're trying to bait me into insulting you it won't work lad. I've never claimed to be a "bad man"
> 
> You can meet me in Rants if you like?


Honestly, the only time I'd want to "meet" you at all is if I was paying you to do something like tidy my garden for me. You're really not that important to me in the grand scheme of things :lol


----------



## Hangman

RavishingRickRules said:


> Honestly, the only time I'd want to "meet" you at all is if I was paying you to do something like tidy my garden for me. You're really not that important to me in the grand scheme of things :lol


Says the guy on wrestlingforum who earns "£100,000" a year and has never been in a fight :lol

Also I don't work exteriors.


----------



## Dr. Middy

You guys are absolutely insufferable, fuck :lol


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

Ultron said:


> Enjoy the knife crime and the gang rapes (London) :lol


Oh don’t get me started. I can barely move for all the gang rapes 24/7. Makes it a real hassle to get to work :eyeroll2


----------



## Rozalia

Guy who claims to have grown up poor says he "worked" up to being rich, now no longer needs to be in poor areas and further insults the poor. Nah, you're a middle class fool who professes you were poor to not get called out. Any poor lad growing up would know the basic lesson of defending yourself if attacked. In poor areas you don't have the luxury of just calling the police and everything works out. If you don't put up some level of resistance then you can easily die. Tell us how how great you are for earning big money when you've been killed.

Also, out of touch middle class man acts like only the poor can be attacked by criminals. You're a joke mate, a complete joke.


----------



## DOPA

So apparently talking with advisories in International Relations and trying to find common ground/build a relationship instead of refusing to talk to Putin like Marco Rubio or Carly Fiorina would have done is somehow a bad thing :lol. Yes, let's ramp up and escalate tensions again with Russia instead, that's sure to work and make the world more peaceful and stable :lol.

Derangement indeed.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

Ultron said:


> Says the guy on wrestlingforum who earns "£100,000" a year and has never been in a fight :lol
> 
> *Also I don't work exteriors*.


Probably for the best they don’t let you outside


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ultron said:


> Says the guy on wrestlingforum who earns "£100,000" a year and has never been in a fight :lol
> 
> Also I don't work exteriors.


You know what's hilarious? You said "the guy on wrestlingforum who earns £100,000 (actually OVER £100,000, gotta love that education and what it can do for you life :x )a year and has never been in a fight" like that's a bad thing. Think about that for a little minute (I know it'll take a while to get the cogs moving enough but give it time) and you'll realise how ridiculous it is that you wrote it that way. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

I'm glad anecdotal evidence is now admissible when it comes to crime. The US doesn't have a gun violence problem as I've never seen someone use a gun malevolently in my entire 27 years in the US. :mark:


----------



## Hangman

Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> Probably for the best they don’t let you outside


A lot less stress with interiors you don't have to factor weather, wildlife, underground utility pipes basically a logistical nightmare if your drawings ain't right.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

DOPA said:


> So apparently talking with advisories in International Relations and trying to find common ground/build a relationship instead of refusing to talk to Putin like Marco Rubio or Carly Fiorina would have done is somehow a bad thing :lol. Yes, let's ramp up and escalate tensions again with Russia instead, that's sure to work and make the world more peaceful and stable :lol.
> 
> Derangement indeed.


Yeah I've never understood that position either. Surely if somebody's considered a threat (which is kinda valid considering the various election meddling incidents) then it'd be better to neutralise the threat by becoming friends than pushing things in the opposite and creating heightened tensions? Maybe I'm wrong, but I think people wage more war against their perceived enemies than their friends. :lol


----------



## Rozalia

What nasty cowardly guys these leftists are. They ran from the Roz quickly even though it was 3 on 1 and yet they carry on attacks on Ultron because they think they can take him if they gang up. You can't by the way, you guys look terrible. Completely deranged. Massive lols at guy who'd rather die than defend himself. What a joke.


----------



## Hangman

RavishingRickRules said:


> You know what's hilarious? You said "the guy on wrestlingforum who earns £100,000 (actually OVER £100,000, gotta love that education and what it can do for you life :x )a year and has never been in a fight" like that's a bad thing. Think about that for a little minute (I know it'll take a while to get the cogs moving enough but give it time) and you'll realise how ridiculous it is that you wrote it that way. :lol


Here we go falling back to "that money that I definitely definitely have".

Bro simmer down were all happy you went to private school.

You're a real Jenny from the block. 

Congratulations.


----------



## Tag89

bet trump's never been in a fight


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ultron said:


> Here we go falling back to "that money that I definitely definitely have".
> 
> Bro simmer down were all happy you went to private school.
> 
> You're a real Jenny from the block.
> 
> Congratulations.


And you're somebody who's been in lots of fights, I bet your mother's so proud. :lol


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

Rozalia said:


> What nasty cowardly guys these leftists are. *They ran from the Roz* quickly even though it was 3 on 1 and yet they carry on attacks on Ultron because they think they can take him if they gang up. You can't by the way, you guys look terrible. Completely deranged. Massive lols at guy who'd rather die than defend himself. What a joke.


No-one is “running from you”, it just your posts are mostly gibberish


----------



## Hangman

RavishingRickRules said:


> And you're somebody who's been in lots of fights, I bet your mother's so proud. :lol


My Ma died when I was 13...

Also I stated a few pages back fighting is nothing to be proud off. 

And should only be done in defence.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ultron said:


> My Ma died when I was 13...
> 
> Also I stated a few pages back fighting is nothing to be proud off.
> 
> And should only be done in defence.


And yet you seem SO intent on using it as some really bizarre insult against me that I don't need to fight. Makes sense. :lol


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> No-one is “running from you”, it just your posts are mostly gibberish


This is hilarious. I've had him on ignore since he started defending Mosley's fascists. I even told him so in that thread.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

Tag89 said:


> bet trump's never been in a fight


That’s just not true. He’s tremendous at fighting. You’ve never seen a better fighter than him. He once beat Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris 2-on-1.


----------



## Rozalia

Tag89 said:


> bet trump's never been in a fight


He has been in many. He has a mean pussy claw don't you know. Also he clotheslined CNN that one time.

Which shows us that as cool as he is Trump is still an old man. These days you don't pussy grab women, you choke them.



Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> No-one is “running from you”, it just your posts are mostly gibberish


Except you know two of them after their smears failed proclaimed they were putting me on block, while others including yourself aren't so talkative when it comes to what I say, but will attack others. 

I have no weaknesses when debating. Try me if you don't believe me.


----------



## CamillePunk

Trump did put himself in danger to stop a mugging once though.


----------



## Hangman

RavishingRickRules said:


> And yet you seem SO intent on using it as some really bizarre insult against me that I don't need to fight. Makes sense. :lol


When did I use it as an insult? Christ are you just trolling me now? 
You haven't understood my point i was making about self defence, where being physical with someone is necessary even though you are (apparently) well educated.

Now post your emojis if you like and tell me about all your hundreds of thousands but you don't seem to grasp what I'm saying to you.


----------



## Rozalia

RavishingRickRules said:


> This is hilarious. I've had him on ignore since he started defending Mosley's fascists. I even told him so in that thread.


They had a right to free speech, as do you if you decided to protest whatever. As I told you, when you defend such people you aren't simply defending them, you're defending yourself.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

Rozalia said:


> He has been in many. He has a mean pussy claw don't you know. Also he clotheslined CNN that one time.
> 
> Which shows us that as cool as he is Trump is still an old man. These days you don't pussy grab women, you choke them.
> 
> 
> 
> Except you know two of them after their smears failed proclaimed they were putting me on block, while others including yourself aren't so talkative when it comes to what I say, but will attack others.
> 
> I have no weaknesses when debating. Try me if you don't believe me.


I’m not so talkative when it comes to what you say because it’s the ramblings of a moron.

I have no interest in debating with you to prove that you have no weaknesses. And you are more than welcome to take that as a victory if you like. Good job, real proud of you.

I also wouldn’t say I, or others, were attacking Ultron. I would class it as heated conversation/disagreement personally. Ultron was responding to specific points, whereas you were making blanket statements to get a rise of out of people (some of whom had already told you they had you on ignore)


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ultron said:


> When did I use it as an insult? Christ are you just trolling me now?
> You haven't understood my point i was making about self defence, where being physical with someone is necessary even though you are (apparently) well educated.
> 
> Now post your emojis if you like and tell me about all your hundreds of thousands but you don't seem to grasp what I'm saying to you.


And I flat out told you multiple times that that situation doesn't happen to me. It's literally never happened to me or anybody within my social circle. It's really as simple as "don't hang around in dodgy places around dodgy people." Getting attacked and being in fights really isn't something everybody in the world goes through. I don't need to punch somebody, because I don't get in those situations. That's what you don't seem to understand. The reality of getting to the place I got to in life is those situations just don't really happen often enough to ever be worried about them. I live in York and work across the country and Europe, I don't hang around rough areas, there's literally nothing there for me so why would I?


----------



## Rugrat

CamillePunk said:


> Trump did put himself in danger to stop a mugging once though.


Do you believe him?


----------



## Rozalia

Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> I’m not so talkative when it comes to what you say because it’s the ramblings of a moron.
> 
> I have no interest in debating with you to prove that you have no weaknesses. And you are more than welcome to take that as a victory if you like. Good job, real proud of you.
> 
> I also wouldn’t say I, or others, were attacking Ultron. I would class it as heated conversation/disagreement personally. Ultron was responding to specific points, whereas you were making blanket statements to get a rise of out people (some of whom had already told you they had you on ignore)


Feel free to point to a single thing I've said that is wrong. 

Right. Me, I'm the bad guy when it comes to making statements when they were throwing out I was a racist, a Nazi, so on. Right. They're the reasonable ones. 

Oh well, no matter, you know your place and to not mess with me as you'll get destroyed, cool.



RavishingRickRules said:


> And I flat out told you multiple times that that situation doesn't happen to me. It's literally never happened to me or anybody within my social circle. It's really as simple as "don't hang around in dodgy places around dodgy people." Getting attacked and being in fights really isn't something everybody in the world goes through. I don't need to punch somebody, because I don't get in those situations. That's what you don't seem to understand. The reality of getting to the place I got to in life is those situations just don't really happen often enough to ever be worried about them. I live in York and work across the country and Europe, I don't hang around rough areas, there's literally nothing there for me so why would I?


Middle Class Man: Crime is just for poor people. A burglar or whatever could never visit me.

I don't think I've ever quite seen someone this out of touch.



Bret “Hitman” Hart;75853030 said:


> Do you believe him?












I love the whole criminal puts down weapon and says "Mr Trump I didn't do anything wrong". A lot of criminals saying that these days I'm sure.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

Rozalia said:


> Feel free to point to a single thing I've said that is wrong.
> 
> Right. Me, I'm the bad guy when it comes to making statements when they were throwing out I was a racist, a Nazi, so on. Right. They're the reasonable ones.
> 
> Oh well, no matter, you know your place and to not mess with me as you'll get destroyed, cool.


You referred to Tommy Robinson as a hero and mentioned him in the same sentence as Nelson sodding Mandela :lol

And someone calling you a racist sympathiser is not calling you a racist, or even a Nazi. But no smoke without fire I guess.

Yeah, I know my place. I’m in awe of your debating magnificence. You really set me straight


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> You referred to Tommy Robinson as a hero and mentioned him in the same sentence as Nelson sodding Mandela :lol
> 
> And someone calling you a racist sympathiser is not calling you a racist, or even a Nazi. But no smoke without fire I guess.
> 
> Yeah, I know my place. I’m in awe of your debating magnificence. You really set me straight


To be fair I flat out called him a Nazi multiple times. I know of no other group of people who defends the actions of nazis/fascists than other fascists. It's why he's on ignore, I don't converse with fascists. The only other people I have on ignore are people who just annoy me by quoting me over and over to talk about something totally different than what they quoted. I get annoyed by the notifications so I put them on ignore :lol


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

RavishingRickRules said:


> To be fair I flat out called him a Nazi multiple times. I know of no other group of people who defends the actions of nazis/fascists than other fascists. It's why he's on ignore, I don't converse with fascists. The only other people I have on ignore are people who just annoy me by quoting me over and over to talk about something totally different than what they quoted. I get annoyed by the notifications so I put them on ignore :lol


Fair enough. Can’t say I disagree with you. Think I might even join you in your ignore idea.

No doubt he’ll take it as a victory. Bless :lol


----------



## Rozalia

Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> You referred to Tommy Robinson as a hero and mentioned him in the same sentence as Nelson sodding Mandela :lol
> 
> And someone calling you a racist sympathiser is not calling you a racist, or even a Nazi. But no smoke without fire I guess.
> 
> Yeah, I know my place. I’m in awe of your debating magnificence. You really set me straight


And with that you're wasted.



Ultron said:


> You mean the guy that wants the terrorists to win, that's allowed London to not only turn into a Muslim ghetto but also a complete warzone.
> 
> *And Tommy Robinson is a hero to the people.*





Ultron said:


> I never said he was perfect *let's not forget Nelson Mandela was a terrorist* and look what happened when he got out...


So yeah, totally wrong. I said no such thing, Ultron who you've said you're fine with debating did. Yet you won't debate me as I'm absurd... for saying things I didn't say. Right.

I'll accept your coming apology... you are going to do so right?



RavishingRickRules said:


> To be fair I flat out called him a Nazi multiple times. I know of no other group of people who defends the actions of nazis/fascists than other fascists. It's why he's on ignore, I don't converse with fascists. The only other people I have on ignore are people who just annoy me by quoting me over and over to talk about something totally different than what they quoted. I get annoyed by the notifications so I put them on ignore :lol


I'd defend your right to protest too flower, doesn't make me whatever you are.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

Rozalia said:


> And with that you're wasted.
> 
> So yeah, totally wrong. I said no such thing, Ultron who you've said you're fine with debating did. Yet you won't debate me as I'm absurd... for saying things I didn't say. Right.
> 
> I'll accept your coming apology... you are going to do so right?


Fair do’s. I hold my hands up to that and am sorry for the mistaken identity. I have no issue to admitting my mistakes.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> Fair enough. Can’t say I disagree with you. Think I might even join you in your ignore idea.
> 
> No doubt he’ll take it as a victory. Bless :lol


The funniest thing for me is that people like him seem to think it's only the left-wing who are anti fascist. I'm fairly certain if you asked the majority of right-wingers they're also anti fascist. As if the only people opposing Mosley were left-wingers, and not just everybody who wasn't a fascist dildo. Ignoring the "antifa" group who vandalise parts of America, "anti fascist" is basically most people's default setting. We're against fascism, mostly regardless of political leanings. :lol


----------



## Rozalia

Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> Fair do’s. I hold my hands up to that and am sorry for the mistaken identity. I have no issue to admitting my mistakes.


Good good. You're free to try again to find something I was wrong in. Otherwise, please stop with this nonsense of believing I am a racist/Nazi/so on. The fools who blocked me did so because they got destroyed and when losing their default is to call others racists, nothing more.


----------



## yeahbaby!

FFS guys create an 'ENGLISH LADS MEASURE COCKS BACK AND FORTH' and lets get back to the greatest POTUS buffoon of all time.


----------



## Banez

DesolationRow said:


> Yes, it's time for half a dozen Finns to take over this thread and argue with one another about their country.
> 
> @Banez; who else needs to arrive? Please be prompt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just kidding around here everyone. Humor salves much in life.


What a wonderful time to be alive. I was watching last night when Trump landed, the few navy seals helicopters go round and about in the sky. Even after Trump had made his way to his resort where he's saying.

Tomorrow there should be more planes circling round and about :maisie


----------



## Sincere

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018290098503340033
:lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## yeahbaby!

Sincere said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018290098503340033
> :lmao :lmao :lmao


Sounds legit


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak

The comparisons between Nelson Mandela and Tommy Robinson are interesting.... Except Mandela actually did things to get branded as such.... 

What did Tommy do? Make a Party that had some white nationists join.... Only to distance himself once they did? Feel like the Islamic community in Britain should be held more accountable? Get arrested for some bullshit laws? 

Terrorists don't try help people who threaten to hurt their family. 






Nazi's don't get the support of minority groups like the Sikh community






I can't think of anyone who has been more mislabeled.


----------



## Miss Sally

Sincere said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018290098503340033
> :lmao :lmao :lmao


Wait.. what? :faint:


----------



## virus21

Sincere said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018290098503340033
> :lmao :lmao :lmao


You know when people say Trump Derangement Syndrome as a joke? This makes me think that it might be a real condition.


----------



## yeahbaby!

virus21 said:


> You know when people say Trump Derangement Syndrome as a joke? This makes me think that it might be a real condition.


Makes me think no one has actually clinked on the link, it has to be satire doesn't it?

Edit: It is, and thank god that top detective Tom Arnold is on the case



> They had talked to people in the know and people close to the know and people like Tom Arnold, *the actor,* who on certain days seems to be within the know.


'The Actor' might be taking it a bit far.


----------



## Draykorinee

Stupid_Smark said:


> The comparisons between Nelson Mandela and Tommy Robinson are interesting.... Except Mandela actually did things to get branded as such....
> 
> What did Tommy do? Make a Party that had some white nationists join.... Only to distance himself once they did? Feel like the Islamic community in Britain should be held more accountable? Get arrested for some bullshit laws?
> 
> Terrorists don't try help people who threaten to hurt their family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazi's don't get the support of minority groups like the Sikh community
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't think of anyone who has been more mislabeled.


I mean, a part from starting a racist organisation there's also the frequent assaults, drug offences, fraud and other misdemeanors but he's a good guy is Tommy, a hero of the people.

He's not done nothing to deserve his reputation.


----------



## CamillePunk

virus21 said:


> You know when people say Trump Derangement Syndrome as a joke? This makes me think that it might be a real condition.


I don't say it as a joke. It is a real phenomenon. People actually believe that Trump colluded with Russia, or for some reason wants to advance Russia's interests over the country his family has belonged to for three generations, even though his family history has no Russian ties as far as I'm aware. Just, for some reason, via some undetermined means, Trump MUST be in bed with Russia. :lol Not to mention all of the hallucinations about "secret dog whistles". :lol


Bret “Hitman” Hart;75853030 said:


> Do you believe him?


Don't have to. It was in the newspaper with eye witness reports.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018707668993626112
What a moron. :banderas Just say you don't know from the start. You don't have to have an opinion about everything. You already admit to not knowing anything about economics by being a socialist. Good job Justice Democrats. :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

When did Dave Meltzer start working for the Huffing Glue Post?

- Vic


----------



## virus21

> OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — The California Democratic Party has snubbed U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein by giving its endorsement to her rival, state Sen. Kevin de Leon.
> He won the party nod Saturday after a vote of the party’s roughly 360-member executive board made up of local officials and party activists.
> A total of 217 delegates voted for de Leon, of Los Angeles, while 22 cast ballots for Feinstein and 94 voted for no endorsement.
> It’s an embarrassment for Feinstein, who had urged members to stay neutral in the race. The endorsement means the party will spend money promoting de Leon’s campaign, which has struggled to raise cash.
> Still, Feinstein holds the upper hand. She took 44 percent of the vote in the June 5 primary compared to de Leon’s 12 percent in a field of more than 30 candidates.
> Feinstein’s allies had warned an endorsement in the race would create an intraparty squabble that could detract from important down-ballot races.
> California sends the two highest vote-getters to the general election regardless of party.


http://archive.is/g2kq7#selection-1861.0-1887.90


----------



## Headliner

Trump is seriously coming off as a Russian agent in this Putin press conference. All he's doing is giving more validation to those who believe Putin has something on him or there was really a conspiracy between the campaign and Russia. I would hope people would put patriotism over politics in here and acknowledge that this shit is disturbing.


----------



## Banez

This press conference was hilarous.

Guy spends two hours with Russian President. Supposedly talked about Crimea, Iran, Syria etc.

And what was the press conference about?

"Well it's clear i won the elections and i'd like to see those 33 000 emails from Hillary"

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Headliner

That meeting was borderline treasonous. Our justice department indicts 13 Russians for social media interference in the 2016 election and 12 more Russians for cyber burglary (DNC, Clinton campaign, DCCC hack) to interfere in the 2016 election and this orange dude basically supports Putin's denial of the interference. Then randomly brings up a server and Clinton emails as a deflection point and for no reason. What kind of twilight zone shit is this?


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Headliner said:


> Trump is seriously coming off as a Russian agent in this Putin press conference. All he's doing is giving more validation to those who believe Putin has something on him or there was really a conspiracy between the campaign and Russia. I would hope people would put patriotism over politics in here and acknowledge that this shit is disturbing.


Vic won't believe a word you said because the biggest threat in there eyes more then anything on the planet is democrats and liberals.


----------



## Sincere

It's an epidemic. No wonder people like Tommy Robbinson are pissed.

Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal
Rochdale child sex abuse ring
Oxford child sex abuse ring
Halifax child sex abuse ring
Telford child sexual exploitation scandal
Derby child sex abuse ring
Keighley child sex abuse ring
Aylesbury child sex abuse ring
Bristol child sex abuse ring
Peterborough sex abuse case
Banbury child sex abuse ring
Newcastle sex abuse ring


----------



## MrMister

Wow, Ocasio-Cortez has a genuine Aleppo moment there in that interview with milf Hoover. She seems kinda dumb I am sorry.


----------



## Rozalia

Headliner said:


> That meeting was borderline treasonous. Our justice department indicts 13 Russians for social media interference in the 2016 election and 12 more Russians for cyber burglary (DNC, Clinton campaign, DCCC hack) to interfere in the 2016 election and this orange dude basically supports Putin's denial of the interference. Then randomly brings up a server and Clinton emails as a deflection point and for no reason. What kind of twilight zone shit is this?


Anyone not taken in by this nonsense knows that Mueller has nothing and so is indicting Russians he won't get in court/trial and thus won't have to prove anything. Also the DNC "hacks" were due to phishing. Were it me I'd just say that the Democrats are idiots for falling to such a basic thing.

Donald sees a shot at peace with Russia and he'll take it. If you want the cold war back then wait for a Democrat to be President.


----------



## Headliner

Rozalia said:


> Headliner said:
> 
> 
> 
> That meeting was borderline treasonous. Our justice department indicts 13 Russians for social media interference in the 2016 election and 12 more Russians for cyber burglary (DNC, Clinton campaign, DCCC hack) to interfere in the 2016 election and this orange dude basically supports Putin's denial of the interference. Then randomly brings up a server and Clinton emails as a deflection point and for no reason. What kind of twilight zone shit is this?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone not taken in by this nonsense knows that Mueller has nothing and so is indicting Russians he won't get in court/trial and thus won't have to prove anything. Also the DNC "hacks" were due to phishing. Were it me I'd just say that the Democrats are idiots for falling to such a basic thing.
> 
> Donald sees a shot at peace with Russia and he'll take it. If you want the cold war back then wait for a Democrat to be President.
Click to expand...

Example #1. Disgusting.


----------



## DaRealNugget

the president is clearly compromised.


----------



## Stephen90

Headliner said:


> That meeting was borderline treasonous. Our justice department indicts 13 Russians for social media interference in the 2016 election and 12 more Russians for cyber burglary (DNC, Clinton campaign, DCCC hack) to interfere in the 2016 election and this orange dude basically supports Putin's denial of the interference. Then randomly brings up a server and Clinton emails as a deflection point and for no reason. What kind of twilight zone shit is this?


Trump choose the KGB over CIA. Yet i keep hearing how patriotic he is.


----------



## Sincere

Headliner said:


> That meeting was borderline treasonous.


Not even remotely close to treason.

US Constitution, Article III, Section 3.



> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


----------



## deepelemblues

Well I tell you what it's just intolerable that :trump didn't pull out his Glock and plug Putin right between his beady little eyes on live TV, and then order the nukes to fly. Anything less is clearly treason. 

The :fact that a hundred million people haven't been turned into radioactive dust in the last six hours makes me so ashamed to be an American. 

lol what a joke, :trump didn't turn in a warmongering neocon MUH RUSSIA tour de force because he's not a blood-soaked war criminal like John McCain and that's just awful apparently. Maybe :trump should go to Syria and meet with jihadist commanders and ensure them that the CIA's gonna keep the weapons and money flowing guys, don't you worry about a thing. Because that wasn't even slightly treasonous or anything when McCain did that. Or when Brennan and the rest of the Obama Administration proceeded to honor John's promises to arm "freedom fighters" that definitely were not al-Qaeda even though it was later revealed that the main recipient of the $1 billion in weapons the CIA smuggled into Syria from Benghazi was... the al-Nusra Front. And the government knew that its weapons smuggling was arming al-Nusra far more than it was arming the "moderate" "secular" "Free Syrian Army."

i.e. the CIA smuggled weapons to the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda, knew that's what it was doing, and didn't bat an eye, with the approval and support of high-ranking American government officials. But that definitely wasn't treason or even something to object to really. But this press conference... how can America survive it? :hmm:


----------



## Headliner

Sincere said:


> Headliner said:
> 
> 
> 
> That meeting was borderline treasonous.
> 
> 
> 
> Not even remotely close to treason.
> 
> US Constitution, Article III, Section 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

:mj4 Dude using a 230 year definition of treason to tell us what treason is and isn't. Stop. Treason is defending, supporting or being complicit in the behavior of your adversary against your own country. That disaster of a press conference was damn close.

WTF happened to the Republican party. I see patriotic Republicans on social media losing their shit over this. Paul Ryan put out a statement which was basically against everything Trump said in the conference. Party of Reagan right?
Traditionally the Republicans don't fuck with Russia. This is the Trump party. Not the Republican party.


----------



## deepelemblues

The United States and Russia are already engaged with each other in Syria, daily, in the most intense electronic warfare in history. Every day, American and Russian forces attempt to jam the radars of the other side, send out false signals, jam and/or intercept communications, and generally do everything to each other's electronics that they would do in a shooting war.

Guess that isn't confrontational enough. Perhaps we should shoot down a Russian plane or four. Maybe they should shoot down some of ours. Maybe we should shell or bomb a Russian SAM or artillery site or command and control headquarters. Maybe they should do the same to one of our special forces bases. That would show everyone the proper aspect of Russo-American relations!



> He [Putin] denies it. So the idea that somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't read the thought process in Russia very well.


Quote=

Quote=

Quote=

Quote=That goddamn compromised treasonous Russian puppet *Barack Hussein Obama.*


----------



## Rozalia

Headliner said:


> :mj4 Dude using a 230 year definition of treason to tell us what treason is and isn't. Stop. Treason is defending, supporting or being complicit in the behavior of your adversary against your own country. That disaster of a press conference was damn close.
> 
> WTF happened to the Republican party. I see patriotic Republicans on social media losing their shit over this. Paul Ryan put out a statement which was basically against everything Trump said in the conference. Party of Reagan right?
> Traditionally the Republicans don't fuck with Russia. This is the Trump party. Not the Republican party.


The law is the law if you like it or not. They don't run on progressive rules where they just decide at a snap it is now defined as X and that is that.



deepelemblues said:


> Well I tell you what it's just intolerable that :trump didn't pull out his Glock and plug Putin right between his beady little eyes on live TV, and then order the nukes to fly. Anything less is clearly treason.
> 
> The :fact that a hundred million people haven't been turned into radioactive dust in the last six hours makes me so ashamed to be an American.
> 
> lol what a joke, :trump didn't turn in a warmongering neocon MUH RUSSIA tour de force because he's not a blood-soaked war criminal like John McCain and that's just awful apparently. Maybe :trump should go to Syria and meet with jihadist commanders and ensure them that the CIA's gonna keep the weapons and money flowing guys, don't you worry about a thing. Because that wasn't even slightly treasonous or anything when McCain did that. Or when Brennan and the rest of the Obama Administration proceeded to honor John's promises to arm "freedom fighters" that definitely were not al-Qaeda even though it was later revealed that the main recipient of the $1 billion in weapons the CIA smuggled into Syria from Benghazi was... the al-Nusra Front. And the government knew that its weapons smuggling was arming al-Nusra far more than it was arming the "moderate" "secular" "Free Syrian Army."
> 
> i.e. the CIA smuggled weapons to the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda, knew that's what it was doing, and didn't bat an eye, with the approval and support of high-ranking American government officials. But that definitely wasn't treason or even something to object to really. But this press conference... how can America survive it? :hmm:


Excellent post. America has been in the business of supporting Jihadi filth often under the term of freedom fighter when anyone with sense could easily see they were head choppers... and yet Trump who cut the flow to those people is the traitor. Right.

There is nothing to gain in Trump carrying on a Democrat narritive designed to delegitimise him and excuse the monumental failure and out of touch blindness of the Democrat party. They didn't lose because they threw the working class under the bus for years, they didn't lose because they ignored at best and harassed as racists at worst those who raised concerns about globalism/immigration/so on, they didn't lose because they assumed the left side of their base would just take Clinton throwing up a finger at them and choosing someone to right of her instead of to the left, they didn't lose because they thought Hispanics == illegals so they'd all vote Democrat as he was attacking illegals, they didn't lose because Clinton thought people in certain states didn't matter and would just automatically give her their votes, they didn't lose because at no point did they stop their old political tactics which not only weren't clearly working but were instead strengthening Trump, and it just goes on and on. 

No, the Democrats lost because of those damn Ruskies. They spend 10k on facebook or something and how could the Democrats 2 billion funding compete with that. Some fools at the DNC also fell for a phishing attack and that meant Putin could do the grand evil act of showing people... what the Democrats thought of them, wow, what evil. Tho Democrats would rather bring back the Cold War then admit they are losers.


----------



## Headliner

deepelemblues said:


> Well I tell you what it's just intolerable that <img src="http://i.imgur.com/MpRFDoq.png" border="0" alt="" title="trump" class="inlineimg" /> didn't pull out his Glock and plug Putin right between his beady little eyes on live TV, and then order the nukes to fly. Anything less is clearly treason.
> 
> The <img src="http://i.imgur.com/YIhOcmN.png" border="0" alt="" title="Kidd" class="inlineimg" /> that a hundred million people haven't been turned into radioactive dust in the last six hours makes me so ashamed to be an American.
> 
> lol what a joke, <img src="http://i.imgur.com/MpRFDoq.png" border="0" alt="" title="trump" class="inlineimg" /> didn't turn in a warmongering neocon MUH RUSSIA tour de force because he's not a blood-soaked war criminal like John McCain and that's just awful apparently. Maybe <img src="http://i.imgur.com/MpRFDoq.png" border="0" alt="" title="trump" class="inlineimg" /> should go to Syria and meet with jihadist commanders and ensure them that the CIA's gonna keep the weapons and money flowing guys, don't you worry about a thing. Because that wasn't even slightly treasonous or anything when McCain did that. Or when Brennan and the rest of the Obama Administration proceeded to honor John's promises to arm "freedom fighters" that definitely were not al-Qaeda even though it was later revealed that the main recipient of the $1 billion in weapons the CIA smuggled into Syria from Benghazi was... the al-Nusra Front. And the government knew that its weapons smuggling was arming al-Nusra far more than it was arming the "moderate" "secular" "Free Syrian Army."
> 
> i.e. the CIA smuggled weapons to the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda, knew that's what it was doing, and didn't bat an eye, with the approval and support of high-ranking American government officials. But that definitely wasn't treason or even something to object to really. But this press conference... how can America survive it? <img src="http://i.imgur.com/t338GQ8.png" border="0" alt="" title="hmm" class="inlineimg" />





deepelemblues said:


> The United States and Russia are already engaged with each other in Syria, daily, in the most intense electronic warfare in history. Every day, American and Russian forces attempt to jam the radars of the other side, send out false signals, jam and/or intercept communications, and generally do everything to each other's electronics that they would do in a shooting war.
> 
> Guess that isn't confrontational enough. Perhaps we should shoot down a Russian plane or four. Maybe they should shoot down some of ours. Maybe we should shell or bomb a Russian SAM or artillery site or command and control headquarters. Maybe they should do the same to one of our special forces bases. That would show everyone the proper aspect of Russo-American relations!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He [Putin] denies it. So the idea that somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't read the thought process in Russia very well.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote=
> 
> Quote=
> 
> Quote=
> 
> Quote=That goddamn compromised treasonous Russian puppet *Barack Hussein Obama.*
Click to expand...




Rozalia said:


> Headliner said:
> 
> 
> 
> <img src="http://imgur.com/7fvjvtR.png" border="0" alt="" title="Jordan" class="inlineimg" /> Dude using a 230 year definition of treason to tell us what treason is and isn't. Stop. Treason is defending, supporting or being complicit in the behavior of your adversary against your own country. That disaster of a press conference was damn close.
> 
> WTF happened to the Republican party. I see patriotic Republicans on social media losing their shit over this. Paul Ryan put out a statement which was basically against everything Trump said in the conference. Party of Reagan right?
> Traditionally the Republicans don't fuck with Russia. This is the Trump party. Not the Republican party.
> 
> 
> 
> The law is the law if you like it or not. They don't run on progressive rules where they just decide at a snap it is now defined as X and that is that.
> 
> 
> 
> deepelemblues said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I tell you what it's just intolerable that <img src="http://i.imgur.com/MpRFDoq.png" border="0" alt="" title="trump" class="inlineimg" /> didn't pull out his Glock and plug Putin right between his beady little eyes on live TV, and then order the nukes to fly. Anything less is clearly treason.
> 
> The <img src="http://i.imgur.com/YIhOcmN.png" border="0" alt="" title="Kidd" class="inlineimg" /> that a hundred million people haven't been turned into radioactive dust in the last six hours makes me so ashamed to be an American.
> 
> lol what a joke, <img src="http://i.imgur.com/MpRFDoq.png" border="0" alt="" title="trump" class="inlineimg" /> didn't turn in a warmongering neocon MUH RUSSIA tour de force because he's not a blood-soaked war criminal like John McCain and that's just awful apparently. Maybe <img src="http://i.imgur.com/MpRFDoq.png" border="0" alt="" title="trump" class="inlineimg" /> should go to Syria and meet with jihadist commanders and ensure them that the CIA's gonna keep the weapons and money flowing guys, don't you worry about a thing. Because that wasn't even slightly treasonous or anything when McCain did that. Or when Brennan and the rest of the Obama Administration proceeded to honor John's promises to arm "freedom fighters" that definitely were not al-Qaeda even though it was later revealed that the main recipient of the $1 billion in weapons the CIA smuggled into Syria from Benghazi was... the al-Nusra Front. And the government knew that its weapons smuggling was arming al-Nusra far more than it was arming the "moderate" "secular" "Free Syrian Army."
> 
> i.e. the CIA smuggled weapons to the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda, knew that's what it was doing, and didn't bat an eye, with the approval and support of high-ranking American government officials. But that definitely wasn't treason or even something to object to really. But this press conference... how can America survive it? <img src="http://i.imgur.com/t338GQ8.png" border="0" alt="" title="hmm" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent post. America has been in the business of supporting Jihadi filth often under the term of freedom fighter when anyone with sense could easily see they were head choppers... and yet Trump who cut the flow to those people is the traitor. Right.
> 
> There is nothing to gain in Trump carrying on a Democrat narritive designed to delegitimise him and excuse the monumental failure and out of touch blindness of the Democrat party. They didn't lose because they threw the working class under the bus for years, they didn't lose because they ignored at best and harassed as racists at worst those who raised concerns about globalism/immigration/so on, they didn't lose because they assumed the left side of their base would just take Clinton throwing up a finger at them and choosing someone to right of her instead of to the left, they didn't lose because they thought Hispanics == illegals so they'd all vote Democrat as he was attacking illegals, they didn't lose because Clinton thought people in certain states didn't matter and would just automatically give her their votes, they didn't lose because at no point did they stop their old political tactics which not only weren't clearly working but were instead strengthening Trump, and it just goes on and on.
> 
> No, the Democrats lost because of those damn Ruskies. They spend 10k on facebook or something and how could the Democrats 2 billion funding compete with that. Some fools at the DNC also fell for a phishing attack and that meant Putin could do the grand evil act of showing people... what the Democrats thought of them, wow, what evil. Tho Democrats would rather bring back the Cold War then admit they are losers.
Click to expand...

Examples 2, 3 and 4. This is sad.


----------



## Headliner

deepelemblues said:


> Well I tell you what it's just intolerable that <img src="http://i.imgur.com/MpRFDoq.png" border="0" alt="" title="trump" class="inlineimg" /> didn't pull out his Glock and plug Putin right between his beady little eyes on live TV, and then order the nukes to fly. Anything less is clearly treason.
> 
> The <img src="http://i.imgur.com/YIhOcmN.png" border="0" alt="" title="Kidd" class="inlineimg" /> that a hundred million people haven't been turned into radioactive dust in the last six hours makes me so ashamed to be an American.
> 
> lol what a joke, <img src="http://i.imgur.com/MpRFDoq.png" border="0" alt="" title="trump" class="inlineimg" /> didn't turn in a warmongering neocon MUH RUSSIA tour de force because he's not a blood-soaked war criminal like John McCain and that's just awful apparently. Maybe <img src="http://i.imgur.com/MpRFDoq.png" border="0" alt="" title="trump" class="inlineimg" /> should go to Syria and meet with jihadist commanders and ensure them that the CIA's gonna keep the weapons and money flowing guys, don't you worry about a thing. Because that wasn't even slightly treasonous or anything when McCain did that. Or when Brennan and the rest of the Obama Administration proceeded to honor John's promises to arm "freedom fighters" that definitely were not al-Qaeda even though it was later revealed that the main recipient of the $1 billion in weapons the CIA smuggled into Syria from Benghazi was... the al-Nusra Front. And the government knew that its weapons smuggling was arming al-Nusra far more than it was arming the "moderate" "secular" "Free Syrian Army."
> 
> i.e. the CIA smuggled weapons to the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda, knew that's what it was doing, and didn't bat an eye, with the approval and support of high-ranking American government officials. But that definitely wasn't treason or even something to object to really. But this press conference... how can America survive it? <img src="http://i.imgur.com/t338GQ8.png" border="0" alt="" title="hmm" class="inlineimg" />





deepelemblues said:


> The United States and Russia are already engaged with each other in Syria, daily, in the most intense electronic warfare in history. Every day, American and Russian forces attempt to jam the radars of the other side, send out false signals, jam and/or intercept communications, and generally do everything to each other's electronics that they would do in a shooting war.
> 
> Guess that isn't confrontational enough. Perhaps we should shoot down a Russian plane or four. Maybe they should shoot down some of ours. Maybe we should shell or bomb a Russian SAM or artillery site or command and control headquarters. Maybe they should do the same to one of our special forces bases. That would show everyone the proper aspect of Russo-American relations!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He [Putin] denies it. So the idea that somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't read the thought process in Russia very well.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote=
> 
> Quote=
> 
> Quote=
> 
> Quote=That goddamn compromised treasonous Russian puppet *Barack Hussein Obama.*
Click to expand...




Rozalia said:


> Headliner said:
> 
> 
> 
> <img src="http://imgur.com/7fvjvtR.png" border="0" alt="" title="Jordan" class="inlineimg" /> Dude using a 230 year definition of treason to tell us what treason is and isn't. Stop. Treason is defending, supporting or being complicit in the behavior of your adversary against your own country. That disaster of a press conference was damn close.
> 
> WTF happened to the Republican party. I see patriotic Republicans on social media losing their shit over this. Paul Ryan put out a statement which was basically against everything Trump said in the conference. Party of Reagan right?
> Traditionally the Republicans don't fuck with Russia. This is the Trump party. Not the Republican party.
> 
> 
> 
> The law is the law if you like it or not. They don't run on progressive rules where they just decide at a snap it is now defined as X and that is that.
> 
> 
> 
> deepelemblues said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I tell you what it's just intolerable that <img src="http://i.imgur.com/MpRFDoq.png" border="0" alt="" title="trump" class="inlineimg" /> didn't pull out his Glock and plug Putin right between his beady little eyes on live TV, and then order the nukes to fly. Anything less is clearly treason.
> 
> The <img src="http://i.imgur.com/YIhOcmN.png" border="0" alt="" title="Kidd" class="inlineimg" /> that a hundred million people haven't been turned into radioactive dust in the last six hours makes me so ashamed to be an American.
> 
> lol what a joke, <img src="http://i.imgur.com/MpRFDoq.png" border="0" alt="" title="trump" class="inlineimg" /> didn't turn in a warmongering neocon MUH RUSSIA tour de force because he's not a blood-soaked war criminal like John McCain and that's just awful apparently. Maybe <img src="http://i.imgur.com/MpRFDoq.png" border="0" alt="" title="trump" class="inlineimg" /> should go to Syria and meet with jihadist commanders and ensure them that the CIA's gonna keep the weapons and money flowing guys, don't you worry about a thing. Because that wasn't even slightly treasonous or anything when McCain did that. Or when Brennan and the rest of the Obama Administration proceeded to honor John's promises to arm "freedom fighters" that definitely were not al-Qaeda even though it was later revealed that the main recipient of the $1 billion in weapons the CIA smuggled into Syria from Benghazi was... the al-Nusra Front. And the government knew that its weapons smuggling was arming al-Nusra far more than it was arming the "moderate" "secular" "Free Syrian Army."
> 
> i.e. the CIA smuggled weapons to the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda, knew that's what it was doing, and didn't bat an eye, with the approval and support of high-ranking American government officials. But that definitely wasn't treason or even something to object to really. But this press conference... how can America survive it? <img src="http://i.imgur.com/t338GQ8.png" border="0" alt="" title="hmm" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent post. America has been in the business of supporting Jihadi filth often under the term of freedom fighter when anyone with sense could easily see they were head choppers... and yet Trump who cut the flow to those people is the traitor. Right.
> 
> There is nothing to gain in Trump carrying on a Democrat narritive designed to delegitimise him and excuse the monumental failure and out of touch blindness of the Democrat party. They didn't lose because they threw the working class under the bus for years, they didn't lose because they ignored at best and harassed as racists at worst those who raised concerns about globalism/immigration/so on, they didn't lose because they assumed the left side of their base would just take Clinton throwing up a finger at them and choosing someone to right of her instead of to the left, they didn't lose because they thought Hispanics == illegals so they'd all vote Democrat as he was attacking illegals, they didn't lose because Clinton thought people in certain states didn't matter and would just automatically give her their votes, they didn't lose because at no point did they stop their old political tactics which not only weren't clearly working but were instead strengthening Trump, and it just goes on and on.
> 
> No, the Democrats lost because of those damn Ruskies. They spend 10k on facebook or something and how could the Democrats 2 billion funding compete with that. Some fools at the DNC also fell for a phishing attack and that meant Putin could do the grand evil act of showing people... what the Democrats thought of them, wow, what evil. Tho Democrats would rather bring back the Cold War then admit they are losers.
Click to expand...

Examples 2, 3 and 4. This is sad.


----------



## Rozalia

Headliner said:


> Examples 2, 3 and 4. This is sad.


You're counting people twice.


----------



## CamillePunk

Trump cares more about having peace with Russia than pursuing the vendetta of butt-hurt Democrats and anti-Trumpers who want revenge because HILLARY CLINTON didn't get to be president. I agree with Trump. Far more important that we have good relations with Russia than making a big deal out of this "election meddling" nonsense that the US does in other countries all the time.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Trump cares more about having peace with Russia than pursuing the vendetta of butt-hurt Democrats and anti-Trumpers who want revenge because HILLARY CLINTON didn't get to be president. I agree with Trump. Far more important that we have good relations with Russia than making a big deal out of this "election meddling" nonsense that the US does in other countries all the time.


What's funny is I'm probably the most anti-Russia poster on this forum, with many, many remarks made attesting to my belief that Russia is an unfriendly rival who should be treated as such, but now I'm an accessory to Russian stooging because I won't tear my shirt over :trump not saying mean things about Putin to his face at a press conference and not parroting his political opponents and their hysterical claims. 

It's so :heston, the ignorance and simplistic thinking of those suffering from :trump derangement syndrome. :trump has done more to confront Russia in Syria than their Jug-Eared Fool of a hero Barack Obama ever did...

But obviously :trump is a compromised near-traitor beholden to Moscow at the same time he's refused to follow Russian wishes regarding the scope and scale of American military operations in Syria, he's bombed the Russian ally Assad government twice, he's given the military total freedom to defend against and respond to Russian EW operations in Syria, it was his military policy that gave the green light to obliterating dozens - at a minimum - of Red Army soldiers posing as "mercenaries" when they attacked a US special forces outpost, and he's made clear that he's not going to go along with the Russian goal of the Assad government taking back control of the entire country. 

And oh yeah he gave the green light to selling Ukraine weapons. Another thing Obama refused to do. 

:trump is SUCH a compromised near-traitor Russian puppet, selling the Ukraine weapons that will be used to kill Red Army soldiers if the fighting there picks up again, and outright killing dozens of Russian "mercenaries" (aka Red Army soldiers claimed by Russia to not actually be Red Army soldiers, which they are) with American planes and artillery in Syria. What a Russian puppet :lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

President Trump said:


> I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics.


:clap 

Glad to have this man as our president.


----------



## deepelemblues

:trump is such a compromised near-treasonous Russian puppet that he's consistently placed heavy pressure on NATO countries to adhere to the treaty agreement and spend 2% of their GDP on defense, and recently said he thinks they should spend 4% - when the only possible point of increased European defense spending is to present a stronger front to Russia.

And he bitched long and loud about Germany signing a deal that will pay Russia billions of dollars over the coming years - Germany's gas deal with Russia will do far more to strengthen Russia than anything :trump has ever said or done. 

Such a compromised near-treasonous Russian puppet this man is.


----------



## Headliner

Ya'll think Putin gives a fuck about America? :lmao :lmao :lmao

HE'S A FUCKING KGB AGENT. Those fuckers are slick and savage as hell. They are experts at plausibility deniability, manipulation, turning unwitting and witting people into Russian agents and a bunch of other shit. The only thing he wants to do is break the western alliance and weaken America's standing in the world for his own self-serving interests with minimum accountability for his actions from other countries. 

People are this naive????


----------



## Reaper

Guys. I got my Permanent Residency Card in the mail today. Super happy and grateful and proud to be an American. Pretty hyper right now.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Headliner said:


> Ya'll think Putin gives a fuck about America? :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> HE'S A FUCKING KGB AGENT. Those fuckers are slick and savage as hell. They are experts at plausibility deniability, manipulation, turning unwitting and witting people into Russian agents and a bunch of other shit. The only thing he wants to do is break the western alliance and weaken America's standing in the world for his own self-serving interests with minimum accountability for his actions from other countries.
> 
> People are this naive????


To a point I think they are but also I think like I said before they feel liberals and democrats are a bigger threat to the world than Russia and ISIS combine. Part of the reason they voted and will vote for him again is because of liberal tears or snowflakes. 

They hate that more than anything else in the world anything.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

Gotta love both parties living in their own realities.

Many Democrat'ss still can't accept the fact they backed the singles most unpopular Democrat in the history of modern polling( one they should have dumped the second Hilary put her foot in her mouth on Interview friendly MSNBC a year before a single primary). The party had a slam dunk victory with any Milquetoast Generic Senator or Governor given all the controveries Trump had,but instead they want to just blame Russia or the Electoral College or Bernie Bro's or Susan Sarandon or Racism or whatever.


And even if Russian Twitter Bot's and fake sites by Russians on Facebook probably only had a microscopic effect it's funny seeing Republicans not able to admit Russia interfered, or that Wikileak's could have been why Trump won and not Trump is some 3D playing Genius or whatever HHH level mastermind people claim he is


----------



## samizayn

CamillePunk said:


> Far more important that we have good relations with Russia than making a big deal out of this "election meddling" nonsense that the US does in other countries all the time.


What? Why on earth would you want a good relationship with a nation that undermines the most fundamental feature of a prosperous society?


----------



## Headliner

The newest conservatives to join the deep state. :lelfold


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018893795696545792

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018888789241024513

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018886553278525440

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018891221425704960

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018924025307893760

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018916410880380930


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose

The Hardcore Show said:


> To a point I think they are but also I think like I said before they feel liberals and democrats are a bigger threat to the world than Russia and ISIS combine. Part of the reason they voted and will vote for him again is because of liberal tears or snowflakes.
> 
> They hate that more than anything else in the world anything.


Do you find that to be exclusively because of the behaviour of their political opponents or because of imagery and arguments that they are exposed to in their chosen media.

Genuine question, since your tone has the demeanour of the objectivist but you seem to be drawing an awful lot of conclusions about large swathes of the population.


----------



## CamillePunk

Headliner said:


> Ya'll think Putin gives a fuck about America?


Who said that?



samizayn said:


> What? Why on earth would you want a good relationship with a nation that undermines the most fundamental feature of a prosperous society?


nukes 

On an unrelated note, democracy is so overrated. Most people in the US can't even name a country on a world map. Why would I want them having a say in anything that affects anyone else's life, especially mine? :lol Good heavens.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> Guys. I got my Permanent Residency Card in the mail today. Super happy and grateful and proud to be an American. Pretty hyper right now.


Congratulations mate, bet you're over the moon. :smile2:


----------



## Headliner

CamillePunk said:


> Who said that?
> 
> nukes


It was a question followed by text that shows there will be no magical dream US/Russia relationship that Trump and Trump supporters are pushing for.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Congratulations mate, bet you're over the moon. :smile2:


Trump Daddy don't wanna deport me at least. 

I can also finally travel to Canada and see my sister and her kids. Probably gonna make the trip around Christmas.

And I should be able to apply for my Citizenship in 2020. I'm definitely very happy. And proud. No matter what, America is one of the greatest countries on Earth. I will never not believe that. 

I just hope that we can stop sticking our noses in every war we can find.


----------



## CamillePunk

Headliner said:


> It was a question followed by text that shows there will be no magical dream US/Russia relationship that Trump and Trump supporters are pushing for.


I think we just want to not have two nuclear powers go to war fam. That seems totally reasonable and achievable to me given its within both parties' interests.

I don't think the people calling for Trump to shit in Putin's mouth on live TV are thinking it through.


----------



## deepelemblues

Joe Walsh has made statements in the past that would get him called "stormfront" by a certain member of this forum but hey Walsh said something mean about :trump so he's cool to that member :heston

I guess we've finally found a way for "stormfront" people to redeem themselves :lmao

It's amazing how grown adults acting like petulant children throwing tantrums are supposed to be taken seriously simply because they said something that supports MUH AGENDA :heyman6 

Hey man you better believe what some government agency sez or you're AGAINST AMERICA :hmm: trust in the government and demand everyone else do the same when it's politically amenable, like say when the CIA or some dude who was in the Obama NSC yells about MUH RUSSIA... 

But also say the government lies big-time and demand nobody trust it when it's politically amenable... like say when the police shoot someone and offer their explanation and you're like nah that's bullshit racist fucking pigs racist goddamn government, or when the CIA provides "intel" that "justifies" a war you disagree with fighting

We've reached levels of cognitive dissonance and blatant agendas > all once thought IMPOSSIBRU


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018969124423241729
Rand Paul right as usual.


----------



## Headliner

CamillePunk said:


> I think we just want to not have two nuclear powers go to war fam. That seems totally reasonable and achievable to me given its within both parties' interests.


This is something that everyone agrees on. But the below quote is the problem.....


> I don't think the people calling for Trump to shit in Putin's mouth on live TV are thinking it through.


What is there to think through? Being submissive to Putin does not improve relations. On the other hand, defending America and not stroking Putin wouldn't improve relations either, but at least he would be acting in the best interest of America by standing with the intelligence agencies and defending the integrity of the election systems. Trump has this America first agenda right? Then call out Putin for what the Russians did in the election, stand by your intelligence agenices and shut down Putin when he denies it. That's America first. 

Trump can't play this both sides thing that he tried to do today. Because he came off like he was more favorable to Putin than his own country. It's either one or the other.


----------



## Sincere

Headliner said:


> :mj4 Dude using a 230 year definition of treason to tell us what treason is and isn't. Stop. Treason is defending, supporting or being complicit in the behavior of your adversary against your own country. That disaster of a press conference was damn close.


The Constitution is the law of the land and provides the only definition of treason that has any relevance. Sorry, 'dude,' you don't just get to make shit up as you go along, and disregard realities that don't conform to your preferences. That's not how the rule of law works.

We're not at war with Russia. 

The POTUS simply meeting with another head of state isn't treason under any valid definition.

The POTUS responding to media questions in a press conference, whether he said something you dislike, or didn't say something you would have liked him to say isn't treason under any valid definition.

People like yourself who toss these terms around so cavalierly only demonstrate your own ignorance and/or absurdity, quite honestly. And then when confronted with Constitutional text that completely undermines your abject hysteria, your defense is that the Constitution--the absolute law of the land that literally defines treason--doesn't matter? Are you daft?

As for the press conference, it shouldn't have surprised anyone who has been paying attention, tbh. What exactly did people expect to happen in this Russia meeting, or at the press conference? What was Trump supposed to do, exactly? Draw a red line? Or maybe bring a big red reset button? Generally speaking, you don't hold a joint press conference to talk shit to each other.

Setting the asinine, ignorant nonsense about treason aside, sure, he could have talked tougher to or about Putin in front of the cameras. Then what? What would that have accomplished or achieved? What would that have actually produced? Would anything change for the better? Would Putin suddenly capitulate? No, he would not. So, how exactly do you imagine that would have gone? And what affect do you imagine it would have had? Because let's be honest, no matter what Trump said or didn't say, he was going to get trashed one way or another--this was already determined before the meeting even took place. So, tearing into Putin's ass at the press conference wouldn't have mattered much politically, and in terms of foreign policy would not only fail to improve the situation, but would also probably make it worse. That's a lose-lose.

90% of the world's nuclear weapons are under the control of Trump and Putin. Mind you, we're currently negotiating the extension of the New START treaty. Think about that for a minute before you start whining about Trump not being bellicose enough in a fucking insignificant press conference. This isn't a simple situation, no matter how much of a genius you imagine yourself to be from your foreign-policy-arm-chair inanely screaming about treason. As much as even I would fleetingly enjoy Trump trashing Putin in front of some cameras, I'm ultimately much more interested in finding ways to de-escalate an already precarious and deteriorating relationship between the two greatest nuclear powers in the world as much as is reasonably possible, as opposed to jumping head first into another goddamn cold war, or worse. And if that means being a little gentle in public over some hacking bullshit that took place on Obama's watch and is still incredibly nebulous, and letting Putin save some face in public in his own country, then so be it. Being gentle in this case costs no one anything, but may potentially lead to improved relationships.

Relevant: Comey: DNC denied FBI's requests for access to hacked servers

Now, what was actually said in the meeting? What is actually happening behind closed doors? I could only speculate, just like everyone else, but based on what we've seen from Trump where foreign policy is concerned up to this point, I would hazard a guess that he is attempting to provide Putin a path toward a more stable, normalized relationship, as opposed to continuing down a path of escalating hostilities that may only lead to unfathomable destruction. Maybe that is ultimately unavoidable (and judging by the hysteria of some, it seems they hope it is), but nevertheless it's in everyone's interest to at least exhaust alternatives before we all suddenly become Russia hawks, lusting for war. Despite popular belief, just because the right likes to have a strong military, doesn't mean the right is eager to use it at every opportunity--don't conflate the general right with neocons. It's impossible to judge how effective Trump's Russia policies will be, or even what they will lead to at this point, but hyperventilating over a relatively inconsequential press conference isn't useful.


----------



## Rozalia

Richard Spencer could announce he will be now working against Trump and he'd then become a living saint to the left. Trump derangement syndrome is so large that many of them now love Bush and think he was a great guy when turn the clock back some years and they thought he was a war mongering bloodthirsty monster who purposely left black people to die because he was that much of a racist.



samizayn said:


> What? Why on earth would you want a good relationship with a nation that undermines the most fundamental feature of a prosperous society?


Lol. Are we not told over and over to respect other cultures and how they do things? Aren't you also supposed to be against regime change as people have a right to go their own way?

Out of the things you could attack Russia on, them not being Democratic enough, when much of the west is a joke in regards to that by the way but whatever, is all quite irrelevant. He could announce tomorrow that he now the Tsar of Russia and it still will be none of anybodies business but Russia's.



Headliner said:


> This is something that everyone agrees on. But the below quote is the problem.....
> 
> What is there to think through? Being submissive to Putin does not improve relations. On the other hand, defending America and not stroking Putin wouldn't improve relations either, but at least he would be acting in the best interest of America by standing with the intelligence agencies and defending the integrity of the election systems. Trump has this America first agenda right? Then call out Putin for what the Russians did in the election, stand by your intelligence agenices and shut down Putin when he denies it. That's America first.
> 
> Trump can't play this both sides thing that he tried to do today. Because he came off like he was more favorable to Putin than his own country. It's either one or the other.


I love how the likes of what was the evil CIA that wrecks countries and all manner of other things are now saints because they have been feuding with Trump. As said above, the likes the KKK could attack Trump and you guys will start singing their praises.

Trump always shows respect to those who show him respect which all the dictators do, really that simple. It's a very basic human reaction in fact. Why is Piers for example the British journalist he always talks to? Because Piers shows him respect. Simple. Why does he keep crapping on CNN when they want to speak? Because they have no respect. Simple. If an ally wants to be treated the same they merely need to do the same and make sure embarrassing displays like the London protests don't happen, or at the very least back him up and go on TV and say that such protesters should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer

Reap said:


> Guys. I got my Permanent Residency Card in the mail today. Super happy and grateful and proud to be an American. Pretty hyper right now.


_*Congratulations bro, I am very happy for you. :clap*_


----------



## CamillePunk

Headliner said:


> This is something that everyone agrees on. But the below quote is the problem.....
> 
> What is there to think through? Being submissive to Putin does not improve relations. On the other hand, defending America and not stroking Putin wouldn't improve relations either, but at least he would be acting in the best interest of America by standing with the intelligence agencies and defending the integrity of the election systems. Trump has this America first agenda right? Then call out Putin for what the Russians did in the election, stand by your intelligence agenices and shut down Putin when he denies it. That's America first.
> 
> Trump can't play this both sides thing that he tried to do today. Because he came off like he was more favorable to Putin than his own country. It's either one or the other.


It's already been highlighted in the thread the myriad of ways the US has acted against Russia's interests under Trump. So the idea that Trump is submissive to Putin simply falls apart under scrutiny.

So the question is why is Trump agreeable to Putin on this ONE matter, when he's not on so many other issues? Let's look at the plausible explanations.

1) He doesn't like the idea of anything tarnishing his election victory. Fits with Trump's brand. He has a big ego and likes to win and wants everyone to think of him as a winner. 

2) Calling Putin or Russia out doesn't actually give us - or Trump - anything. Seriously, nothing is gained by doing it. So why do it? Because the left is mad Hillary lost? Because the right-wing Never-Trump Russophobes who are stuck in the Cold War get off on tension with Russia? These aren't good reasons to do it. One might argue doing so would help Trump politically, but Trump seems to care more about doing a good job than being popular.

The best way to defend the integrity of our elections isn't to provoke a nuclear power. The best way would be for the DNC to learn how to install some basic cyber-security systems on their damn servers. :lol


----------



## Headliner

Sincere said:


> The Constitution is the law of the land and provides the only definition of treason that has any relevance. Sorry, 'dude,' you don't just get to make shit up as you go along, and disregard realities that don't conform to your preferences. That's not how the rule of law works.
> 
> We're not at war with Russia.
> 
> The POTUS simply meeting with another head of state isn't treason under any valid definition.
> 
> The POTUS responding to media questions in a press conference, whether he said something you dislike, or didn't say something you would have liked him to say isn't treason under any valid definition.
> 
> People like yourself who toss these terms around so cavalierly only demonstrate your own ignorance and/or absurdity, quite honestly. And then when confronted with Constitutional text that completely undermines your abject hysteria, your defense is that the Constitution--the absolute law of the land that literally defines treason--doesn't matter? Are you daft?
> 
> As for the press conference, it shouldn't have surprised anyone who has been paying attention, tbh. What exactly did people expect to happen in this Russia meeting, or at the press conference? What was Trump supposed to do, exactly? Draw a red line? Or maybe bring a big red reset button? Generally speaking, you don't hold a joint press conference to talk shit to each other.
> 
> Setting the asinine, ignorant nonsense about treason aside, sure, he could have talked tougher to or about Putin in front of the cameras. Then what? What would that have accomplished or achieved? What would that have actually produced? Would anything change for the better? Would Putin suddenly capitulate? No, he would not. So, how exactly do you imagine that would have gone? And what affect do you imagine it would have had? Because let's be honest, no matter what Trump said or didn't say, he was going to get trashed one way or another--this was already determined before the meeting even took place. So, tearing into Putin's ass at the press conference wouldn't have mattered much politically, and in terms of foreign policy would not only fail to improve the situation, but would also probably make it worse. That's a lose-lose.
> 
> 90% of the world's nuclear weapons are under the control of Trump and Putin. Mind you, we're currently negotiating the extension of the New START treaty. Think about that for a minute before you start whining about Trump not being bellicose enough in a fucking insignificant press conference. This isn't a simple situation, no matter how much of a genius you imagine yourself to be from your foreign-policy-arm-chair inanely screaming about treason. As much as even I would fleetingly enjoy Trump trashing Putin in front of some cameras, I'm ultimately much more interested in finding ways to de-escalate an already precarious and deteriorating relationship between the two greatest nuclear powers in the world as much as is reasonably possible, as opposed to jumping head first into another goddamn cold war, or worse. And if that means being a little gentle in public over some hacking bullshit that took place on Obama's watch and is still incredibly nebulous, and letting Putin save some face in public in his own country, then so be it. Being gentle in this case costs no one anything, but may potentially lead to improved relationships.
> 
> Relevant: Comey: DNC denied FBI's requests for access to hacked servers
> 
> Now, what was actually said in the meeting? What is actually happening behind closed doors? I could only speculate, just like everyone else, but based on what we've seen from Trump where foreign policy is concerned up to this point, I would hazard a guess that he is attempting to provide Putin a path toward a more stable, normalized relationship, as opposed to continuing down a path of escalating hostilities that may only lead to unfathomable destruction. Maybe that is ultimately unavoidable (and judging by the hysteria of some, it seems they hope it is), but nevertheless it's in everyone's interest to at least exhaust alternatives before we all suddenly become Russia hawks, lusting for war. Despite popular belief, just because the right likes to have a strong military, doesn't mean the right is eager to use it at every opportunity--don't conflate the general right with neocons. It's impossible to judge how effective Trump's Russia policies will be, or even what they will lead to at this point, but hyperventilating over a relatively inconsequential press conference isn't useful.





> the action of betraying someone or something.
> plural noun: treasons
> "doubt is the ultimate treason against faith


Wait it wasn't in the constitution. I guess that don't count. :lelfold

Oh ok. I see. Defending America isn't the best idea because it doesn't accomplish anything. :mj4




Rozalia said:


> I love how the likes of what was the evil CIA that wrecks countries and all manner of other things are now saints because they have been feuding with Trump. As said above, the likes the KKK could attack Trump and you guys will start singing their praises.
> 
> Trump always shows respect to those who show him respect which all the dictators do, really that simple. It's a very basic human reaction in fact. Why is Piers for example the British journalist he always talks to? Because Piers shows him respect. Simple. Why does he keep crapping on CNN when they want to speak? Because they have no respect. Simple. If an ally wants to be treated the same they merely need to do the same and make sure embarrassing displays like the London protests don't happen, or at the very least back him up and go on TV and say that such protesters should be ashamed of themselves.


Trump supporters are the masters of "whataboutisms" to deflect from the main argument. 

:mj4 Trump gets mad when people say things he disagrees with so he shits on them. Then when that person or company on the opposing side fights back, they are the problem for fighting back. Stop this fake victimization shit.


----------



## deepelemblues

We got Steve Cohen on Twitter asking "Where are our military folks?" aka asking for a military coup...

Because :trump didn't spit in Putin's face at a press conference...

Means the military should remove him from office, or take a role superior to the president in forming and executing foreign policy... 

But remember :trump is the traitor :heyman6


----------



## Rozalia

Headliner said:


> Wait it wasn't in the constitution. I guess that don't count. :lelfold
> 
> Oh ok. I see. Defending America isn't the best idea because it doesn't accomplish anything. :mj4
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters are the masters of "whataboutisms" to deflect from the main argument.
> 
> :mj4 Trump gets mad when people say things he disagrees with so he shits on them. Then when that person or company on the opposing side fights back, they are the problem for fighting back. Stop this fake victimization shit.


It is clearly defined. If you don't like it then ring up your local Democrat and tell him you want it amended. Till the day it is changed, what is written down is written down.

You can disagree while having basic decency thanks. Those involved can start by not calling Trump a racist and the rest. That is literally all you need to do, show some damn respect. Those in the east get this concept very well, in fact in China back in the day the amount of respect you had to show was mind boggling via the lens of our western ways. In the west on the other hand many seem to think you can just insult the big man in charge and not only does he have to take it, but he should reward you by doing what you want.


----------



## Martins

Headliner said:


> This is something that everyone agrees on. But the below quote is the problem.....
> 
> What is there to think through? Being submissive to Putin does not improve relations. On the other hand, defending America and not stroking Putin wouldn't improve relations either, but at least he would be acting in the best interest of America by standing with the intelligence agencies and defending the integrity of the election systems. Trump has this America first agenda right? Then call out Putin for what the Russians did in the election, stand by your intelligence agenices and shut down Putin when he denies it. That's America first.
> 
> Trump can't play this both sides thing that he tried to do today. Because he came off like he was more favorable to Putin than his own country. It's either one or the other.


Hey wow, what the fuck? Aside from the fact that you think something like this could actually happen, it's not your fucking President's place to go around the world chest-puffed trying to intimidate other heads of state, as much as they tell you in America that's what they'll all do to the meanies and baddies who won't give their people freedom and rock'n'roll. Not that he doesn't try and put on those airs when he's meeting with other heads of state (and you probably realise that's not right when they're not Putin! Smart), but don't start calling for escalating conflicts just 'cause it doesn't go like that with the ones you don't like. 

Usually this is something I'd imagine one would have to say to *Republicans*, seeing as how Democrats at least used to do the deed in a quieter manner. But ever since Trump, oof. You guys are waving that American exceptionalist flag in *thunderous* fashion.


----------



## Headliner

Rozalia said:


> It is clearly defined. If you don't like it then ring up your local Democrat and tell him you want it amended. Till the day it is changed, what is written down is written down.


:mj4 Your argument is bullshit. There is more than one definition of the word as previously posted. ------->



> You can disagree while having basic decency thanks. Those involved can start by not calling Trump a racist and the rest. That is literally all you need to do, show some damn respect. Those in the east get this concept very well, in fact in China back in the day the amount of respect you had to show was mind boggling via the lens of our western ways. In the west on the other hand many seem to think you can just insult the big man in charge and not only does he have to take it, but he should reward you by doing what you want.


How about that orange retard show some respect to people first? He only shows respect to people that kiss his ass or stroke his ego. If he never started attacking people in the first place and wasn't a morally depraved piece of shit, he wouldn't get people attacking him back in such high volumes. 

Don't start shit if you don't want shit. Common sense.


----------



## Headliner

Martins said:


> Hey wow, what the fuck? Aside from the fact that you think something like this could actually happen, it's not your fucking President's place to go around the world chest-puffed trying to intimidate other heads of state, as much as they tell you in America that's what they'll all do to the meanies and baddies who won't give their people freedom and rock'n'roll. Not that he doesn't try and put on those airs when he's meeting with other heads of state (and you probably realise that's not right when they're not Putin! Smart), but don't start calling for escalating conflicts just 'cause it doesn't go like that with the ones you don't like.
> 
> Usually this is something I'd imagine one would have to say to *Republicans*, seeing as how Democrats at least used to do the deed in a quieter manner. But ever since Trump, oof. You guys are waving that American exceptionalist flag in *thunderous* fashion.


:mj4 Yes the President of the United States should not call out a President of a foreign adversary for their actions against the United States because it might escalate a conflict. Fuck defending the country's interest and protecting the country's democracy and integrity as it's leader.

Nothing serious was going to happen if Trump called out Putin the way he should have.

This is crazy:done


----------



## MrMister

Reap said:


> Guys. I got my Permanent Residency Card in the mail today. Super happy and grateful and proud to be an American. Pretty hyper right now.


F R E E D O M


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Reap said:


> Guys. I got my Permanent Residency Card in the mail today. Super happy and grateful and proud to be an American. Pretty hyper right now.












Welcome aboard and congrats, brah. :trump2


----------



## Reaper

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Welcome aboard and congrats, brah. :salute2


Thankus. It's been a hell of a ride though. I have gained so much. America is a wonderful place. I know we're all very divided right now but take it from someone from the third world where we have problems many can't even imagine. 

I'll be a Citizen too by the end of this year since I've now been lawful for more than 3 years. All the conditions have been removed so it's just a matter of studying for the Citizenship test and passing it.

Scratch that lol. They want another 1000 bucks for that :mj4 I'll have to wait till next year to save up for it.


----------



## BruiserKC

Reap said:


> Guys. I got my Permanent Residency Card in the mail today. Super happy and grateful and proud to be an American. Pretty hyper right now.


Congratulations, sir. America doesn't always get it right, but it's still a pretty damn nice place to live. This ******* 'Murrican applauds you.  




Headliner said:


> The newest conservatives to join the deep state. :lelfold
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018893795696545792
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018888789241024513
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018886553278525440
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018891221425704960
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018924025307893760
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018916410880380930


If Obama said anything half as bad as this (granted I was not a huge fan of what I thought of as his apology tours), these same people who are cheering Trump on would be screaming for impeachment. I get there is a massive disagreement (and probably disconnect) between Trump and the intelligence community. This was not the place to air our dirty laundry, not on a stage where the whole world is watching. You can deal with that shit in private while putting on a face that supports the United States in public. 



deepelemblues said:


> We got Steve Cohen on Twitter asking "Where are our military folks?" aka asking for a military coup...
> 
> Because :trump didn't spit in Putin's face at a press conference...
> 
> Means the military should remove him from office, or take a role superior to the president in forming and executing foreign policy...
> 
> But remember :trump is the traitor :heyman6


Ok, let's say Trump is not a traitor (even though he seems to have some mad love for the Commies like Putin and KJU like a good little Marxist). 

There is the possibility that he is doing this (a local talk show host put this theory out there) to troll his haters and the media. He wants to get people all bent out of shape because anything he says automatically triggers them. If that's the case, that was really fucking stupid. He keeps doing this bullshit about being in campaign mode no matter what. If that's the case, cut the shit out and start actually being a leader for the entire country...not the portion that gives you a reacharound no matter what you do. 

As for this whole thing being Obama's fault regarding the Russian hacking, if Obama had somehow said something and Trump lost, guess who's blaming our former POTUS?


----------



## Rozalia

Headliner said:


> :mj4 Your argument is bullshit. There is more than one definition of the word as previously posted. ------->
> 
> 
> How about that orange retard show some respect to people first? He only shows respect to people that kiss his ass or stroke his ego. If he never started attacking people in the first place and wasn't a morally depraved piece of shit, he wouldn't get people attacking him back in such high volumes.
> 
> Don't start shit if you don't want shit. Common sense.


It doesn't matter how it is defined in a dictionary, how progressives define it, how Conservatives define it, so on. What matters is how it is defined in the document which is clear in what actions would lead to a person being charged for it. There simply is no argument here as you are a smart enough lad to know how this works. Overcome the emotion please.

Who did he strike first against since running for President? Also this may be shocking but sometimes the big boss man can be unreasonable, he can savage you when he doesn't know you because say you are connected to someone he hates for example, regardless you show respect. Something you lack by calling him a "Orange Retard" clearly. Yet if Trump said something insulting someone you'd then put on airs of being outraged, right.



BruiserKC said:


> Ok, let's say Trump is not a traitor (even though he seems to have some mad love for the Commies like Putin and KJU like a good little Marxist).


Putin is not a Communist, in fact he is known for jailing them. Incredible that is now the Democrats in America pushing this cold war nonsense. There is no Russian paratrooper at the door about to break in to take away your freedom. Calm down, the government hasn't been taken over by those damn reds either... wait... Republican colour is red... it was there all along, telling us they were secret commies.


----------



## deepelemblues

BruiserKC said:


> Ok, let's say Trump is not a traitor (even though he seems to have some mad love for the Commies like Putin and KJU like a good little Marxist).
> 
> There is the possibility that he is doing this (a local talk show host put this theory out there) to troll his haters and the media. He wants to get people all bent out of shape because anything he says automatically triggers them. If that's the case, that was really fucking stupid. He keeps doing this bullshit about being in campaign mode no matter what. If that's the case, cut the shit out and start actually being a leader for the entire country...not the portion that gives you a reacharound no matter what you do.
> 
> As for this whole thing being Obama's fault regarding the Russian hacking, if Obama had somehow said something and Trump lost, guess who's blaming our former POTUS?


:trump isn't a traitor so we don't need to "let's say" he isn't :draper2

Nah, :trump should continue trolling and never stop. I'm tired of this bullshit where Republicans are expected to submit to whatever left-wingers want when they have power because that's 'displaying leadership' and other bullshit, while whenever Democrats are in charge, they get to ram whatever they want down the country's throat and if Republicans don't like it tough shit, "I won." "Elections have consequences." They sure do. Deal with it.

Who said "Russian hacking" was the Jug-Eared Fool's fault? The double standard of reactions to Obama not talking shit on Putin and :trump not doing it is all that's necessary to highlight.


----------



## BruiserKC

Rozalia said:


> It doesn't matter how it is defined in a dictionary, how progressives define it, how Conservatives define it, so on. What matters is how it is defined in the document which is clear in what actions would lead to a person being charged for it. There simply is no argument here as you are a smart enough lad to know how this works. Overcome the emotion please.
> 
> Who did he strike first against since running for President? Also this may be shocking but sometimes the big boss man can be unreasonable, he can savage you when he doesn't know you because say you are connected to someone he hates for example, regardless you show respect. Something you lack by calling him a "Orange Retard" clearly. Yet if Trump said something insulting someone you'd then put on airs of being outraged, right.
> 
> 
> 
> Putin is not a Communist, in fact he is known for jailing them. Incredible that is now the Democrats in America pushing this cold war nonsense. There is no Russian paratrooper at the door about to break in to take away your freedom. Calm down, the government hasn't been taken over by those damn reds either... wait... Republican colour is red... it was there all along, telling us they were secret commies.





deepelemblues said:


> :trump isn't a traitor so we don't need to "let's say" he isn't :draper2
> 
> Nah, :trump should continue trolling and never stop. I'm tired of this bullshit where Republicans are expected to submit to whatever left-wingers want when they have power because that's 'displaying leadership' and other bullshit, while whenever Democrats are in charge, they get to ram whatever they want down the country's throat and if Republicans don't like it tough shit, "I won." "Elections have consequences." They sure do. Deal with it.
> 
> Who said "Russian hacking" was the Jug-Eared Fool's fault? The double standard of reactions to Obama not talking shit on Putin and :trump not doing it is all that's necessary to highlight.


Putin was a good little Communist who came to head the KGB. He conveniently changed sides during the attempted coup of Gorbachev, but make no mistake that he still adores the teachings of Lenin and Karl Marx. Couple of articles to illustrate the point...from earlier this year. 

https://www.newsweek.com/putin-says-communism-comes-bible-compares-lenin-saint-781328

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-day/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6bfed8f8dee1

Perhaps the totalitarian regime of Putin is not the perfect dream of a Communist society, but neither was the USSR under folks like Stalin, Khruschev, and Brezhnev. But Putin still sings the praises of Lenin and Stalin, same message but different wrapping. 

As for Obama taking the blame for doing nothing about the Russian hacking...Trump did blame him. 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018...-election-meddling-mueller-indictments-722197

And rest assured, if Trump had lost the election, you know he would have pushed the narrative that Obama cost him the Presidency for doing nothing. As for his continuing to troll...he needs to stop acting like an annoying bitch and start acting like the President of the United States. It's not an idea of just doing what "the left" wants him to do...it's called BEING A FUCKING LEADER AND ACTING LIKE IT! He's the POTUS, the leader of the Free World...time to actually play the part. 

Dear God, it's bad enough that the Obama sycophants annoyed the piss out of me for eight years. I thought that was the worst...dealing with Trumpamaniacs made me realize I was wrong. 

But you go ahead and continue to support a progressive con man. You do you.


----------



## Headliner

BruiserKC said:


> If Obama said anything half as bad as this (granted I was not a huge fan of what I thought of as his apology tours), these same people who are cheering Trump on would be screaming for impeachment. I get there is a massive disagreement (and probably disconnect) between Trump and the intelligence community. This was not the place to air our dirty laundry, not on a stage where the whole world is watching. You can deal with that shit in private while putting on a face that supports the United States in public.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, let's say Trump is not a traitor (even though he seems to have some mad love for the Commies like Putin and KJU like a good little Marxist).
> 
> There is the possibility that he is doing this (a local talk show host put this theory out there) to troll his haters and the media. He wants to get people all bent out of shape because anything he says automatically triggers them. If that's the case, that was really fucking stupid. He keeps doing this bullshit about being in campaign mode no matter what. If that's the case, cut the shit out and start actually being a leader for the entire country...not the portion that gives you a reacharound no matter what you do.
> 
> As for this whole thing being Obama's fault regarding the Russian hacking, if Obama had somehow said something and Trump lost, guess who's blaming our former POTUS?


If Obama had done 1/10th of what Trump has done, they (including Congressional Republicans) would be ready to lynch his ass in front of capitol hill. They had a heart attack over him wearing a fucking tan suit.:sodone 

Trump brings up Obama when it comes to the Russian hacking, but it was Mitch McConnell who refused to sign on to a bipartisan statement that would have condemned Russian's interference in the election during the campaign. McConnell said any attempt to release a statement would be seen as partisan and he would smear it. Fuck McConnell. He knew what the Russians were doing and he chose party over country. 



Rozalia said:


> It doesn't matter how it is defined in a dictionary, how progressives define it, how Conservatives define it, so on. What matters is how it is defined in the document which is clear in what actions would lead to a person being charged for it. There simply is no argument here as you are a smart enough lad to know how this works. Overcome the emotion please


None of that shit makes any sense and quoting the constitution like it's the only definition is dumb. End of.



> *Who did he strike first against since running for President?* Also this may be shocking but sometimes the big boss man can be unreasonable, he can savage you when he doesn't know you because say you are connected to someone he hates for example, regardless you show respect. Something you lack by calling him a "Orange Retard" clearly. Yet if Trump said something insulting someone you'd then put on airs of being outraged, right.


:mj4 This dude here. Again with the fake victimization shit like Trump isn't a shit starter and only a victim. 

I'll call him an orange retard 50 times in 2 minutes with no regrets. Fuck him. I don't need to show that piece of shit some respect when he doesn't show respect to my personal beliefs and interests. Instead he insulted them. 



> Putin is not a Communist, in fact he is known for jailing them. Incredible that is now the Democrats in America pushing this cold war nonsense. There is no Russian paratrooper at the door about to break in to take away your freedom. Calm down, the government hasn't been taken over by those damn reds either... wait... Republican colour is red... it was there all along, telling us they were secret commies.


Nobody said Putin is a communist. He's an adversary that shouldn't be trusted.

The fuck are you talking about? Republicans were Russia hawks until Trump took over the party. Once he took over the party, the level of support for Russia increased based on a number of polls.


----------



## deepelemblues

BruiserKC said:


> Putin was a good little Communist who came to head the KGB. He conveniently changed sides during the attempted coup of Gorbachev, but make no mistake that he still adores the teachings of Lenin and Karl Marx. Couple of articles to illustrate the point...from earlier this year.
> 
> https://www.newsweek.com/putin-says-communism-comes-bible-compares-lenin-saint-781328
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-day/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6bfed8f8dee1
> 
> Perhaps the totalitarian regime of Putin is not the perfect dream of a Communist society, but neither was the USSR under folks like Stalin, Khruschev, and Brezhnev. But Putin still sings the praises of Lenin and Stalin, same message but different wrapping.
> 
> As for Obama taking the blame for doing nothing about the Russian hacking...Trump did blame him.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/story/2018...-election-meddling-mueller-indictments-722197
> 
> And rest assured, if Trump had lost the election, you know he would have pushed the narrative that Obama cost him the Presidency for doing nothing. As for his continuing to troll...he needs to stop acting like an annoying bitch and start acting like the President of the United States. It's not an idea of just doing what "the left" wants him to do...it's called BEING A FUCKING LEADER AND ACTING LIKE IT! He's the POTUS, the leader of the Free World...time to actually play the part.
> 
> Dear God, it's bad enough that the Obama sycophants annoyed the piss out of me for eight years. I thought that was the worst...dealing with Trumpamaniacs made me realize I was wrong.
> 
> But you go ahead and continue to support a progressive con man. You do you.


I'm well aware that Putin was once a Colonel in the KGB and eventually was in charge of the KGB and that he's a piece of shit who wishes the USSR was still around.

You can be fixated on Obama being "blamed" for "allowing" MUH RUSSIA to do whatever... I don't think Obama was particularly responsible. I was pointing out the double standard where Obama says talking shit on Putin doesn't accomplish anything and the same people tearing their shirts over :trump not talking shit on Putin had nothing to say about Obama not talking shit on Putin. 

It's a shame that progressives hate :trump so much that they've driven him to enacting conservative policies nearly across the board because he has no one to work with except conservatives, isn't it? Lower taxes. More military spending. Conservative judges appointed at all levels of the federal judiciary. Regulations taken off the books by the thousands. More stringent immigration policy. 

If progressives had been willing to deal instead of throw tantrums, it is possible that none of those things would have happened or be happening.

You continue to claim "progressive con man" when 99 out of 100 of his policies are anti-progressive in the extreme. You do you.

:trump needs to continue annoying people like you as much as possible. As long as you're clutching your pearls and the smelling salts, whining about "leader of the Free World" and "LEADERSHIP," I'll know he's doing a fine job "BEING A FUCKING LEADER" and "play[ing] the part" of "leader of the Free World." You don't like the way he's doing it? 

TOUGH. SHIT. Vote him out of office in two years then. If you can.


----------



## Reaper

TBH I'm still under the impression that foreign actors are much less likely to impact local lives than local actors like mega corporations. 

This foreign leader stuff is just a distraction. 

Putin no matter how evil isn't the one that's driving up my monthly electric bill or raising the price of eggs in America. Putin isn't the one buying up real estate in Canada and driving locals out of their homes. Lil Kim isn't the one driving the cost of homes in California to the point where engineers are shitting in buckets.

I guess I'm just a naive little guy, right? I guess I should worry more about a nuclear Holocaust... 

It's always the same. These fuckers convince you put them in power by talkabout the local shit and then once they're in power. It's Iran this, Russia that, North Korea this, Syria that.

*Sigh*


----------



## deepelemblues

War with Russia was never a possibility regardless of who won the presidency, what silliness


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> TBH I'm still under the impression that foreign actors are much less likely to impact local lives than local actors like mega corporations.
> 
> This foreign leader stuff is just a distraction.
> 
> Putin no matter how evil isn't the one that's driving up my monthly electric bill or raising the price of eggs in America. Putin isn't the one buying up real estate in Canada and driving locals out of their homes. Lil Kim isn't the one driving the cost of homes in California to the point where engineers are shitting in buckets.
> 
> I guess I'm just a naive little guy, right? I guess I should worry more about a nuclear Holocaust...
> 
> It's always the same. These fuckers convince you put them in power by talkabout the local shit and then once they're in power. It's Iran this, Russia that, North Korea this, Syria that.
> 
> *Sigh*


Politician introductory training course syllabus:

Learn how to promise people the world so they trust you and vote you into power.
Find as many ways to distract the populace and play on their fears so you don't have to deliver on those promises.
Learn how to cover up sex abuse rings.

:lol


----------



## DesolationRow

Congratulations, @Reap;! :woo :woo :woo


The Neil Cavutos and Joe Walshes were imprudent warmongers fifteen years ago, it is not surprising to see that they are the same today. 

I wish George W. Bush had been a man of intelligence, poise and perhaps even haughty courage against both the neocon and purportedly lefty arms of media as well as findings of American intelligence (which, granted, were manipulated in the interests of invading Iraq by imperious neocons), and in the interest of saving over $2.2 trillion (at least), hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, 36,000 American casualties including approximately 4,500 deaths, had "met with America's adversary/enemy/Hitler of the month" Saddam Hussein rather than needlessly invade Iraq and actually strengthen the hand of jihadists in the region dramatically for years following the 2003 conflagration. What was it Winston Churchill supposedly said in a luncheon in 1954? "To jaw jaw is always better than to war war."


----------



## Miss Sally

This Russia situation is perplexing and rather frightening, not for the reasons that most people believe but because people are sounding more like war hawks and ignoring current American issues to chase this.

Regardless of who won the election this Russia narrative was bound to happen. It didn't matter if Trump, Clinton or Sanders won. The fact is most Politicians have had contacts and business dealings with foreign Governments who aren't friendly and you can thank our Globalist Interventionist policies for that. People bring up treason? 100 years ago the whole lot of the Government and former ones would be brought up on treason charges.

Russian bots propped up all three candidates on social media, who's fault is that? Blame the companies that took the money and ignored shady behavior. The election would be "tainted" for anyone that won, we'd be dealing with the same exact issues with Russia we are now no matter who we put into office because the Russian interference is so vague and because of Russian contacts for many Politicians. This whole thing just benefits the warmongering Democrats and Republicans.

We have had for 16 years two Presidents who did shady shit, the C.I.A getting more involved in Politics which is like the KGB getting involved and the F.B.I instead of protecting us from this Political corruption that's been going on for 20 years, instead take orders from these very people. 

The Russians meddled with the election, we do the same to others. Russia arms terrorist and terrorist states, we do that too, Russia gets involved in conflicts in order to profit, well that's ALL we do. Maybe we should stop acting like Russians first before blaming them for everything and acting like they're so bad.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Miss Sally said:


> *Russian bots propped up all three candidates on social media, who's fault is that? Blame the companies that took the money and ignored shady behavior. The election would be "tainted" for anyone that won, we'd be dealing with the same exact issues with Russia we are now no matter who we put into office because the Russian interference is so vague and because of Russian contacts for many Politicians. *
> 
> The Russians meddled with the election, we do the same to others. Russia arms terrorist and terrorist states, we do that too, Russia gets involved in conflicts in order to profit, well that's ALL we do. Maybe we should stop acting like Russians first before blaming them for everything and acting like they're so bad.


You raise an interesting point about messing with elections 'unfairly'. Seemingly candidates do this to each other all the time out in the open with negative ads and more spouting half truths or out and out bullshit. Why are they allowed to do it to give their side the unfair advantage and it's seen as just part of the game in others?

Okay so it's the first time we've heard about Bots which is probably more scary to some, but it's no different really than people in the same country spreading rumors bashing John Kerry's war record FFS when he was against GBW, and spreading the rumor that GWB was a rogue cyborg with half a brain


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018968281510625280
As President Barack Obama correctly and humorously said in knocking Mitt Romney's rabidly confrontational stance toward Russia in 2012,


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018968281510625280
> As President Barack Obama correctly and humorously said in knocking Mitt Romney's rabidly confrontational stance toward Russia in 2012,


And nothing has changed in six years. :heston


----------



## DesolationRow

Oda Nobunaga said:


> And nothing has changed in six years. :heston


YOU MANIACS! YOU BLEW IT UP! :heston 



Reap said:


> TBH I'm still under the impression that foreign actors are much less likely to impact local lives than local actors like mega corporations.
> 
> This foreign leader stuff is just a distraction.
> 
> Putin no matter how evil isn't the one that's driving up my monthly electric bill or raising the price of eggs in America. Putin isn't the one buying up real estate in Canada and driving locals out of their homes. Lil Kim isn't the one driving the cost of homes in California to the point where engineers are shitting in buckets.
> 
> I guess I'm just a naive little guy, right? I guess I should worry more about a nuclear Holocaust...
> 
> It's always the same. These fuckers convince you put them in power by talkabout the local shit and then once they're in power. It's Iran this, Russia that, North Korea this, Syria that.
> 
> *Sigh*


The Bard knew, as he has Henry IV say to his son Prince Harry,



> And all my friends, which thou must make thy friends,
> Have but their stings and teeth newly ta'en out,
> By whose fell working I was first advanced
> And by whose power I well might lodge a fear
> To be again displaced; which to avoid,
> I cut them off and had a purpose now
> To lead out many to the Holy Land,
> Lest rest and lying still might make them look
> Too near unto my state. Therefore, my Harry,
> Be it thy course to busy giddy minds
> With foreign quarrels; that action, hence borne out,
> May waste the memory of the former days.
> More would I, but my lungs are wasted so
> That strength of speech is utterly denied me.
> How I came by the crown, O God forgive,
> And grant it may with thee in true peace live.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reap said:


> TBH I'm still under the impression that foreign actors are much less likely to impact local lives than local actors like mega corporations.
> 
> This foreign leader stuff is just a distraction.
> 
> Putin no matter how evil isn't the one that's driving up my monthly electric bill or raising the price of eggs in America. Putin isn't the one buying up real estate in Canada and driving locals out of their homes. Lil Kim isn't the one driving the cost of homes in California to the point where engineers are shitting in buckets.
> 
> I guess I'm just a naive little guy, right? I guess I should worry more about a nuclear Holocaust...
> 
> It's always the same. These fuckers convince you put them in power by talkabout the local shit and then once they're in power. It's Iran this, Russia that, North Korea this, Syria that.
> 
> *Sigh*


Also to add...

Last I checked Russia wasn't South of America, you know the place where the cartels,drug trafficking, gun running, human trafficking and various other crimes being committed on US soil by foreign nationals. More US citizens have been killed by actions from these criminals than by Russian fuckery.

I think we have our priorities a little skewed if this somehow isn't a even a major concern.

This is like standing guard on your front porch with a water hose because someone left a flaming poop bag on your doorstep and meanwhile your backyard burns.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Also to add...
> 
> Last I checked Russia wasn't South of America, you know the place where the cartels,drug trafficking, gun running, human trafficking and various other crimes being committed on US soil by foreign nationals. More US citizens have been killed by actions from these criminals than by Russian fuckery.
> 
> I think we have our priorities a little skewed if this somehow isn't a even a major concern.
> 
> This is like standing guard on your front porch with a water hose because someone left a flaming poop bag on your doorstep and meanwhile your backyard burns.


Go on YouTube and watch a documentary on the HSBC scandal where they were 100% caught as THE cartel bank and never prosecuted. That documentary will open up a lot of people's minds with regards to who holds the real power.

BTW Trump administration gave them a FULL PARDON quetly in December 2017. No threat of prosecution ever again.


----------



## Sincere

Miss Sally said:


> Also to add...
> 
> Last I checked Russia wasn't South of America, you know the place where the cartels,drug trafficking, gun running, human trafficking and various other crimes being committed on US soil by foreign nationals. More US citizens have been killed by actions from these criminals than by Russian fuckery.
> 
> I think we have our priorities a little skewed if this somehow isn't a even a major concern.
> 
> This is like standing guard on your front porch with a water hose because someone left a flaming poop bag on your doorstep and meanwhile your backyard burns.





> “In 2017, we brought cases against more violent criminals than in any year in decades. We charged the most federal firearm prosecutions in a decade. We convicted nearly 500 human traffickers and 1,200 gang members, and helped our international allies arrest about 4,000 MS-13 members. We also arrested and charged hundreds of people suspected with contributing to the ongoing opioid crisis.”
> — Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in an opinion article in USA Today, Jan. 23, 2018





> In FY 2017, DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations (ICE/HSI) initiated 833 human trafficking cases, resulting in 1,602 arrests and 578 convictions, and identified 518 victims of human trafficking.
> 
> The HHS-funded National Human Trafficking Hotline (NHTH) received reports of 8,686 unique cases of potential trafficking in FY 2017, identifying 21,644 potential victims.
> 
> In February 2017, the President signed Executive Order 13773, “Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations and Preventing International Trafficking.”
> 
> This Order directed the United States government to identify, interdict, disrupt, and dismantle the transnational criminal organizations that engage in human trafficking.
> 
> In March 2018, the President appointed nine human trafficking survivors to serve on the U.S. Advisory Council on Human Trafficking for terms of two years.
> 
> President Trump declared January 2018 National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month.
> 
> In September 2017, Ivanka Trump and Deputy Secretary of State Sullivan joined more than 20 world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly for a global call to end modern slavery and to announce the State Department’s $25 million grant to the Global Fund to End Modern Slavery.
> 
> In light of the impending Senate vote on H.R. 1865 – the FOSTA-SESTA legislative package designed to fight online sex trafficking – the Trump Administration is hosting a roundtable on human trafficking to review and discuss the path forward on this critical issue.


USSOUTHCOM, DHS, and ICE are actively working to combat all of that, and have been for a while. Stories coming out about gang busts, trafficking busts, etc. have been coming out fairly regularly since Trump took office, MSM rarely reports on any of it, but it seems to be a priority for the administration as far as I can tell.

VP Pence was just recently down in Central and South America for a summit and brief tour.

It's not easy since a lot of Central and South America are total shitholes of instability and corruption, several on the verge of being failed states. And it doesn't help that the Democrats stateside and other political groups seemingly do everything in their power to make it all that much more difficult to deal with by fighting Trump's policies and sowing as much dissent as possible. 

The Caribbean in particular has become a breeding ground for Islamic extremism in recent years, it seems. And of course they want to use the southern corridor as their way into the states as the left rolls out the red carpet for them and offers them sanctuary. 


Just because stuff is happening with Russia doesn't mean stuff isn't also happening elsewhere.


----------



## BruiserKC

deepelemblues said:


> I'm well aware that Putin was once a Colonel in the KGB and eventually was in charge of the KGB and that he's a piece of shit who wishes the USSR was still around.
> 
> You can be fixated on Obama being "blamed" for "allowing" MUH RUSSIA to do whatever... I don't think Obama was particularly responsible. I was pointing out the double standard where Obama says talking shit on Putin doesn't accomplish anything and the same people tearing their shirts over :trump not talking shit on Putin had nothing to say about Obama not talking shit on Putin.
> 
> It's a shame that progressives hate :trump so much that they've driven him to enacting conservative policies nearly across the board because he has no one to work with except conservatives, isn't it? Lower taxes. More military spending. Conservative judges appointed at all levels of the federal judiciary. Regulations taken off the books by the thousands. More stringent immigration policy.
> 
> If progressives had been willing to deal instead of throw tantrums, it is possible that none of those things would have happened or be happening.
> 
> You continue to claim "progressive con man" when 99 out of 100 of his policies are anti-progressive in the extreme. You do you.
> 
> :trump needs to continue annoying people like you as much as possible. As long as you're clutching your pearls and the smelling salts, whining about "leader of the Free World" and "LEADERSHIP," I'll know he's doing a fine job "BEING A FUCKING LEADER" and "play[ing] the part" of "leader of the Free World." You don't like the way he's doing it?
> 
> TOUGH. SHIT. Vote him out of office in two years then. If you can.


:lol @ Trump being a conservative. He was perfectly content with being a Democrat until that year at the White House Press Corps dinner when Obama hurt his feelings. Not to mention being a friend and donor of the Clinton crime family. I actually look forward to the day when they actually open the books of the Clinton Foundation (but all Trump's tough talk about Hillary taking the perp walk is just that, tough talk) and find that his name is in there as a donor. 

Meanwhile...let's take a look at Trump's "anti-progressive" policies. 

Fully funded Planned Parenthood. 

DACA still in operation (he said he would rescind it Day One...still here and was here long before he actually decided to do something)

Indefinite involvement in the Middle East

128000 more H2 Visas

Enacting gun control policy (he decided to talk about adding more gun control laws and to take away due process for gun owners)

Possibly rejoining TPP

ACA stil here and repeal options never were repeal (and spare me the "McCain killed repeal" schtick...those bills never did repeal and came nowhere even close)

Omnibus spending bill only 2nd to Obama’s TARP (lest you forget how willing last year he ran to the other side of the aisle to cut a deal with Chuck and Nancy)

A tax cut bill which eventually will be a tax increase for many Americans. The cuts for citizens is temporary. 

A spiraling out of control debt that continues to go up because Trump has no interest in fiscal responsibility. 

Attacking of private businesses (the NFL, Amazon, Harley Davidson) for their practices. That's shit dictators in banana republics do. When a self-avowed socialist like Bernie Sanders is in FULL agreement with the President on his going after Amazon, that tells me all I need to know. 

Tariffs on goods...tariffs are not conservative because they are basically tax increases. Eventually, trade wars hit us consumers in the pocket when we have to pay more for the goods we want. 

Killing the Internet (read about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act...when Trump signed SESTA/FOSTA he gutted that section. A bill designed to crack down on sex trafficking could eventually lead to the censorship of sites like WF where we spout off opinions that ain't exactly popular with the establishment). 

Let's not forget the E.O. he signed that stopped separating families that are trying to emigrate here (even though he cut the legs out from his own staff in saying he couldn't do anything about it). He folded, meanwhile the situation regarding illegal immigration has still not been resolved. Where's requirement for E-verify? Where's the penalties for businesses that hire illegals? Where's the wall or even the start of the wall? 

Of course, contempt for our allies while giving our enemies the reach around. He rips Canada, NATO, etc...long standing allies. Hell, he has even started down the road past Presidents have regarding Israel saying that they need to negotiate a little more with the Palestinians. Don't forget he still continues to sign the extensions keeping the US from actually moving their embassy to Jerusalem. 


Those are some of his "conservative" policies. But, you just adore the fact that he supposedly triggers progressives and folks like me who were onto his act all along. I get it...you like that he fights back. There's a difference between fighting back and overkill. He then wastes way too much time on fights that don't matter. He waded into the NFL anthem controversy where he didn't need to be (forced patriotism is not a good thing). He'd rather attack the IQ of a Maxine Waters (I do find her a disgusting person) or the ethnic background of Elizabeth Warren then actually lead the country. He is supposed to be the President of ALL Americans, not just the ones who like him and fuck the rest. 

Trump aired our dirty laundry in public, pointing out the fact that he disagrees with the intelligence community regarding the 2016 election and whether there was collusion, hacking, whatever. Fine, you want to disagree, that's his right as the POTUS to do so. However, just deliberately looking to troll the media, etc...if that was his intention, that's the wrong setting to do it. Handle that shit behind closed doors so we can put on a united front outside for the world to see. In the eyes of the world, we look absolutely stupid. To a strongman like Putin, he is now further emboldened to pursue his policies and to once again exert his influence on the former Warsaw Pact nations. Imagine if Obama had said that...you'd be howling for his head. 

I warned people here what this man was all along. I take no pleasure in being right. My goalposts never changed, while people like you have moved them more then a Madden challenge set on All-Pro. If that day comes when Trump's petty battles end up costing America the war for its own soul, I will blame each and every single one of you that voted for this clown.


----------



## DesolationRow

Fine posts, @Miss Sally; and @Reap;.

As for foreign meddling and influencing in American elections, this sort of thing is a recurring theme in American history, dating back over two hundred and twenty years. The Jay Treaty, which was written and signed and ratified in 1795 to create a trading pact and peace treaty of "Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, Between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America." 

Long story made short, the Federalists thought the Jeffersonian Republicans were too close to the French due to the Republicans opposing the Jay Treaty. (Editorial: the Republicans were wrong in their opposition toward the Jay Treaty.) Alexander Hamilton and John Adams argued vehemently with the forced led by Thomas Jefferson over the war between Great Britain and France, which most Republicans argued should include the Americans, fighting with the French against the British, arguing on behalf of the democratic French over the monarchical British. Their arguments over a national bank notwithstanding (Jefferson made many salient points in his arguments with Hamilton there), the Federalists were wholly correct on this score: as Jefferson would himself later state in his 1801 Presidential Inaugural Address, "...[P]eace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none," so presumably Jefferson to some degree or another learned his lesson. As John R. Howe, Jr.'s book _The Changing Political Thoughts of John Adams_ is worth a look for Adams sees himself growing increasingly distrustful of the very institutions established as well as his earlier, happier outlook; by the 1790s he believed that too few Americans were sufficiently concerned about intruding French influence. The news of the Jay Treaty being pushed in the American Congress infuriated the majority of Frenchmen; President George Washington had the pro-British Chief Justice John Jay negotiate the treaty with Great Britain, and the French felt deeply wounded over this. Washington, Hamilton and Adams successfully argued to keep America neutral in the war between France and Great Britain, too. 

It is true that French political operatives did everything in their power to influence the heated 1796 election, insisting that Americans reject the Jay Treaty. French minister Pierre Auguste Adet along with numerous other French officials openly campaigned on behalf of the Republicans while attacking the Federalists. Adet went so far as to publicly argue that only Jefferson's election could prevent war from breaking out between America and France. 

Adet issued a series of calculatedly timed diplomatic missives to Washington's secretary of state Timothy Pickering while having the same missives published in the _Aurora_, the widely read Philadelphia newspaper. Adet made it abundantly clear that the French would be suspending relations with America and that the only Jefferson's election as president might prevent war between the two countries. Jefferson had told Adet about one year earlier that the French did have many friends in America and as U.S. minister in Paris in 1796 James Monroe allowed French officials to know that relations between the two countries would be bettered by the election of a Republican in the presidential election.


----------



## Sincere

Reap said:


> Go on YouTube and watch a documentary on the HSBC scandal where they were 100% caught as THE cartel bank and never prosecuted. That documentary will open up a lot of people's minds with regards to who holds the real power.
> 
> *BTW Trump administration gave them a FULL PARDON quetly in December 2017. No threat of prosecution ever again.*


That isn't my understanding of what happened at all. Not sure where you're getting anything about full pardons. 

My understanding is that, for starters, they are still under prosecution... it's still ongoing, and they've already sustained heavy fines. Now, what will come of it in the end? I have no idea. 

Secondly, there weren't any pardons I'm aware of, let alone full pardons, there were waivers. And, technically, they are extension of waivers from the Obama administration (they used to be automatically applied, actually). Further, as I understand it, they are specifically waivers that prevent the lockdown of retirement accounts the bank manages.

So, essentially, Trump isn't locking people out of their retirement assets, as would be the case without the waivers, while the prosecutions carry on.



> On November 21, 2016, the Department of Labor (the Department) published a notice of proposed exemption in the Federal Register at 81 FR 83372, for certain entities with specified relationships to JPMC to continue to rely upon the relief provided by PTE 84-14 for a period of five years, notwithstanding JPMC's criminal conviction, as described herein. The Department is granting this exemption in order to ensure that Covered Plans whose assets are managed by a JPMC Affiliated QPAM or JPMC Related QPAM may continue to benefit from the relief provided by PTE 84-14. The exemption is effective from January 10, 2018 through January 9, 2023 (the Exemption Period).


https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...m-certain-prohibited-transaction-restrictions



> July 6, 2010 – The Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration has issued a notice of adoption of a proposed amendment to prohibited transaction exemption (PTE) 84-14.
> 
> In general, PTE 84-14 allows certain parties related to a retirement or other employee benefit plan to engage in transactions involving plan assets if the assets are managed by an investment management entity known as a qualified professional asset manager (QPAM). This has been permitted if the asset manager is “independent of the parties in interest” to the benefit plan, and the entity meets specified standards not only of independence, but of professional qualification and financial strength. The newly-adopted amendment will allow a QPAM entity to manage assets held in its own plan, or that of an affiliate.


https://www2.ascensus.com/news/2010/07/06/dol-adopts-amendment-to-pte-84-14/


----------



## Reaper

Sincere. You do need to brush up on that story. Your knowledge is incomplete. I don't mean this as a put down, but I recently came across it and yes Obama's administration let them go originally but the Trump DoJ let it quietly expire after 5 years. There is no longer any threat. Also the bankers themselves were always immune from prosecution because Americans were denied the jurisdiction on HSBC to prosecute it. Basically, the international rules are written in such a way so as to give foreign banks operating on American soil complete immunity from prosecution within the USA -- meaning that HSBC can freely engage in supporting Cartels without any threat of being prosecuted for their crimes. 

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...j-lifts-prosecution-threat-banking-giant-hsbc






Also to corroborate, watch Netflix "Dirty Money" Episode 4. Even the American anti-terrorism organization (OFAC) could not go after them despite uncovered exactly and explicitly how HSBC _intentionally _masked the identities of the Cartels and Drug Lords from being discovered by Americans. 

Watch the whole thing I posted first. Then watch the Netflix Dirty Money episode I mentioned. 

Edit 2: It seems like you were talking about a completely different case while I'm talking about the fact that HSBC was not only caught money laundering intentionally for Cartels, but they were never prosecuted even after a clear admission of guilt. The above documentaries do not rely on any kind of conspiratorial thinking, but lays out the facts based on published, official papers, documents and public statements.


----------



## Sincere

Reap said:


> Sincere. You do need to brush up on that story. Your knowledge is incomplete. I don't mean this as a put down, but I recently came across it and yes Obama's administration let them go originally but the Trump DoJ let it quietly expire after 5 years. There is no longer any threat. Also the bankers themslevrs were always immune from prosecution.
> 
> I can't find that documentary right now but it has all the details you need.
> 
> Edit: Found it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the whole thing.


Eric Holder, under Obama, decided against pursuing charges against executives in 2016. Who knows why. Eric Holder was shit, and so was Obama. 

Nevertheless, Mark Johnson (head of foreign exchange) was sentenced to 2 years in April (IIRC) of this year. Stuart Scott (head of currency trading) is losing an extradition battle and will probably be arrested and charged soon.

And again, the previous DPA (deferred prosecution agreement) and associated waivers from the Obama era ran out, and Trump's administration extended it while prosecutions (at least of Scott) continue. Under the DPA they're apparently helping the state build its case for these prosecutions, and cooperating with reforms and such. They're under the perpetual threat of further prosecution for the duration of the DPA.

Now, I don't know if any other charges will be brought, or if any deals were cut to help prosecute Johnson and Scott or what. I suspect they'd have issued warrants by now if they were going to, but who knows. As I understand, some other names came up during Johnson's trial, but not sure if anything will come from that. Even if no additional charges are brought, there will still be two prosecutions and an accumulated billions in fines. Yet you're claiming full pardons, as if nothing has come of any of this. This clearly isn't the case.

I literally just cited the federal registrar notice detailing the exemption which validates everything I said. And so far, nothing you've had to say about any of this checks out. There have been no pardons. There have been prosecutions. There is still threat of prosecution. Obama's expired, but Trump extended. Nothing you've said about this is accurate. It's like you're omitting everything that has happened throughout 2018, probably because you're relying on a documentary from 2017 as your source of information.

Cite something official that refutes that before you claim I'm wrong. I'm not interested in watching a documentary about it from 2017, because everything I've read seems to check out, and is more up to date since the new DPA extension began in January of 2018.


----------



## Reaper

Both those individuals are not being punished for the Cartel money laundering case. You're talking about a separate tiny case involving foreign exchange manipulation which has nothing to do with the money laundering case I'm talking about. 

So I have no clue what you're going on about and bringing that into this discussion when they're not related at all to the case I'm talking about. That case is dead and gone. Also, this is my last request for you to brush up on that particular case instead of continuing to talk about two different cases while lumping them into a single case. 

You have to watch the documentaries I'm talking about in order to fully understand and get with what I'm talking about.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018933497338068992
There is that bold, brave Bernie trotting out lukewarm Beltway establishment takes. 

Profile in courage he is not.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Interesting I've actually done a masters of law course on US deferred prosecution agreements taught by professor from NYU, and being subject to a deferred prosecution agreement isn't really all that different to being prosecuted and found guilty, it just saves the government a whole lot of money. 

Its basically just a guilty plea for companies.

Also the were started during the Bush 2 presidency.

The entire time you're under one the government has a stupid amount of power over your company, there are people who argue its worse to be under one than to be actually prosecuted, but the problem with being actually prosecuted is the effect it has on share prices and being prosecuted can sometimes kill what would otherwise have been a fine company that only needed to be subject to a small penalty and a bunch of jobs are lost needlessly.

Also because companies need to provide the full proof of their wrongdoing in order to be eligible for a DPA and they have to sell out all their employees in order to do so it means companies end up doing the police work themselves, saving even more taxpayer dollars.


----------



## Vic Capri

> War with Russia was never a possibility regardless of who won the presidency, what silliness


Hillary was itching for a fight with them during the election.

- Vic


----------



## greasykid1

Well, the last 48 hours has certainly put a lot more fuel onto the "Impeach Trump" fire.

Obstruction of Justice is what they got Nixon for. Could be a few interesting months ahead!


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018933497338068992
> There is that bold, brave Bernie trotting out lukewarm Beltway establishment takes.
> 
> Profile in courage he is not.


Bernie should not be calling anyone pathetic :grin2:


----------



## Rozalia

Being economically left on a number of things I actually thought Bernie might be good. Then I saw his spineless display with BLM and knew he was no good. Bernie has no right to call anyone pathetic. Guy can't even handle two random black women, so imagine him in a room with a killer like Putin. 



Headliner said:


> None of that shit makes any sense and quoting the constitution like it's the only definition is dumb. End of.
> 
> :mj4 This dude here. Again with the fake victimization shit like Trump isn't a shit starter and only a victim.
> 
> I'll call him an orange retard 50 times in 2 minutes with no regrets. Fuck him. I don't need to show that piece of shit some respect when he doesn't show respect to my personal beliefs and interests. Instead he insulted them.


It does not matter what you think is dumb or not, what is is. Simple as that. They have to go by the definition in the constitution and you know this. Trump does not meet the definition so he has not committed treason, end of. You can say that he is under some other definition but only the one in the constitution matters in regards to charging him as one.

I see you failed to even name one person. What do you think the numbers look between people who Trump has attacked first and people have attacked him first? He can't have two scoops of ice cream without 1000 different people calling him a fascist racist nazi in the media.

What? What are you then? Some progressive? Black Lives Matter? Something like that? You want a Conservative, the grand evil enemy to show respect to your beliefs? The man you guys call LITERALLY HITLER? Why would you want to be respected by someone who is apparently just like Hitler?



Headliner said:


> Nobody said Putin is a communist. He's an adversary that shouldn't be trusted.
> 
> The fuck are you talking about? Republicans were Russia hawks until Trump took over the party. Once he took over the party, the level of support for Russia increased based on a number of polls.


Do pay attention, that was me responding to someone else, hence their quote and my text below it.



BruiserKC said:


> Ok, let's say Trump is not a traitor (even though he seems to have some mad love for the *Commies like Putin* and KJU like a good little Marxist).


Yes yes we know. Men who before your side called warmongering neo-cons wanting to start endless wars including confronting Russia, are now suddenly Russian agents. 

The funniest thing is this "party switch" where the Democrats have now become the party of McCarthy. Amazing stuff. An America First president who has been smacking NATO to get their spending up to what it should be, is a Russian agent









He could declare war on Russia tomorrow and you'd be here saying that it is exactly what Putin wants and Trump is a traitor. Stop being a parody please, makes this too easy.

Below is for BruiserKC.



BruiserKC said:


> Putin was a good little Communist who came to head the KGB. He conveniently *changed sides* during the attempted coup of Gorbachev, but make no mistake that he still adores the teachings of Lenin and Karl Marx. Couple of articles to illustrate the point...from earlier this year.
> .


Exactly so not a Communist. I don't think you're aware that in such a Communist country you are either a Communist or well, you're not much of anything. Is Merkel a Communist because when she was young she lived in East Germany and had no choice?

Anyway, I've seen some comments from Putin on it, the no heart no brain thing and such. And? Paying respect to a former great empire or leader is very common. Look at America's Jefferson for example. A slaver, a rapist, so on. Yet still he will be celebrated.


----------



## Headliner

> It does not matter what you think is dumb or not, what is is. Simple as that. They have to go by the definition in the constitution and you know this. Trump does not meet the definition so he has not committed treason, end of. You can say that he is under some other definition but only the one in the constitution matters in regards to charging him as one.


You're talking about a Congressional disciplinary point of view. I'm not.
Therefore I am accurate in my statement and you're not. Sorry pal.




> I see you failed to even name one person. What do you think the numbers look between people who Trump has attacked first and people have attacked him first? He can't have two scoops of ice cream without 1000 different people calling him a fascist racist nazi in the media.


Did Trump not attack Mexicans and Muslims? Did Trump not post fake black crime stats which demonized black people and refused to apologize when Bill O'Reilly tried to get an apology out of him? Did he not insult black NFL players for taking a knee? Did he not call certain countries shithole countries?

STOP THIS SHIT. He's not some innocent victim. Ya'll Trump supporters are fixated on fake victimization the same exact way white sympathizers rely on white victimization. It's ignorant and doesn't have any legitimate basis.



> What? What are you then? Some progressive? Black Lives Matter? Something like that? You want a Conservative, the grand evil enemy to show respect to your beliefs? The man you guys call LITERALLY HITLER? Why would you want to be respected by someone who is apparently


A black person that was personally insulted when that orange spray tan insulted black NFL players for taking a stand for my personal interests and beliefs. I'll never respect him. Too bad.


----------



## Headliner

So I'm going to chill out and stop the arguing because it's not productive in this situation because people's minds are made up. More chaos is the only result. Everyone is allowed to have their own viewpoints but if you can't even acknowledge that something seems off about Trump and Putin's relationship and has to rely on mental gymnastics just for the sake of not going against the person you support then there is no need to move forward with a conservation.


----------



## Rozalia

Headliner said:


> You're talking about a Congressional disciplinary point of view. I'm not.
> Therefore I am accurate in my statement and you're not. Sorry pal.
> 
> 
> 
> Did Trump not attack Mexicans and Muslims? Did Trump not post fake black crime stats which demonized black people and refused to apologize when Bill O'Reilly tried to get an apology out of him? Did he not insult black NFL players for taking a knee? Did he not call certain countries shithole countries?
> 
> STOP THIS SHIT. He's not some innocent victim. Ya'll Trump supporters are fixated on fake victimization the same exact way white sympathizers rely on white victimization. It's ignorant and doesn't have any legitimate basis.
> 
> 
> A black person that was personally insulted when that orange spray tan insulted black NFL players for taking a stand for my personal interests and beliefs. I'll never respect him. Too bad.


Well feel free to call him a traitor like you do racist and so on. Officially however he will never be marked down as one.

Because Mexicans == Illegals. Most illegals aren't even Mexican now. For someone to talks of respect and attacks it is you who is doing it to Mexicans. As for Muslims I'm not going to get into the full scale of that matter as you'll not want to hear it and you'll defend it I'm sure. Proper vetting is good though, nothing wrong there. Those rich boys are disrespectful and hypocritical, sorry you don't want to hear it but it's true. Haiti is a shithole, factual statement... if he even made it which isn't proven, but if so then good, always good when people speak the truth. The stats are certainly a fumble, danger of grabbing things of the net, especially as the truth is effective on that.

It's true, he ain't a victim. He fights back and victimises those who attack him.

Very fixated on skin colour I see, always orange this and orange that. Why? Do you think it is wise to do so? Because it is not. Generally when people hear someone referred to negatively with their skin used before it, it comes off as very ugly. Is Trump when he attacks people going Brown this, Black that, so on? If not then why are you?


----------



## BruiserKC

Rozalia said:


> Being economically left on a number of things I actually thought Bernie might be good. Then I saw his spineless display with BLM and knew he was no good. Bernie has no right to call anyone pathetic. Guy can't even handle two random black women, so imagine him in a room with a killer like Putin.
> 
> 
> 
> It does not matter what you think is dumb or not, what is is. Simple as that. They have to go by the definition in the constitution and you know this. Trump does not meet the definition so he has not committed treason, end of. You can say that he is under some other definition but only the one in the constitution matters in regards to charging him as one.
> 
> I see you failed to even name one person. What do you think the numbers look between people who Trump has attacked first and people have attacked him first? He can't have two scoops of ice cream without 1000 different people calling him a fascist racist nazi in the media.
> 
> What? What are you then? Some progressive? Black Lives Matter? Something like that? You want a Conservative, the grand evil enemy to show respect to your beliefs? The man you guys call LITERALLY HITLER? Why would you want to be respected by someone who is apparently just like Hitler?
> 
> 
> 
> Do pay attention, that was me responding to someone else, hence their quote and my text below it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes yes we know. Men who before your side called warmongering neo-cons wanting to start endless wars including confronting Russia, are now suddenly Russian agents.
> 
> The funniest thing is this "party switch" where the Democrats have now become the party of McCarthy. Amazing stuff. An America First president who has been smacking NATO to get their spending up to what it should be, is a Russian agent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He could declare war on Russia tomorrow and you'd be here saying that it is exactly what Putin wants and Trump is a traitor. Stop being a parody please, makes this too easy.
> 
> Below is for BruiserKC.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly so not a Communist. I don't think you're aware that in such a Communist country you are either and a man responsibility a Communist or well, you're not much of anything. Is Merkel a Communist because when she was young she lived in East Germany and had no choice?
> 
> Anyway, I've seen some comments from Putin on it, the no heart no brain thing and such. And? Paying respect to a former great empire or leader is very common. Look at America's Jefferson for example. A slaver, a rapist, so on. Yet still he will be celebrated.


Huge difference between a slave owner and one responsible for millions of deaths. Putin is still playing the game quite well, lot of Communist still in him. Either way he is not our friend and while you can make the point without calling him out point blank, bending over and kissing his ass didn’t help either. 

Whataboutism is strong in this one.


----------



## CamillePunk

https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/17/obama-nelson-mandela-lecture



Barack Obama said:


> Democracy demands that we're able also to get inside the reality of people who are different than us so we can understand their point of view. Maybe we can change their minds, maybe they'll change ours. You can't do this if you just out of hand disregard what your opponent has to say from the start. *And you can't do it if you insist that those who aren't like you because they are white or they are male, somehow there is no way they can understand what I'm feeling, that somehow they lack standing to speak on certain matters.*


:mj

Good luck with that one, Barack. :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

So Trump misspoke. 

180 Don at it again.

uttahere


----------



## Vic Capri

You should've done that a long time ago. 

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/17/obama-nelson-mandela-lecture
> 
> :mj
> 
> Good luck with that one, Barack. :lol


He'll get raked over the coals for that. :frown2:


----------



## DesolationRow

BruiserKC said:


> Huge difference between a slave owner and one responsible for millions of deaths. Putin is still playing the game quite well, lot of Communist still in him. Either way he is not our friend and while you can make the point without calling him out point blank, bending over and kissing his ass didn’t help either.
> 
> Whataboutism is strong in this one.


A huge part of the general Russian population still venerating the likes of Stalin is annoying, no question about that. Speaking impartially they undeniably wrong to do so. Yet the Russian experience has been one of lauding brutish, despotic autocrats who kept Russia vaguely strong; for instance, many Americans believe the Russian designation of "Ivan the Terrible" means that Ivan was considered a, well, terrible leader. In reality the man viewed as the first Russian Tsar is also known as "Ivan the Fearsome" and continually cheered on as bringing order and strength to Russia which had been raided by Kazan Khanate's armies out of Crimea and Safa Giray's invasion of Muscovy in late 1540. Ivan, who was forging an alliance with Elizabeth I of England after German merchants elected to ignore the port he created on the Narva River, reversed the invasions and conquered Astrakhan and Kazan.

Stalin was a murderous butcher but Russians still see him as the most outstanding figure in history and they rationalize their admiration for him through myriad points. It's unfortunate but at least practically speaking it is not a geopolitical stumbling block insofar as Russia for the past twenty years has hardly been a communist state. In fact for the better part of a decade and a half beginning in early 2003 the Russians enjoyed a thirteen percent flat tax and only in the past few years have moves been made to attempt to make it more progressive. By that standard the U.S. is vastly more "Marxist" in deliberate nature than Russia has been. Companies are so fervently capitalistic in Russia that a large number of their top-of-the-line clothing department stores and restaurants are open twenty-four hours a day; it is not a feature I necessarily applaud but the Russians have certainly been exposed to capitalism in a dramatic way for a little while now. 

Putin's main claim to displaying any communist tendencies has been of course Russia's surveillance state, lack of free speech protections against political enemies, assassinations and/or imprisoning of political enemies, shady trials for political enemies and some expelling of oligarchical forces. 

Point I'm making is, most of Putin's rhetoric that makes the Soviet Union seem like that real cool experience so many young Russians sadly missed out on has always seemed generally about Russia's standing as second superpower on the planet flexing her muscles, standing up to the West, etc. It's an obviously romanticized viewpoint but again it is not altogether surprising that Russians adopted a sort of nostalgia for the purported good old days when Moscow commanded an empire of vassal states. As Putin said of communism itself in 1999, "...it is a blind alley... far away from the mainstream of civilization." On July 9, 2000, only six months after Boris Yelstin's resignation, speaking before the Russian Parliament Putin vociferously advocated a new economic policy whose foundation would be that aforementioned thirteen-percent flat tax rate as well as a reduction of Russia's corporate tax rate from 35% to 24%. Putin said and later committed to strengthening the hand of small businesses, many of which had not received any support from the Russian government, eviscerated a fair number of regulations stifling the growth of small businesses and the 1990s system of high tax rates was replaced with the system Putin advocated, letting companies decide whether they wanted to pay either a 6% tax on gross revenue or a 15% tax on profits. In 2009 Putin, addressing the Russian Parliament once again, stated that he wanted to see a single VAT rate implemented, which would be "as low as possible" as it had been on average 18%, providing the possibility of it being reduced to between 12% and 13%.

What Stalin accomplished, in part, when he stood apart from the Trotskyists who insisted on worldwide permanent socialist revolution, on behalf of "socialism in one country," as well as implement the 1941 rapprochement with Russian Orthodox churches following two decades of virulent persecution, was, through the "great patriotic struggle" of World War II, fundamentally lean on Russian nationalism to buttress both Russia and the Soviet Union at large. To a remarkable degree he was fantastically successful at this. Russian nationalists like Putin are not on average completely oblivious to the truth of Stalin's crimes but every nationalist has a sort of civic religion stemming in part from certain antecedents. 

Looking at the situation entire, Trump could have played the part of Nikita Khrushchev who, two weeks after the downing of the U-2 spy plane piloted by Francis Gary Powers, blew up the scheduled summit in Paris between U.S. president Dwight Eisenhower and himself. Khrushchev argued that Eisenhower must apologize to the Soviet Union; Eisenhower refused; the Cold War became considerably warmer for a little while. Trump's admittedly unusually articulate statement online that he would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace rather than to risk peace in pursuit of politics is perhaps the keynote statement of his eighteen-month presidency to date. Not since U.S. president Barack Obama, at the last moment in the late summer of 2013, pressed down on the brakes before initiating all-out war with Bashar al-Assad at the urging of John Kerry, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton and defying his own "red line" has an American president defied the political headwinds to such a welcome and potentially beneficial degree.


----------



## deepelemblues

BruiserKC said:


> :lol @ Trump being a conservative. He was perfectly content with being a Democrat until that year at the White House Press Corps dinner when Obama hurt his feelings. Not to mention being a friend and donor of the Clinton crime family. I actually look forward to the day when they actually open the books of the Clinton Foundation (but all Trump's tough talk about Hillary taking the perp walk is just that, tough talk) and find that his name is in there as a donor.


This is the best you got :heston



> Meanwhile...let's take a look at Trump's "anti-progressive" policies.


Yes let's look at the best you got :bryanlol



> Fully funded Planned Parenthood.


This is the best you got, you realize the Congress has the power of the purse and not the president right



> DACA still in operation (he said he would rescind it Day One...still here and was here long before he actually decided to do something)


DACA is still in operation because of a federal judge's order. Should the president ignore judicial rulings he disagrees with, like Obama did?



> Indefinite involvement in the Middle East


Actually he's left America's allies in the region to pursue their own policies but you do you.



> 128000 more H2 Visas


Which is significantly less than in any 2 year period of the previous 2 administrations. But you do you.



> Enacting gun control policy (he decided to talk about adding more gun control laws and to take away due process for gun owners)


You seem confused as to what policy is. No new gun control policies have been instituted by the :trump administration.

But you do you.



> Possibly rejoining TPP


So something that hasn't happened gets counted. You do you :bryanlol



> ACA stil here and repeal options never were repeal (and spare me the "McCain killed repeal" schtick...those bills never did repeal and came nowhere even close)


The individual mandate is gone, the ACA is a shell without it.



> Omnibus spending bill only 2nd to Obama’s TARP (lest you forget how willing last year he ran to the other side of the aisle to cut a deal with Chuck and Nancy)


You finally got one, congratulations :heston



> A tax cut bill which eventually will be a tax increase for many Americans. The cuts for citizens is temporary.


By the time the windows close in 2027 these tax laws will have been rendered inoperative by at least one and probably 2 major tax reform laws. Once again you do you with things that haven't happened but for some reason you get to act like they have.



> A spiraling out of control debt that continues to go up because Trump has no interest in fiscal responsibility.


Monthly deficits have generally been lower than in the previous two presidencies and tax revenues are at record highs. You do you though.



> Attacking of private businesses (the NFL, Amazon, Harley Davidson) for their practices. That's shit dictators in banana republics do. When a self-avowed socialist like Bernie Sanders is in FULL agreement with the President on his going after Amazon, that tells me all I need to know.


:bryanlol

You've gone off the deep end. Amazon exploits advantages in the law that shouldn't exist. No government policy has been aimed at the NFL or Harley Davidson or Amazon. The president like any American is free to criticize shit businesses like the NFL for being shit all he wants. 

When you repeatedly demonstrate you don't understand the difference between law (passed by Congress), policy (devised and implemented by the Executive), and remarks (words that do not constitute legal authority or policy), that's all I need to know. 



> Tariffs on goods...tariffs are not conservative because they are basically tax increases. Eventually, trade wars hit us consumers in the pocket when we have to pay more for the goods we want.


Unfair trade practices by other nations are also in effect a tax on consumers and on business. Trade fairly with the United States and there won't be tariffs. 



> Killing the Internet (read about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act...when Trump signed SESTA/FOSTA he gutted that section. A bill designed to crack down on sex trafficking could eventually lead to the censorship of sites like WF where we spout off opinions that ain't exactly popular with the establishment).


:bryanlol

Once again something that hasn't happened and that you know will not happen you present very differently. The internet isn't dead, you can't say it is sorry.



> Let's not forget the E.O. he signed that stopped separating families that are trying to emigrate here (even though he cut the legs out from his own staff in saying he couldn't do anything about it). He folded, meanwhile the situation regarding illegal immigration has still not been resolved. Where's requirement for E-verify? Where's the penalties for businesses that hire illegals? Where's the wall or even the start of the wall?


Construction already started, of course you didn't know that. A judge already refused to modify the consent decree and there's a ruling ordering that the families must be reunited. Which precludes future separations. There have been far more raids of businesses that hire illegals than during the last two administrations. Requirement to E-verify is dependent on Congress. 

You blame :trump for not acting like an autocrat. 



> Of course, contempt for our allies while giving our enemies the reach around.


Which enemies has he given the reacharound? None. 



> He rips Canada, NATO, etc...long standing allies.


Which they all richly deserve. They have and express deep contempt for the United States and have done so for a long time, both verbally and in policy. But that didn't make them not our allies? How does that work that they can do it but the United States can't?



> Hell, he has even started down the road past Presidents have regarding Israel saying that they need to negotiate a little more with the Palestinians. Don't forget he still continues to sign the extensions keeping the US from actually moving their embassy to Jerusalem.


The US embassy in Jerusalem opened in May. The Israelis love :trump. 




> Those are some of his "conservative" policies. But, you just adore the fact that he supposedly triggers progressives and folks like me who were onto his act all along. I get it...you like that he fights back. There's a difference between fighting back and overkill. He then wastes way too much time on fights that don't matter. He waded into the NFL anthem controversy where he didn't need to be (forced patriotism is not a good thing). He'd rather attack the IQ of a Maxine Waters (I do find her a disgusting person) or the ethnic background of Elizabeth Warren then actually lead the country. He is supposed to be the President of ALL Americans, not just the ones who like him and fuck the rest.


The NFL fight was and is an unmitigated victory for the president and for the right wing of the country against an attempt by the left wing to exert dominance over yet another facet of culture. 

Your contention that insulting dipshits like Maxine Waters and lying fucks like Elizabeth Warren prevents him from leading the country is ludicrous. 

The idea that attacking your political enemies is saying fuck everyone in the country who doesn't like me is equally ludicrous. The president's tax and regulatory achievements have certainly benefited tens of millions who don't like him. 



> Trump aired our dirty laundry in public,


Better to air dirty laundry in public than to wear it foul. 



> pointing out the fact that he disagrees with the intelligence community regarding the 2016 election and whether there was collusion, hacking, whatever.


And you complain about alleged enforced patriotism but saying the CIA is full of shit is unacceptable. Okay... that's not how it works.



> Fine, you want to disagree, that's his right as the POTUS to do so. However, just deliberately looking to troll the media, etc...if that was his intention, that's the wrong setting to do it. Handle that shit behind closed doors so we can put on a united front outside for the world to see.


The bureaucracy does not live by this principle, why should the president?



> In the eyes of the world, we look absolutely stupid.


So fucking what? What you mean is that to Western Europe we do, and we have always looked that way to Western Europe. Their contempt for us is 250 years old. There is nothing less consequential than Western European anti-American opinion. 



> To a strongman like Putin, he is now further emboldened to pursue his policies and to once again exert his influence on the former Warsaw Pact nations.


No he isn't. Another ludicrous statement, that some press conference is going to cause Putin to increase aggression in Eastern Europe. The president has strengthened military and diplomatic ties with former Warsaw Pact nations which has far more implications to Russian policy than some press conference.



> Imagine if Obama had said that...you'd be howling for his head.


Obama's policy was shit. :trump's isn't. 



> I warned people here what this man was all along.


What a hero you are.



> I take no pleasure in being right.


But you're not right, you managed to come up with a single example, the omnibus bill, and a bunch of ignorant factually wrong nonsense.



> My goalposts never changed, while people like you have moved them more then a Madden challenge set on All-Pro.


You can't and won't back this charge up.



> If that day comes when Trump's petty battles end up costing America the war for its own soul, I will blame each and every single one of you that voted for this clown.


How pathetic and overwrought can you get? War for its own soul :bryanlol I'm gonna blame each and every one of you :bryanlol 

One word sums it all up: Sad!


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1019367926699315200
Conversation happening on the left: 










Some progressives (very few) are aware of how the current press is playing right into the hands of the Republicans.

Also


Spoiler: Venezuela?















Spoiler: Really venezuela



Nope










fpalm


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1019243052261666816


----------



## yeahbaby!

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1019243052261666816


Not really a big deal though is it. Most big specific political matters are going to come low on a public poll regardless of who's in power IMO.

The majority of what politicians and news commentators ramble on about doesn't really make a huge difference to my good friend Jane Citizen. If they were to devote more time to domestic issues then more people would realise they're being screwed.


----------



## DesolationRow

yeahbaby! said:


> Not really a big deal though is it. Most big specific political matters are going to come low on a public poll regardless of who's in power IMO.
> 
> The majority of what politicians and news commentators ramble on about doesn't really make a huge difference to my good friend Jane Citizen. If they were to devote more time to domestic issues then more people would realise they're being screwed.


A caveat does need to be brought into this particular equation since the U.S.'s media has been caught up in Russo-mania for what feels like an eternity, but on the whole you raise thoroughly good points here. osey2


----------



## Reaper

Uhhh .....













The real reason why Europe is having fewer babies tbh.


----------



## CamillePunk

Well, the guy knows what he wants. :lol


----------



## Tater

Watching the meltdown from all sides over Helsinki has been one helluva show. Some days, I feel like I am the only person who remembers that it's already been proven that the DNC wasn't hacked; that the emails were leaked from an inside source. The way people talk about _Russian election meddling_, like it is an undeniable fact, really goes to show that the old theory about telling a big enough lie long enough and loud enough that people will believe it as gospel is a sound theory. That so many people are willing to believe such tremendous claims without the proof to back them up will always be mind-numbing to me. Not that it is surprising in any way. For the entirety of human history, there have always been large masses of people who will believe all kinds of stupid unproven shit. It doesn't make it any less mind-numbing.

People thought the derangement syndrome that Obama created in people was bad... then Trump came along and was like, hold my beer.


----------



## God Of Anger Juno

Headliner said:


> So I'm going to chill out and stop the arguing because it's not productive in this situation because people's minds are made up. More chaos is the only result. Everyone is allowed to have their own viewpoints but if you can't even acknowledge that something seems off about Trump and Putin's relationship and has to rely on mental gymnastics just for the sake of not going against the person you support then there is no need to move forward with a conservation.


Putin still has Trump gripped by the balls with the infamous Pee Pee Tape he apparently threatened leaking of Trump :enzo

The question is, is Trump getting peed on by russian hooker or is trump peeing on them.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Tater said:


> Watching the meltdown from all sides over Helsinki has been one helluva show. Some days, I feel like I am the only person who remembers that it's already been proven that the DNC wasn't hacked; that the emails were leaked from an inside source. The way people talk about _Russian election meddling_, like it is an undeniable fact, really goes to show that the old theory about telling a big enough lie long enough and loud enough that people will believe it as gospel is a sound theory. That so many people are willing to believe such tremendous claims without the proof to back them up will always be mind-numbing to me. Not that it is surprising in any way. For the entirety of human history, there have always been large masses of people who will believe all kinds of stupid unproven shit. It doesn't make it any less mind-numbing.
> 
> People thought the derangement syndrome that Obama created in people was bad... then Trump came along and was like, hold my beer.


But isn't that only half the point - the other half being Trumps overall performance, basically not backing his own country's security agencies on a world stage and instead putting a finger in each pie of both US and Putin...


----------



## Vic Capri

Can someone explain what's the difference between Russia meddling in our elections and Democrats wanting illegal immigrants to vote? Asking for a friend.

- Vic


----------



## Tater

yeahbaby! said:


> But isn't that only half the point - the other half being Trumps overall performance, basically not backing his own country's security agencies on a world stage and instead putting a finger in each pie of both US and Putin...


Trump is a piece of shit president, no doubt about it, but since when does it make you a part of the cool kids club to have faith in the intelligence community? These are the same people who lied us into Iraq. These are the same people who in recent times lied about Douma and lied about the Skripals. Lying is what they do, professionally. Knocking Trump for going against them is knocking him for one of the few things he has done _right_. 

These retards who are having a meltdown and calling Trump a traitor because he had a meeting with (gasp) Putin are not living in the land of reality. In reality, the Trump administration has bombed one of Russia's top allies in Syria, armed anti-Russian neo-nazis in the Ukraine, put even more sanctions on them and is now trying to cut the legs out from underneath their deal with Germany. The way things are going, Russia-gaters would still be howling treason even as the nukes are headed in both directions because wiping out all life on Earth was obviously Putin's goal all along.


----------



## DesolationRow

@AryaDark; @CamillePunk; @DOPA; @Goku; @Miss Sally; @Oda Nobunaga; @Reap; @Tater;


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

I think Trump should be President!

Sorry!!

*shouldn't be President.

Words are hard


----------



## BruiserKC

DesolationRow said:


> A huge part of the general Russian population still venerating the likes of Stalin is annoying, no question about that. Speaking impartially they undeniably wrong to do so. Yet the Russian experience has been one of lauding brutish, despotic autocrats who kept Russia vaguely strong; for instance, many Americans believe the Russian designation of "Ivan the Terrible" means that Ivan was considered a, well, terrible leader. In reality the man viewed as the first Russian Tsar is also known as "Ivan the Fearsome" and continually cheered on as bringing order and strength to Russia which had been raided by Kazan Khanate's armies out of Crimea and Safa Giray's invasion of Muscovy in late 1540. Ivan, who was forging an alliance with Elizabeth I of England after German merchants elected to ignore the port he created on the Narva River, reversed the invasions and conquered Astrakhan and Kazan.
> 
> Stalin was a murderous butcher but Russians still see him as the most outstanding figure in history and they rationalize their admiration for him through myriad points. It's unfortunate but at least practically speaking it is not a geopolitical stumbling block insofar as Russia for the past twenty years has hardly been a communist state. In fact for the better part of a decade and a half beginning in early 2003 the Russians enjoyed a thirteen percent flat tax and only in the past few years have moves been made to attempt to make it more progressive. By that standard the U.S. is vastly more "Marxist" in deliberate nature than Russia has been. Companies are so fervently capitalistic in Russia that a large number of their top-of-the-line clothing department stores and restaurants are open twenty-four hours a day; it is not a feature I necessarily applaud but the Russians have certainly been exposed to capitalism in a dramatic way for a little while now.
> 
> Putin's main claim to displaying any communist tendencies has been of course Russia's surveillance state, lack of free speech protections against political enemies, assassinations and/or imprisoning of political enemies, shady trials for political enemies and some expelling of oligarchical forces.
> 
> Point I'm making is, most of Putin's rhetoric that makes the Soviet Union seem like that real cool experience so many young Russians sadly missed out on has always seemed generally about Russia's standing as second superpower on the planet flexing her muscles, standing up to the West, etc. It's an obviously romanticized viewpoint but again it is not altogether surprising that Russians adopted a sort of nostalgia for the purported good old days when Moscow commanded an empire of vassal states. As Putin said of communism itself in 1999, "...it is a blind alley... far away from the mainstream of civilization." On July 9, 2000, only six months after Boris Yelstin's resignation, speaking before the Russian Parliament Putin vociferously advocated a new economic policy whose foundation would be that aforementioned thirteen-percent flat tax rate as well as a reduction of Russia's corporate tax rate from 35% to 24%. Putin said and later committed to strengthening the hand of small businesses, many of which had not received any support from the Russian government, eviscerated a fair number of regulations stifling the growth of small businesses and the 1990s system of high tax rates was replaced with the system Putin advocated, letting companies decide whether they wanted to pay either a 6% tax on gross revenue or a 15% tax on profits. In 2009 Putin, addressing the Russian Parliament once again, stated that he wanted to see a single VAT rate implemented, which would be "as low as possible" as it had been on average 18%, providing the possibility of it being reduced to between 12% and 13%.
> 
> What Stalin accomplished, in part, when he stood apart from the Trotskyists who insisted on worldwide permanent socialist revolution, on behalf of "socialism in one country," as well as implement the 1941 rapprochement with Russian Orthodox churches following two decades of virulent persecution, was, through the "great patriotic struggle" of World War II, fundamentally lean on Russian nationalism to buttress both Russia and the Soviet Union at large. To a remarkable degree he was fantastically successful at this. Russian nationalists like Putin are not on average completely oblivious to the truth of Stalin's crimes but every nationalist has a sort of civic religion stemming in part from certain antecedents.
> 
> Looking at the situation entire, Trump could have played the part of Nikita Khrushchev who, two weeks after the downing of the U-2 spy plane piloted by Francis Gary Powers, blew up the scheduled summit in Paris between U.S. president Dwight Eisenhower and himself. Khrushchev argued that Eisenhower must apologize to the Soviet Union; Eisenhower refused; the Cold War became considerably warmer for a little while. Trump's admittedly unusually articulate statement online that he would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace rather than to risk peace in pursuit of politics is perhaps the keynote statement of his eighteen-month presidency to date. Not since U.S. president Barack Obama, at the last moment in the late summer of 2013, pressed down on the brakes before initiating all-out war with Bashar al-Assad at the urging of John Kerry, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton and defying his own "red line" has an American president defied the political headwinds to such a welcome and potentially beneficial degree.


Trump didn't need to pound a shoe on the desk to criticize Putin, but he could have found a way to do it still that didn't just obliterate the man as well. Trump is smart enough the middle ground could have been found. The consequences of Helsinki may not be seen right away, but they will be felt. Back in 1961, Kennedy lamented the fact he felt Khrushchev handed his ass to him at Vienna. A few months later, the Berlin Wall went up. A year later, the Soviets are preparing to assemble nukes in Cuba. We may still have to deal with the ramifications of Trump's words. 



deepelemblues said:


> This is the best you got :heston
> 
> 
> 
> Yes let's look at the best you got :bryanlol
> 
> 
> 
> This is the best you got, you realize the Congress has the power of the purse and not the president right
> 
> 
> 
> DACA is still in operation because of a federal judge's order. Should the president ignore judicial rulings he disagrees with, like Obama did?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually he's left America's allies in the region to pursue their own policies but you do you.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is significantly less than in any 2 year period of the previous 2 administrations. But you do you.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem confused as to what policy is. No new gun control policies have been instituted by the :trump administration.
> 
> But you do you.
> 
> 
> 
> So something that hasn't happened gets counted. You do you :bryanlol
> 
> 
> 
> The individual mandate is gone, the ACA is a shell without it.
> 
> 
> 
> You finally got one, congratulations :heston
> 
> 
> 
> By the time the windows close in 2027 these tax laws will have been rendered inoperative by at least one and probably 2 major tax reform laws. Once again you do you with things that haven't happened but for some reason you get to act like they have.
> 
> 
> 
> Monthly deficits have generally been lower than in the previous two presidencies and tax revenues are at record highs. You do you though.
> 
> 
> 
> :bryanlol
> 
> You've gone off the deep end. Amazon exploits advantages in the law that shouldn't exist. No government policy has been aimed at the NFL or Harley Davidson or Amazon. The president like any American is free to criticize shit businesses like the NFL for being shit all he wants.
> 
> When you repeatedly demonstrate you don't understand the difference between law (passed by Congress), policy (devised and implemented by the Executive), and remarks (words that do not constitute legal authority or policy), that's all I need to know.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfair trade practices by other nations are also in effect a tax on consumers and on business. Trade fairly with the United States and there won't be tariffs.
> 
> 
> 
> :bryanlol
> 
> Once again something that hasn't happened and that you know will not happen you present very differently. The internet isn't dead, you can't say it is sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> Construction already started, of course you didn't know that. A judge already refused to modify the consent decree and there's a ruling ordering that the families must be reunited. Which precludes future separations. There have been far more raids of businesses that hire illegals than during the last two administrations. Requirement to E-verify is dependent on Congress.
> 
> You blame :trump for not acting like an autocrat.
> 
> 
> 
> Which enemies has he given the reacharound? None.
> 
> 
> 
> Which they all richly deserve. They have and express deep contempt for the United States and have done so for a long time, both verbally and in policy. But that didn't make them not our allies? How does that work that they can do it but the United States can't?
> 
> 
> 
> The US embassy in Jerusalem opened in May. The Israelis love :trump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NFL fight was and is an unmitigated victory for the president and for the right wing of the country against an attempt by the left wing to exert dominance over yet another facet of culture.
> 
> Your contention that insulting dipshits like Maxine Waters and lying fucks like Elizabeth Warren prevents him from leading the country is ludicrous.
> 
> The idea that attacking your political enemies is saying fuck everyone in the country who doesn't like me is equally ludicrous. The president's tax and regulatory achievements have certainly benefited tens of millions who don't like him.
> 
> 
> 
> Better to air dirty laundry in public than to wear it foul.
> 
> 
> 
> And you complain about alleged enforced patriotism but saying the CIA is full of shit is unacceptable. Okay... that's not how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> The bureaucracy does not live by this principle, why should the president?
> 
> 
> 
> So fucking what? What you mean is that to Western Europe we do, and we have always looked that way to Western Europe. Their contempt for us is 250 years old. There is nothing less consequential than Western European anti-American opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> No he isn't. Another ludicrous statement, that some press conference is going to cause Putin to increase aggression in Eastern Europe. The president has strengthened military and diplomatic ties with former Warsaw Pact nations which has far more implications to Russian policy than some press conference.
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's policy was shit. :trump's isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> What a hero you are.
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not right, you managed to come up with a single example, the omnibus bill, and a bunch of ignorant factually wrong nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't and won't back this charge up.
> 
> 
> 
> How pathetic and overwrought can you get? War for its own soul :bryanlol I'm gonna blame each and every one of you :bryanlol
> 
> One word sums it all up: Sad!


Arn Anderson once said about "Sweet" Stan Lane in a promo, "You've been chasing women so long you've become one of them." I use that today to say, "You've been mocking liberals so long you've become one of them." So, put down "Rules For Radicals" and pay attention. 

The President continues to sign bills that fund Planned Parenthood...he could have vetoed all those bills but he didn't. That's on him. That is included in the garbage budget bills. 

Obamacare is still law of the land. Trump was supposed to repeal and replace it with something great. Where is that plan...never got out of Congress. And, those bills were garbage, none of them ever came close to repeal. For years, that was the mantra of the GOP, to repeal Obamacare. Trump suddenly decided to turn it into repeal and replace. Then again, during the campaign he talked about single payer being a good idea. 

DACA was still around long before the judges weighed in. He said he was going to rescind it on day one. It wasn't until September of last year he considered addressing it. An executive order on day one eliminating it would have solved the problem and then go from there. 

Our national deficit continues to skyrocket and will go even higher with the garbage budget bills Trump signed. Several times he has told us he will not sign these bills, then does so anyway. As for the tax cuts...many people in blue states and quite a few red states especially will see tax increases because of the elimination of deductions. 

The NFL anthem protests had to do with concerns for the police, not patriotism. The protests were dying down as the NFL and teams were talking to each other and the communities before Trump decided to make it about him at a time when he was catching shit for beating up Sessions and the failure of the repeal of Obamacare. And ratings for the NFL have been down for years, along with other sports like the NBA, MLB, etc. It was a battle that didn't need to be fought. Same with going after the low hanging fruit regarding people like Waters and Warren (whom I find to be horrible people BTW). 

It may only be words...but you don't have the President attacking private businesses. Again, that's something folks in banana republics do. You don't pick and choose winners at that level, let the free market do its thing. Again, when Obama made remarks about firing of cops, etc...I howled as that was not his place. If Amazon is running afoul, it eventually catches up to them. But to use the bully pulpit of leader of this nation to spear the attack is not acceptable. 

Tariffs are protectionist, not conservative. Here in Iowa, farmers are starting to feel the sting on tariffs slapped on their products. Right now, the economy is rolling along, but eventually that will stop if the tariffs continue. Look at the Great Depression's beginnings and the part protectionism played in that. 

Obama went around apologizing for us and the shit we did, Trump did the exact same thing in Helsinki. There was no misspeaking, his words were deliberate in that regard. You want to disagree with the intelligence community, fine. But that was not the place to do it. Plus, he talks about being the president of law and order again, but that's only if law enforcement can benefit him. Like I said to DesRow, the words spoken in Helsinki will have impact in the future, not necessarily today. But it will be felt. We look weak now in the eyes of the world. America First does not mean America Alone, but Trump doesn't care about that. 

The US Embassy is still in Tel Aviv. They have picked ground for the building of it in Jerusalem supposedly, but Trump just recently signed another six month extension keeping the embassy in Tel Aviv. 

SESTA/FOSTA...the Justice Department warned about the consequences of this. Backpage (a similar site to Craigslist) was fully shut down by the government. The whole thing...much of which had NOTHING to do with the adult pages there. Other sites could soon follow suit, and eventually the fear of being litigated for what people say on your site will lead to censorship. 

So, there you go. Hopefully you read these with an open mind and not in the mocking way Trumpamaniacs have become. I thought Obama apologists for eight years were bad, Trump Kool-Aid drinkers have become worse. I am not some liberal snowflake here but probably the most far-right person on this site. 

Like you, I felt the anger of where we were going. Obama's policies were not working for me. I have fought this fight for years. However, we sold out our principles for a man with no values or morals. Trump supporters continue to make excuses for everything he does, shit of which they'd pound Obama, Clinton and Bush for doing the same thing. I want a leader, not someone who spouts off at the mouth and acts like a child. Trump does shit at the drop of a hat, notice how many times he has had to change course on stuff he says or does. I understood what a Hillary Clinton Presidency could mean, yet we decided her friend and donor was OK? 

I want a conservative President...so far in reality we have Obama 2.0. Might as well have had HRC in office, he's been the Democratic President she would have loved to be. BTW, she still ain't done the perp walk yet. 

But you already have your mind made up probably and all I put here will go over your head.


----------



## Draykorinee

So much tl:dr going on in this thread at the moment.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> So much tl:dr going on in this thread at the moment.


It's because the left and right argument is never-ending ... Meanwhile, now that I'm an outside observer, I am just looking at the arguments and going "You both are saying the same shit but just assuming you're on opposite sides of the coin" because that's where you need to lie in order to maintain the real power structure that governs the country : i.e. the power-brokers installed by the wealthy. 

There is an incredible amount of potential for a new middle of the ground party in America but unfortunately people have already prophesized that no such potential exists and so they remain stuck voting for just two parties. 

I think it's because that soon as elections come around, the pressure is put on people to vote one or the other (instead of a third) because that illusion of "choice" is easier to maintain for the oligarchy. 

Trump was objectively on a completely different platform before election than he has provided since coming into power. Anyone not a blind supporter is aware of this at this point.

Remember my prediction about inflation, people? 


> *US Inflation Rate Highest since 2012
> *
> The inflation rate in the US edged up to 2.9 percent in June of 2018 from 2.8 percent in May, matching market expectations. It is the highest rate since February of 2012 when inflation was also at 2.9 percent, due to rising prices for oil and gasoline. The last time inflation was above 2.9 percent was in December of 2011 when it reached 3 percent.
> 
> Year-on-year, prices rose faster for fuel oil (30.8 percent from 25.3 percent in May); gasoline (24.3 percent from 21.8 percent); medical care services (2.5 percent from 2.3 percent); food (1.4 percent from 1.2 percent).
> 
> On the other hand, inflation eased for shelter (3.4 percent compared to 3.5 percent); apparel (0.6 percent from 1.4 percent); medical care commodities (2.4 percent from 2.7 percent); transportation services (3.7 percent from 3.8 percent). Also, prices fell for electricity (-0.1 compared to 1 percent); utility piped gas service (-2.1 percent from -0.8 percent); used cars and trucks (-0.7 percent from -1.7 percent) and new vehicles (-0.5 percent from -1.1 percent). Core inflation which excludes food and energy eded up to 2.3 percent from 2.2 percent.
> 
> On a monthly basis, consumer prices rose 0.1 percent, below 0.2 percent in May and market expectations of 0.2 percent. The indexes for shelter, gasoline, and food all rose to lead to the increase in the all items index. The food index went up 0.2 percent in June, with the indexes for food at home and food away from home both rising 0.2 percent. Despite a 0.5-percent increase in the gasoline index, the energy index declined 0.3 percent, with the indexes for electricity and natural gas both falling.
> 
> The index for all items less food and energy rose 0.2 percent in June, the same as in May and matching forecasts. The shelter index rose 0.1 percent, and the indexes for medical care, used cars and trucks, new vehicles, and recreation all increased. The indexes for apparel, airline fares, and household furnishings and operations all declined in June.


Meanwhile wages have not increased for the poor and lower classes. 

But Russia. Russia. North Korea. Iran. KSA. North Korea. Iran.

Trump's Government has been a complete and massive failure.


----------



## Reaper

Tracking the Tax Cuts: 



> What Companies Are Really Doing With Their Tax Windfall (So Far)
> 
> The GOP tax overhaul has inspired what seems like a flurry of action from companies looking to gain billions of dollars in potential savings. Every day, a new organization announces bonuses and wage increases. (FedEx Corp. on Friday added its name to that list.) Others, however, are using their funds to lay off thousands of workers.
> 
> Despite the headlines, it turns out most companies aren’t doing much at all with their tax savings, according to a new survey from Willis Towers Watson. At least not yet.
> 
> *The HR consulting firm asked 333 employers with at least 1,000 employees what they have done or plan to do as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Only 4 percent of companies said they had “increased wages for all employees”; an additional 3 percent said they planned to do so in the next year. While an further 13 percent said they’re “considering taking action this year or next,” a full 80 percent of companies aren’t considering giving raises at all.
> *
> “Companies are really spending time thinking about this,” said John Bremen, a managing director at Willis Towers Watson. “They’re trying to figure out what to do in terms of what’s going to be highest impact and greatest value.”
> 
> Bremen sees three general trends among employers. One group is using the tax bill windfall to make previously planned investments, such as raising the minimum wage or increasing 401(k) contributions. Another group is trying to modernize their workforce by hiring new kinds of workers. The third group is attempting to keep up with the proverbial Joneses: As companies see their competitors offering headline grabbing bonuses, they feel compelled to do the same.
> 
> At this rate, it’s too early to tell what the trickle-down impact of the bill will be, if any. The bonus and wage increases provided to employees have, so far, been a fraction of the savings companies are seeing from the tax bill. It will take years to determine the full impacts of the bill, economists say.
> 
> 
> Still, employees are seeing some changes. Almost 20 percent of companies surveyed said they had already added Roth 401(k) retirement plans for employees, making it the most popular benefit change as a result of the tax bill. Unlike a traditional 401(k), a Roth taxes money up front when it goes into the account, rather than down the line when it comes out. “Many employers are saying ‘Tax rates are lower, I’d rather pay taxes on the lower amount than pay gains in the future,’ because maybe they will go up in the future,’” Bremen said.
> 
> Not all workplace upgrades come in the form of money. Around 40 percent of companies said they have already taken at least one “action” as a result of the tax bill, from increasing hiring to spending money on automation.“I’m not seeing a preponderance of any one thing companies are doing,” said Bremen. “There’s no one-size-fits-all.”


Just as predicted by the left as well. 80% of these mother-fuckers aren't even going to consider raising wages. Only 4% raised wages :mj4 

You do the math. With Inflation at its highest levels and 80% not even planning to increase wages, we're going to be SUCH a wonderful place to live in the future. 

#LolTrumpisamoron #republicantaxcutsfailure


----------



## Vic Capri

Of course, the mainstream media is turning a blind eye to this revelation.

- Vic


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Vic Capri said:


> Of course, the mainstream media is turning a blind eye to this revelation.
> 
> - Vic


Are your Trump's PR guy or something? I mean really get a grip


----------



## Rozalia

The Hardcore Show said:


> Are your Trump's PR guy or something? I mean really get a grip


You ShariaBlue? Come on guy.


----------



## CamillePunk

The only thing Trump's done wrong on this whole Putin saga is back down from what he said at the summit. Trump supporters don't care what the neocon warhawks on Fox News or the TDS sufferers have to say about Russia. It's not their kids who are gonna go fight in a new cold war. Peace over politics is the way to go, and it's sad to see people who want to carry out a political vendetta or re-live the latter half of the 20th century so badly that they want to pressure our president into being hostile toward a nuclear power over supposedly hacking a server that I could have hacked myself, such was the practical non-existence of its security. Seriously, that's what all this is about. Fuck that. 

Left-wing loonies: Politics is just team sports. Sometimes your team loses. Not every time though. Get over it.

Right-wing Russophobes: The cold war is over. Russia isn't communist or anything close to it anymore. Get over it.


----------



## deepelemblues

I fart in Montenegro's general direction! 

But no really you sign a treaty you either abide by it or withdraw from it.

lol Reap posing himself as the neutral objective observer 

:Out with that narcissistic poseur nonsense



> Trump was objectively on a completely different platform before election than he has provided since coming into power. Anyone not a blind supporter is aware of this at this point.


False.



> There is an incredible amount of potential for a new middle of the ground party in America but unfortunately people have already prophesized that no such potential exists and so they remain stuck voting for just two parties.


False.

There is zero potential for a new middle ground party in America, and anyone who thinks there is has deluded himself. In the extreme.



> I think it's because that soon as elections come around, the pressure is put on people to vote one or the other (instead of a third) because that illusion of "choice" is easier to maintain for the oligarchy.


Ignorantly, haughtily false.

Reap becomes a citizen and all of a sudden the OIKOPHOBIA'S RUNNIN' WILD.



> Remember my prediction about inflation, people?


Those who did remember, correctly did not care. Moderate inflation is a sign of low unemployment and a growing economy. The US is experiencing moderate inflation. The idea that 2.9% inflation, or even double that, is going to wreck the standard of living is :heyman6



> Meanwhile wages have not increased for the poor and lower classes.
> 
> But Russia. Russia. North Korea. Iran. KSA. North Korea. Iran.
> 
> Trump's Government has been a complete and massive failure.


https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wage-growth
https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...-in-june-was-2018s-strongest-so-far/36579285/

Your opinions have become a complete and massive failure, flailing about with a veneer of hubris.



> Just as predicted by the left as well. 80% of these mother-fuckers aren't even going to consider raising wages. Only 4% raised wages


333 companies with at least 1,000 employees.

So the barest fraction of the employed. If each one has 1,000 full-time employees, that's .0024% of the number of full-time employed in the country. If every one had 5,000 full-time employees, that's 1.2%. 

Businesses that employ more than 1,000 people make up 0.08% of the total number of businesses in the country. 

0.08%

What a comprehensive examination :bryanlol

A prime example of lying with statistics. 



> You do the math. With Inflation at its highest levels and 80% not even planning to increase wages, we're going to be SUCH a wonderful place to live in the future.


Pure economic ignorance and the repetition of a lie, this is the depth Reap has sunk to. 

2.9% inflation is not going to do shit. It's incredible how ignorant of inflation some people are. The economy absorbed inflation in vital commodities with ripple effects causing inflation on other commodities dozens of times larger than 2.9% in the recent past without the destruction of the economy. These were not inflationary rises confined to some small or mid-sized sectors of the economy. 



> #LolTrumpisamoron #republicantaxcutsfailure


:heston

You simply have no idea what you're talking about. You've completely lost it. Sad!


----------



## samizayn

CamillePunk said:


> Who said that?
> 
> nukes
> 
> On an unrelated note, democracy is so overrated. Most people in the US can't even name a country on a world map. Why would I want them having a say in anything that affects anyone else's life, especially mine? :lol Good heavens.


Yet world war three doomsdaying is just more overhyped liberal hysteria. :hmm

I think that comment is extremely central and relevant, actually - after all, if the thing which Russia is seeking to destroy and undermine isn't actually all that important, then neither is the offense their administration would supposedly be causing.

So on the topic, I couldn't disagree more. It's all but impossible to value democracy too much, if you are anybody that feels any kind of way about what the world should be like. It (and its constituents/derivatives) is the only thing that would allow you action towards that image. 

This is why I feel it is incoherent to hold the now somewhat popular position that foreign influence in democratic processes is not a big deal, particularly when epoused by individuals taking part in free political discussion. The idea, then, that it's now partisan to care about a force that would eliminate our ability to even _be _partisan about whatever it is we care about is extremely shocking and bizarre.

That is what the concern is with the current president, and I'll illustrate with a maybe less polarising example. Several months ago President Erdogan visited the WH as a guest of the current American administration. During his visit several of Erdogan's thugs were filmed violently beating a group of around 20 or so Americans that were protesting the very same visit; it is possible and likely that he ordered those attacks directly, based on available footage.

Some lesser politicians denounced the attack, but the POTUS himself did and said nothing whatsoever. 

There can be a number of things you'd say about that particular instance at that particular period, but placed on this wider context it shows the story of a president that is not interested in assuring the democratic rights of the American people. Outrageous in any other time period, but in this new era of Trumpians vs Never-Trumpers, we have... all of this.

Per Axios,



> Yes, almost every elected Republican we talk to privately thinks President Trump’s warm embrace of Vladimir Putin was unexplainable, unacceptable and un-American. Yes, they wish they could say this publicly. No, they won’t — not now, and probably never.
> 
> The cold, hard reason: They see no upside in speaking out — and fear political suicide if they do, numerous Republican officials tell us.



Dismal.


----------



## Stephen90

The Hardcore Show said:


> Are your Trump's PR guy or something? I mean really get a grip


He thinks he is.


----------



## Rozalia

samizayn said:


> Democracy meme


Cute. A couple of posts before yours someone called America an Oligarchy, which a study if we're fair has judged accurate. "Democracy" is a useful form of government... to get another form of government, often keeping the label of being a democracy for control's sake.

In short you have already lost your democracy at the very least in a large part and it is now with Trump/Putin you are worried? 

Don't get me wrong, it'd be great if we could make it work and such but sadly that is unlikely. As such why should a person really care if it goes?


----------



## yeahbaby!

I don't really think there was major problems with Trump's HelsinkiGate - he brought up great points about the server that need to be answered above all else.

Oh..... hang on, just an issue with my script sorry:

I do really think there was major problems with Trump's HelsinkiGate - he brought up useless points about the server that don't need to be answered above all else.



Honestly it's no surprise Trump clearly thinks the public is a bunch of idiots beneath him, no matter the complete lunacy that comes out of his mouth, his diehards will continue to defend it.

I can't wait to see how this is all part of Trump's plan according to the likes of Youtube stars Scott Adams et al.,


----------



## Rozalia

yeahbaby! said:


> I don't really think there was major problems with Trump's HelsinkiGate - he brought up great points about the server that need to be answered above all else.
> 
> Oh..... hang on, just an issue with my script sorry:
> 
> I do really think there was major problems with Trump's HelsinkiGate - he brought up useless points about the server that don't need to be answered above all else.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly it's no surprise Trump clearly thinks the public is a bunch of idiots beneath him, no matter the complete lunacy that comes out of his mouth, his diehards will continue to defend it.
> 
> I can't wait to see how this is all part of Trump's plan according to the likes of Youtube stars Scott Adams et al.,


Yes, Trump is the one who disrespects the public, yes, right.

Sorry mate but if Trump keeps winning and you guys losing then maybe just maybe, you have things wrong.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Rozalia said:


> Yes, Trump is the one who disrespects the public, yes, right.
> 
> Sorry mate but if Trump keeps winning and you guys losing then maybe just maybe, you have things wrong.


Thanks for illustrating my point.

In all honesty, tell me what you think of the Would/Wouldn't thing.


----------



## deepelemblues

Democracy is garbage

Republics are where it's at


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> Democracy is garbage
> 
> Republics are where it's at


It's all an illusion.


----------



## CamillePunk

samizayn said:


> Yet world war three doomsdaying is just more overhyped liberal hysteria. :hmm


North Korea is nowhere near the threat Russia is. 



deepelemblues said:


> Democracy is garbage
> 
> Republics are where it's at


Republics are better but everyone being able to vote is pretty dumb cause people are pretty dumb and can't understand all (or in many cases, even one) of the issues. Hell I think I'm a fairly smart dude and I don't understand all of the issues. I'd be fine with surrendering my vote to a genius class. IQ of 140+ or so, let's say. I'd be voteless but fine with it. I respect competence and intelligence and my ego isn't very big. 

Of course this means our country would literally be ran by the Jews. :mj :lol 

At least Donald J Trump would still be able to vote! :lol


----------



## Reaper

I think politics itself are the new gladiator sport. Elections are Democracy on steroids.


----------



## DesolationRow

Democracy is a carnivorous beast, and its appetite is insatiable.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article215095600.html



> Non-citizens legally register to vote in San Francisco school elections
> 
> BY DON SWEENEY
> 
> [email protected]
> 
> July 18, 2018 10:38 AM
> 
> Updated 8 hours 3 minutes ago
> 
> San Francisco began registering non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, to register to vote Monday in the November election for the city school board, reported The San Francisco Chronicle.
> 
> The move follows passage of a 2016 ballot measure by San Francisco voters opening school elections to non-citizens who are over the age of 18, city residents and have children under age 19, reported the publication.
> 
> “This is no-brainer legislation,” Hillary Ronen, a San Francisco supervisor, told the Chronicle. “Why would we not want our parents invested in the education of their children?”
> 
> “We want to give immigrants the right to vote,” Norman Yee, also a county supervisor, told KGO.
> 
> But Harmeet Dhillon, who serves on the Republican National Committee, told the station she disagrees with those assessments.
> 
> “The reason I voted against it is that I think the right to vote is something that goes along with citizenship and should be,” Dhillon told KGO.
> 
> San Francisco became the first city in California to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections following passage of Measure N with 54 percent of the vote after two previous failed tries, reported KTVU.
> 
> 
> There are concerns that the non-citizen voter registration rolls, which will be open, could be used to target people who entered the U.S. illegally, reported The San Francisco Examiner.
> 
> “Our immigrants, are they vulnerable? Absolutely,” Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer told the publication. “But in San Francisco we stand strong together.”
> 
> President Donald Trump and California leaders have clashed repeatedly since the 2016 election over immigration enforcement, sanctuary cities and voter fraud allegations.
> 
> Community organizations, such as the Mission Economic Development Agency, plan to meet with non-citizens to inform them of the possible risks, the Examiner reported.
> 
> Chicago and some Maryland cities also allow non-citizen residents to vote in school board elections, reported KPIX.
> 
> Several cities in Massachusetts, including Cambridge, Amherst, Brookline and others, have at various times voted to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections, but those moves require legislation from state lawmakers to take effect, reported The Boston Globe.
> 
> The San Francisco measure allowing non-citizen voting expires in 2022 unless renewed by the board of supervisors, according to the Examiner.
> 
> The deadline to register to vote in San Francisco is Oct. 22 for the Nov. 6 election, according to the California Secretary of State’s Office.


----------



## Draykorinee

Shamocracy.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Shamocracy.


Most people from the third world already call it Demockery. I think the west will catch up sooner or later as well

This is also a very good quote (even though some of the images are doctored). 

Something people should really chew on. 










I do remember clearly both terms of Bush and both terms of Obama and the accusations that flew around for them. Trump is really not getting any different treatment. Clinton didn't have it as bad, but I do recall him being lambasted for his WH scandal as well as wanting peace. Clinton was the most peaceful president in American history and I think that was a great thing. 

Unless we reign in dogmatism and shift back towards moderation, this shit is likely to only get worse as it is. Clinton had it bad. Bush had it worse (then again, Bush was the worst of the 4), Obama was constantly called something he wasn't and now Trump is facing the same and slightly worse.


----------



## Rozalia

Reap said:


> Most people from the third world already call it Demockery. I think the west will catch up sooner or later as well
> 
> This is also a very good quote (even though some of the images are doctored).
> 
> Something people should really chew on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do remember clearly both terms of Bush and both terms of Obama and the accusations that flew around for them. Trump is really not getting any different treatment. Clinton didn't have it as bad, but I do recall him being lambasted for his WH scandal as well as wanting peace. Clinton was the most peaceful president in American history and I think that was a great thing.
> 
> Unless we reign in dogmatism and shift back towards moderation, this shit is likely to only get worse as it is. Clinton had it bad. Bush had it worse (then again, Bush was the worst of the 4), Obama was constantly called something he wasn't and now Trump is facing the same and slightly worse.


What you're missing is no president has quite had this much media, not to mention everything else against them. This isn't a situation where you have some group out there against someone and most of the media says they're crazy, this instead is them joining in and saying he is what they say he is.

Fox news, which even they are more like 50-50 anyway on Trump as they attack him often enough such as recently (which ironically makes them the most fair network, which was an unimaginable statement before Trump), which were the main ones beating on Obama do not equal... everyone else all together that are against Trump.



DesolationRow said:


> Democracy is a carnivorous beast, and its appetite is insatiable.
> 
> http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article215095600.html


Democrat: We want to stop the Russians, non citizens interfering in elections.
Also Democrat: We want to give illegals and non-citizens the right to vote... they vote the right way you see.



CamillePunk said:


> North Korea is nowhere near the threat Russia is.
> 
> Republics are better but everyone being able to vote is pretty dumb cause people are pretty dumb and can't understand all (or in many cases, even one) of the issues. Hell I think I'm a fairly smart dude and I don't understand all of the issues. I'd be fine with surrendering my vote to a genius class. IQ of 140+ or so, let's say. I'd be voteless but fine with it. I respect competence and intelligence and my ego isn't very big.
> 
> Of course this means our country would literally be ran by the Jews. :mj :lol
> 
> At least Donald J Trump would still be able to vote! :lol



I would be very very careful with such a thing. As someone there, don't remember who once said, the smartest people can be the biggest idiots. 

In addition when you create a class like that it will quickly start taking decisions that are beneficial to it's own class but can screw over others. In short they'd largely be hardcore globalists which is bad juju.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Rozalia

RavishingRickRules said:


> :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


What is wrong with two men loving each other? Trump seems to have a womanly body is the image so he is supposed to be the controlled woman of the man Putin? Any idea what message that sends?


----------



## virus21

> Former President Barack Obama delivered a forceful rejection of identity politics during a speech Tuesday, saying democracy doesn't work if people dismiss opposing voices for reasons like they're "white" or "male."
> Speaking at the Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture in South Africa, Obama said to make democracy work that people had to follow the example of Mandela in engaging with people who look and think differently.
> "This is hard," Obama said.
> "Most of us prefer to surround ourselves with opinions that validate what we already believe," he added. "You notice, the people who you think are smart are the people who agree with you. Funny how that works."
> Obama said perhaps one's mind could be changed by talking to someone who thinks differently.
> "You can't do this if you just out-of-hand disregard what your opponents have to say from the start," he said. "You can't do it if you insist that those who aren't like you because they're white or because they're male, that somehow there's no way they can understand what I'm feeling, that somehow they lack standing to speak on certain matters."
> Obama, referring to him by his Xhosa clan name "Madiba," recounted Mandela's study of white Afrikaans while serving 27 years in prison. He was elected president in 1994, four years after his release and shortly after he helped South Africa end its policy of racial separation and discrimination known as apartheid.
> "When he got out of prison, he extended a hand to those who had jailed him, because he knew that they had to be a part of the democratic South Africa that he wanted to build," Obama said.
> New York Times columnist Bari Weiss called Obama's remarks "an amazing rebuke to the dead-end of identity politics."
> 
> An amazing rebuke to the dead-end of identity politics. https://t.co/9hq9BXd6XC
> — Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) July 17, 2018
> 
> Obama made similar comments while president, once saying in 2015 that liberals on college campuses were often too close-minded and didn't want to engage with conservatives.
> "I’ve heard some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative or they don’t want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African Americans or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women," he said. "And you know, I've got to tell you, I don’t agree with that either. I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view."
> "You know, I think you should be able to—anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with them. But you shouldn’t silence them by saying, ‘You can’t come because I'm too sensitive to hear what you have to say.’ That’s not the way we learn either."


http://archive.is/EKi5r#selection-1165.0-1375.288


----------



## Draykorinee

Rozalia said:


> Reap said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people from the third world already call it Demockery. I think the west will catch up sooner or later as well
> 
> This is also a very good quote (even though some of the images are doctored).
> 
> Something people should really chew on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do remember clearly both terms of Bush and both terms of Obama and the accusations that flew around for them. Trump is really not getting any different treatment. Clinton didn't have it as bad, but I do recall him being lambasted for his WH scandal as well as wanting peace. Clinton was the most peaceful president in American history and I think that was a great thing.
> 
> Unless we reign in dogmatism and shift back towards moderation, this shit is likely to only get worse as it is. Clinton had it bad. Bush had it worse (then again, Bush was the worst of the 4), Obama was constantly called something he wasn't and now Trump is facing the same and slightly worse.
> 
> 
> 
> What you're missing is no president has quite had this much media, not to mention everything else against them. This isn't a situation where you have some group out there against someone and most of the media says they're crazy, this instead is them joining in and saying he is what they say he is.
> 
> Fox news, which even they are more like 50-50 anyway on Trump as they attack him often enough such as recently (which ironically makes them the most fair network, which was an unimaginable statement before Trump), which were the main ones beating on Obama do not equal... everyone else all together that are against Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> DesolationRow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy is a carnivorous beast, and its appetite is insatiable.
> 
> http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article215095600.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrat: We want to stop the Russians, non citizens interfering in elections.
> Also Democrat: We want to give illegals and non-citizens the right to vote... they vote the right way you see.
> 
> 
> 
> CamillePunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> North Korea is nowhere near the threat Russia is.
> 
> Republics are better but everyone being able to vote is pretty dumb cause people are pretty dumb and can't understand all (or in many cases, even one) of the issues. Hell I think I'm a fairly smart dude and I don't understand all of the issues. I'd be fine with surrendering my vote to a genius class. IQ of 140+ or so, let's say. I'd be voteless but fine with it. I respect competence and intelligence and my ego isn't very big.
> 
> Of course this means our country would literally be ran by the Jews. <img src="http://imgur.com/6EaVGTL.png" border="0" alt="" title="Jordan" class="inlineimg" /> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> At least Donald J Trump would still be able to vote! <img src="http://i.imgur.com/EGDmCdR.gif?1?6573" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be very very careful with such a thing. As someone there, don't remember who once said, the smartest people can be the biggest idiots.
> 
> In addition when you create a class like that it will quickly start taking decisions that are beneficial to it's own class but can screw over others. In short they'd largely be hardcore globalists which is bad juju.
Click to expand...

Them being 50/50 does not make them the most fair. 

If the bbc were 50/50 in favor/against of Harold Shipman it wouldn't be 'fair' because it should be 0/100. 

Let's not confuse equal with fair, that's where the gender pay gap liars get confused.


----------



## Rozalia

draykorinee said:


> Them being 50/50 does not make them the most fair.
> 
> If the bbc were 50/50 in favor/against of Harold Shipman it wouldn't be 'fair' because it should be 0/100.
> 
> Let's not confuse equal with fair, that's where the gender pay gap liars get confused.


Not a completely wrong point or anything, but considering the others are full on 0-100 (except when Trump publicly throws some missiles at Assad anyway, then suddenly he is presidential apparently), 50-50 becomes the fairest by default as they still attack him, but also support him often enough.


----------



## Reaper

Rozalia you missed the point entirely. 

How much presidents are shat upon isn't a competition.

It's something that should not happen period. This is not necessarily my own firm opinion but it's something we need to consider. The point here was that both sides do it and that influences what happens to the next president so it implies a spiral.


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> Democracy is a carnivorous beast, and its appetite is insatiable.
> 
> http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article215095600.html


Yeah, remember when people were saying this wouldn't happen..? HA!

There's almost no point to being a Citizen now unless you want your check to be fleeced via taxes. This is a very dangerous thing they're doing.


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> Yeah, remember when people were saying this wouldn't happen..? HA!
> 
> There's almost no point to being a Citizen now unless you want your check to be fleeced via taxes. This is a very dangerous thing they're doing.


Let Cali fail.


----------



## Reaper

So now Trump goes after the Feds after they've already raised rates twice. Trump's ecnomy is going to blow up in his face and I predict denial denial denial when 3 years from now people realize that people who said that tax credit won't see its way to the masses were correct.

So far, most companies have not raised wages. Still waiting and I don't think it's going to happen.

I feel so duped.


----------



## TripleG

Miss Sally said:


> Yeah, remember when people were saying this wouldn't happen..? HA!
> 
> There's almost no point to being a Citizen now unless you want your check to be fleeced via taxes. This is a very dangerous thing they're doing.


Is there another country in the world that allows non-citizens to vote in their elections? I'm asking a legit question cause I don't know. 

I mean that isn't a good reason not to do it. Somebody's got to be the first to do something, right? But its weird to me that there is this constant issue that illegal immigrants should be granted the right to vote in a country they have no incentive to be citizens of. 

This article is also being sneaky with its language. It states that "Immigrants" should be granted the right to vote. Yeah, uh, they already do...as long as they come over here legally and become citizens. 

Instead of accusing us of being racist for not wanting to give non-citizens voting rights, please explain to me why you aren't incentivizing immigrants to become citizens, pay taxes, and contribute to the system in a more meaningful way. 

Heck that's the other part of this. Why are people that don't pay taxes being allowed to vote and help make decisions on a school board, something they don't pay taxes for?


----------



## Sincere

Immigration Surges to Top of Most Important Problem List





















> WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Immigration has risen to the top of the list when Americans are asked to name the most important problem facing the nation -- edging out the government, which has been the top issue each month since January 2017. The 22% of Americans in July who say immigration is the top problem is up from 14% in June and is the highest percentage naming that issue in Gallup's history of asking the "most important problem" question. The previous high had been 19%.
> 
> ...
> 
> The most recent Gallup survey was in the field over the first 11 days of July. Since then, news coverage of the Trump administration has shifted to foreign policy with Trump's controversial travels to Brussels, London and Helsinki.
> 
> Still, immigration has been a significant top-of-mind concern for Americans, particularly Republicans, for a number of months now, and it's likely that it will remain an important campaign theme no matter what events occur between now and Election Day in November.


----------



## Tater

Reap said:


> Tracking the Tax Cuts:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as predicted by the left as well. 80% of these mother-fuckers aren't even going to consider raising wages. Only 4% raised wages :mj4
> 
> You do the math. With Inflation at its highest levels and 80% not even planning to increase wages, we're going to be SUCH a wonderful place to live in the future.
> 
> #LolTrumpisamoron #republicantaxcutsfailure





Reap said:


> So now Trump goes after the Feds after they've already raised rates twice. Trump's ecnomy is going to blow up in his face and I predict denial denial denial when 3 years from now people realize that people who said that tax credit won't see its way to the masses were correct.
> 
> So far, most companies have not raised wages. Still waiting and I don't think it's going to happen.
> 
> I feel so duped.


The vast inability of people to learn from history will always astound me. People act like this sort of tax scam hasn't been done before and the results were not known. Everyone who is honest and has the slightest idea of what's going on has been saying from the start that corporations would be using all the extra money on things like executive bonuses and stock buybacks instead of investments, raising wages and hiring new people.

If Republicans were serious about using tax cuts to help out the working man, they would design bills that specifically give tax cuts to corporations _for_ investing, raising wages and hiring new people. Meaning, if you don't do the things you claim you are going to do with the tax cuts, you don't get the tax cuts. You've got to be an extra special kind of stupid to believe tax cuts with no strings attached will lead to better conditions for the working class.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.apnews.com/1ef13a3121b1486cbb3efe0838eb8b49/Farmers-fret-and-wait-as-US-China-trade-war-escalates



> *Farmers fret and wait as US-China trade war escalates*
> 
> MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Many anxious American farmers are delaying purchases and investment while hoping for a truce in a U.S.-China trade war that has left their crops at a competitive disadvantage overseas.
> 
> The longer the Trump administration's tariffs remain in place, the more China's retaliatory tariffs against American exports stand to hurt U.S. soybean and pork producers.
> 
> President Donald Trump's administration on July 6 carried out its threat to impose 25 percent tariffs on $34 billion worth of Chinese products, alleging that Beijing steals or pressures U.S. companies to hand over technology. China responded with similar duties on the same amount of U.S. imports — including soybeans and pork. The administration July 10 announced a second possible round targeting $200 billion worth of goods. Beijing vowed "firm and forceful measures" in response.
> 
> "From a farmer's perspective all you can do is wait and hope, which aren't very good options," said Michael Petefish, who grows soybeans and corn near Claremont in southern Minnesota. "If you can afford not to be selling your beans now, just put them in the bin and store them and wait for better markets. That's about all you can do."
> 
> Wanda Patsche and her husband, Chuck Patsche, stand to be doubly affected. They grow corn and soybeans and raise pigs near Welcome in southern Minnesota. She said the main thing they and their neighbors have done to cushion themselves is to delay investment in their farming operation.
> 
> "There will be no equipment purchases, no improvements, just holding our own. Basically a holding pattern. And hoping things are going to get worked out fairly quickly," she said.
> 
> Farmers often hedge against price downturns by selling part of their crop on the futures market, locking in an early price for crops they'll harvest in the fall. Patsche said she and her husband marketed a little of their 2018 crop, so they can count on a profit for those bushels, but they'd take a loss if they sold any more at current prices. So they're hoping the markets get some good news that will send prices back up.
> 
> Greg Bartz, who farms near Sleepy Eye in southern Minnesota's Brown County, said he sold most of his 2018 corn and soybean crop earlier this year before trade fears sent prices plunging. He pointed out that that's a gamble that can backfire if prices ultimately go up.
> 
> "You never know, and you don't know what production is going to be, either," said Bartz, the county's Farm Bureau president.
> 
> One of the few things farmers can do for now is to make themselves heard. Petefish and other farmers from the American Soybean Association and the American Farm Bureau Federation descended on Capitol Hill on July 11 to tell lawmakers and staffers how they stand to become collateral damage in the trade war unless there's a resolution soon.
> 
> "A lot of people aren't very optimistic, unfortunately," said Petefish, president of the Minnesota Soybean Growers Association. "They're not sure of the end game, and that's what everyone is trying to ascertain: What is the plan?"
> 
> They also included Joe Ericson, whose family grows soybeans, corns and wheat near the eastern North Dakota town of Wimbledon. Ericson, president of the North Dakota Soybean Growers Association, said the tariffs put farmers like him who are Trump supporters in an awkward position.
> 
> "I fully support my president, but it's tough to defend it," he said. "We don't really defend tariffs; we defend fair trade. We wish there were other ways he could go about finding a solution."
> 
> Petefish has been telling people how the price plunge is already costing farmers like him. Soybeans have dropped more than $2 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade in the last few weeks due to the trade tensions. That means the 2017 beans left in his bins are suddenly worth a lot less.
> 
> "On my farm it's the equivalent of $250,000 ... in lost value," he said.
> 
> And that hit comes on top of already low commodity prices that have cut farm incomes by 50 percent since 2012, he said.
> 
> "If you're not already in the red, this will push you into the red for this year," he said.
> 
> The ultimate impacts may become clearer this fall. At that point many farmers may have to sell at least part of their new crops at the market price, as low as it may be, just to pay bills.
> 
> "We forward-contracted a lot of our stuff, but if it continues on, next year will be tighter," Ericson said. "If you did a good job marketing I think you'll be OK. A lot of people selling right off the combine — that's going to hurt them. When the combines start rolling, that's when you'll really start seeing it."
> 
> Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro last month said the administration would have farmers' backs, Petefish recalled.
> 
> "Right now farmers don't know what that means," he added.


----------



## CamillePunk

Here's a short clip of Alex Jones going from 0 to 100 while watching Tucker Carlson :lol


----------



## DOPA

Trump Derangement Syndrome.

My fellow Brits complaining about this are whiny little bitches, utterly embarrassing. This especially goes out to the Mirror.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

DOPA said:


> Trump Derangement Syndrome.
> 
> My fellow Brits complaining about this are whiny little bitches, utterly embarrassing. This especially goes out to the Mirror.


I'm certainly not a patriotic loon or a royalist, but the royal family do exist and there are protocols when you are in their presence. Trump obviously had no idea about this or just chose to ignore them.

You should disrespect the head of state when you visit their country.

Oops!!

You **shouldn't* disrespect the head of state when you visit their country.

Damn those tricky words again


----------



## DOPA

Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> I'm certainly not a patriotic loon or a royalist, but the royal family do exist and there are protocols when you are in their presence. Trump obviously had no idea about this or just chose to ignore them.
> 
> You should disrespect the head of state when you visit their country.
> 
> Oops!!
> 
> You **shouldn't* disrespect the head of state when you visit their country.
> 
> Damn those tricky words again



There are more important things to be mad about concerning Trump. The reaction has been hilariously over the top. People need to gain some perspective.


----------



## Draykorinee

DOPA said:


> There are more important things to be mad about concerning Trump. The reaction has been hilariously over the top. People need to gain some perspective.


I agree to a point, I posted the video about this on Facebook for the comedy value, he looks like a buffoon, not as a commentary on his etiquette, I don't really care too much about that.
He still should know what he's doing.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

DOPA said:


> There are more important things to be mad about concerning Trump. The reaction has been hilariously over the top. People need to gain some perspective.


I don't disagree. But the reaction to everything is over the top these days.

Everything gets blown out of proportion, and all it does is trivialise more important issues when they arise.

The Trump/Queen thing, he shouldn't have done it, but there is no point people still getting outraged by it. And also, what were people expecting? It's Trump


----------



## Reaper

Tater said:


> If Republicans were serious about using tax cuts to help out the working man, they would design bills that specifically give tax cuts to corporations _for_ investing, raising wages and hiring new people. Meaning, if you don't do the things you claim you are going to do with the tax cuts, you don't get the tax cuts. You've got to be an extra special kind of stupid to believe tax cuts with no strings attached will lead to better conditions for the working class.


Well ... it's obvious why they can't do that. 

No corporation would allow such bills to pass ... and considering that lobbying is both alive and well, the bills are prepaid for anyways.



Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> The Trump/Queen thing, he shouldn't have done it, but there is no point people still getting outraged by it. And also, what were people expecting? It's Trump


This one I don't blame him for at all. I don't give a fuck about British royals. 

I think at this point the American Kardashians are more useful to society than them because unlike the British Royals (who are also nothing more than "celebrities" at this point at least stimulate the economy) so if they feel "slighted" then oh well. This idea that royalty still exists today and should be deserving of some kind of special protocol of behavior by normal people is sickening.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

Reap said:


> This one I don't blame him for at all. I don't give a fuck about British royals.
> 
> I think at this point the American Kardashians are more useful to society than them because unlike the British Royals (who are also nothing more than "celebrities" at this point at least stimulate the economy) so if they feel "slighted" then oh well. This idea that royalty still exists today and should be deserving of some kind of special protocol of behavior by normal people is sickening.


As I said, i'm not a royalist in the slightest, but the notion that they don't stimulate the economy is hilarious. Go to London on any given day and see how many tourists flock to Buckingham Palace just to get a few photos. they are an attraction, whether you like them or not.

The royal protocols are silly, and seem to be disappearing as generations go by. William and Harry seems very informal when they meet people, but this isn't something that changes overnight. If it is royal protocol to do certain things when in the company of The Queen then people should respect them if they are visiting her.

Your argument also lost any credibility when you referred to the Kardashians as useful to society


----------



## Reaper

Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> As I said, i'm not a royalist in the slightest, but the notion that they don't stimulate the economy is hilarious. Go to London on any given day and see how many tourists flock to Buckingham Palace just to get a few photos. they are an attraction, whether you like them or not.
> 
> The royal protocols are silly, and seem to be disappearing as generations go by. William and Harry seems very informal when they meet people, but this isn't something that changes overnight. If it is royal protocol to do certain things when in the company of The Queen then people should respect them if they are visiting her.
> 
> Your argument also lost any credibility when you referred to the Kardashians as useful to society


Your usefulness of the British royals hinges around their marketability as the same as any tourist monument which makes them pretty useless imo. The comparison with the Kardashians while a little provocative is essentially true. There are definitely some similarities here. 

The Kardashians are worth billions now come on. How much value do the royals bring in comparison?


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

Reap said:


> Your usefulness of the British royals hinges around their marketability as the same as any tourist monument which makes them pretty useless imo. The comparison with the Kardashians while a little provocative is essentially true. There are definitely some similarities here.
> 
> The Kardashians are worth billions now come on. How much value do the royals bring in comparison?


I said that the royals are an attraction and people come to this country to see them. How is that not a benefit to the country? They also have a tremendous amount of respect from nations around the world. Have you noticed that when they visit other countries that hundreds of thousands of people don't take to the street to protest them being there?

The Kardashians may be worth billions, but who does that benefit? The Kardashians.


----------



## Reaper

Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> I said that the royals are an attraction and people come to this country to see them. How is that not a benefit to the country? They also have a tremendous amount of respect from nations around the world.


And billions of people all over the world watch the Kardashians and follow them, buy their products and stimulate the economy as well  



> The Kardashians may be worth billions, but who does that benefit? The Kardashians.


Well, that same argument can be made for the Royals. 

Given that the Royals have basically been reduced to celebrity/attraction status, I think the comparison to the Kardashians is reasonable. The sooner the people realize that and pull them off their high horse, the better. At this point Royal families are really not that much difference except for the status people arbitrarily decide to give them based on their usurped and unearned place in society.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

Reap said:


> And billions of people all over the world watch the Kardashians and follow them, buy their products and stimulate the economy as well
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that same argument can be made for the Royals.
> 
> Given that the Royals have basically been reduced to celebrity/attraction status, I think the comparison to the Kardashians is reasonable. The sooner the people realize that and pull them off their high horse, the better. At this point Royal families are really not that much difference except for the status people arbitrarily decide to give them based on their usurped and unearned place in society.


Oh what a burden they are. And they only contribute nearly £2 billion a year. What a bunch of useless layabouts.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/royal-family-british-monarchy-wealth-value-how-rich-money-queen-elizabeth-ii-a8067946.html

They also represent their country around the world, and they do one hell of a better job of representing their nation than some leaders do

We're clearly never going to agree on this. And i'll say it one last time, i'm really no royalist, but couldn't stand by when they're compared to Kim Kardashian and her brood of parasites. People are going to start moaning that the thread has been derailed. The thread should be about about glorious powerful wise leader Trump


----------



## Reaper

Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> Oh what a burden they are. And they only contribute nearly £2 billion a year. What a bunch of useless layabouts.
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/royal-family-british-monarchy-wealth-value-how-rich-money-queen-elizabeth-ii-a8067946.html
> 
> They also represent their country around the world, and they do one hell of a better job of representing their nation than some leaders do
> 
> We're clearly never going to agree on this. And i'll say it one last time, i'm really no royalist, but couldn't stand by when they're compared to Kim Kardashian and her brood of parasites. People are going to start moaning that the thread has been derailed. The thread should be about about glorious powerful wise leader Trump


You are defeating your own arguments bud. Every billionnaire contributes in very much the same way. Including the Kardashians. It's not like they've bought gold plates with their money and have stashed it away under mattresses and in vaults. 

Most of the money Kardashians also generate go back into the economy. 

You just don't like the fact that The Royals are The Kardashians of the Elite Class while the Kardashians are the "royals" of the middle/working class. 

I don't know if you're British or not, but I've noticed that this kind of comparison across social classes tends to annoy Brits a lot. My family was colonized by the Brits, we know this Sahib Culture of the Brits all too well and very closely as well. Pakistanis still believe in it and promote it in their own country


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

Reap said:


> You are defeating your own arguments bud. Every billionnaire contributes in very much the same way. Including the Kardashians. It's not like they've bought gold plates with their money and have stashed it away under mattresses and in vaults.
> 
> Most of the money Kardashians also generate go back into the economy.
> 
> You just don't like the fact that The Royals are The Kardashians of the Elite Class while the Kardashians are the "royals" of the middle/working class.
> 
> I don't know if you're British or not, but I've noticed that this kind of comparison across social classes tends to annoy Brits a lot. My family was colonized by the Brits, we know this Sahib Culture of the Brits all too well and very closely as well. Pakistanis still believe in it and promote it in their own country


I just feel that the royals that seem to give a shit (William, Kate, Harry, Meaghan, The Queen, etc) do more positive things for society than a bunch of self obsessed rich kids selling their over-priced tat to people who are infatuated by them (for some unknown reason).

And yes, I know there was a case recently where Kim Kardashian was involved in helping a lady who had inexplicably been locked up for the majority of her life for some first offence drug bullshit. Fair play to her

I have no personal experience of colonisation and it's not something I have ever championed. We used to be an absolute asshole of a country. All that empire bollocks can fuck right off. Now we're just mostly shit :lol


----------



## BRITLAND

DOPA said:


> Trump Derangement Syndrome.
> 
> My fellow Brits complaining about this are whiny little bitches, utterly embarrassing. This especially goes out to the Mirror.


I thought The Mirror was republican? One of their biggest editors Kevin Maguire is definitely a huge republican. In fact most left leaning papers like The Guardian are republican. Most people are just looking to have a moan and dig at Trump tbh. Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, the leaders of the left in the UK are also republicans.

The only folk that I can seriously see being upset are the patriotic baby boomers who have the most affection for the monarchy (and to a lesser extent middle age housewives in middle England who like the weddings and babies). 

I wouldn't be surprised if the monarchy is abolished sometime after the death of Elizabeth II. Charles and Camilla aren't anywhere near as popular as she is and certainly won't fill her boots. Australia will likely be a republic by then too and probably Canada, New Zealand and wherever else after her death.


----------



## Rozalia

As France and other places have shown, you don't actually need the royals to bring people into the palaces, museums, take care of estates, and so on. As for the walk Trump walked ahead, stopped, and the Queen had to manoeuvre around him to get side by side. This talk that he is some villain for having his back to her is nonsense, this ain't bloody ancient China where turning your back on the Emperor meant he could have you executed. Just nonsense, Comrade Corbyn has done much worse and outside fake outrage no one gives a crap.



Reap said:


> Rozalia you missed the point entirely.
> 
> How much presidents are shat upon isn't a competition.
> 
> It's something that should not happen period. This is not necessarily my own firm opinion but it's something we need to consider. The point here was that both sides do it and that influences what happens to the next president so it implies a spiral.


Such an absolute isn't correct either. If for example the president's hobby was going down the Cuba now and then to so he could personally kill inmates there without consequence then attacking said president as bloodthirsty would be legitimate. Calling him bloodthirsty because he has two scoops for his ice cream not so much.

It is as Trump has said, a condition, but here is someone who explains this well and quickly.



> Justin Raimondo divided the "syndrome" into three stages; in the first, those who "lose all sense of proportion," next, they experience "a profound effect on ... vocabulary" and begin to "speak a distinctive language consisting solely of hyperbole," and, in the final stage, the afflicted "lose the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality."





BRITLAND said:


> I thought The Mirror was republican? One of their biggest editors Kevin Maguire is definitely a huge republican. In fact most left leaning papers like The Guardian are republican. Most people are just looking to have a moan and dig at Trump tbh. Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, the leaders of the left in the UK are also republicans.
> 
> The only folk that I can seriously see being upset are the patriotic baby boomers who have the most affection for the monarchy (and to a lesser extent middle age housewives in middle England who like the weddings and babies).
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if the monarchy is abolished sometime after the death of Elizabeth II. Charles and Camilla aren't anywhere near as popular as she is and certainly won't fill her boots. Australia will likely be a republic by then too and probably Canada, New Zealand and wherever else after her death.


Those like the guardian suddenly go full on royalist when they want to attack someone on it, aka Comrade Corbyn.

Anyway you are right. They're one unpopular royal for extended time away from being removed... and who knows, Comrade Corbyn may become PM and he might want those head of state powers...


----------



## Reaper

Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> I just feel that the royals that seem to give a shit (William, Kate, Harry, Meaghan, The Queen, etc) do more positive things for society than a bunch of self obsessed rich kids selling their over-priced tat to people who are infatuated by them (for some unknown reason).
> 
> And yes, I know there was a case recently where Kim Kardashian was involved in helping a lady who had inexplicably been locked up for the majority of her life for some first offence drug bullshit. Fair play to her
> 
> I have no personal experience of colonisation and it's not something I have ever championed. We used to be an absolute asshole of a country. All that empire bollocks can fuck right off. Now we're just mostly shit :lol


Eh. The Kardashians have plenty of charities as well (scandoulous and mainly for PR ... but can't the same be said for the royals?) :shrug ... 

Fuck me for defending them tbh but my point is that the Royals are still banking on both wealth and respect based on quite literally the _idea _of having royal blood in their veins and at this point in time I really think that individuals should move away from convincing themselves that they deserve _any _respect simply because of that. 

If we want to extol "Respect" culture, then we should always ask ourselves the question: "What makes someone innately worthy of respect?" 

I believe in the innate value of humanity and then one builds on top of that. 

I'm from the revolutionary class of society. Therefore within my class, the discussions around how the culture of superiority creates blind spots to individuals by the elite has always been something of a very normal discussion.

My family was heavily involved in the partition and my grandfather was involved in several high levels of government. My grandmother met the Queen of England and she greeted the Queen in Urdu because she couldn't speak english .. So as a family, we have always heavily identified with not maintaining class/caste structures and have tried to break them down whenever possible. 

My grandfather was a diplomat. My father was a student revolutionary during the Bhutto era and then I was less active (but still on the streets) lending my support to the mini revolt against Musharraf. I was a writer for a newspaper when that revolution happened and I was made in charge of hiding the channels' broadcast equipment .. Fun times. 

Anyways, the point why I bring this up is because imo having been from a colonized class, I have seen the toxicity of the British Empire as well as its positives. There were positives for sure. I've talked about them in other threads, but at the same time, the british imperial mindset remains pervasive and intrusive in our culture to this day where this sahib culture is still used to create a class-based society where some lives are considered to be worth less than others. It annoys me. 

So when I see the Royals who sit on their thrones, absolved of the crimes of the monarchy against millions of people (speaking mainly of Indians), I don't see them as anything but oppressors.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

Reap said:


> Eh. The Kardashians have plenty of charities as well (scandoulous and mainly for PR ... but can't the same be said for the royals?) :shrug ...
> 
> Fuck me for defending them tbh but my point is that the Royals are still banking on both wealth and respect based on quite literally the _idea _of having royal blood in their veins and at this point in time I really think that individuals should move away from convincing themselves that they deserve _any _respect simply because of that.
> 
> If we want to extol "Respect" culture, then we should always ask ourselves the question: "What makes someone innately worthy of respect?"
> 
> I believe in the innate value of humanity and then one builds on top of that.
> 
> I'm from the revolutionary class of society. Therefore within my class, the discussions around how the culture of superiority creates blind spots to individuals by the elite has always been something of a very normal discussion.
> 
> My family was heavily involved in the partition and my grandfather was involved in several high levels of government. My grandmother met the Queen of England and she greeted the Queen in Urdu because she couldn't speak english .. So as a family, we have always heavily identified with not maintaining class/caste structures and have tried to break them down whenever possible.
> 
> My grandfather was a diplomat. My father was a student revolutionary during the Bhutto era and then I was less active (but still on the streets) lending my support to the mini revolt against Musharraf. I was a writer for a newspaper when that revolution happened and I was made in charge of hiding the channels' broadcast equipment .. Fun times.
> 
> Anyways, the point why I bring this up is because imo having been from a colonized class, I have seen the toxicity of the British Empire as well as its positives. There were positives for sure. I've talked about them in other threads, but at the same time, the british imperial mindset remains pervasive and intrusive in our culture to this day where this sahib culture is still used to create a class-based society where some lives are considered to be worth less than others. It annoys me.
> 
> So when I see the Royals who sit on their thrones, absolved of the crimes of the monarchy against millions of people, I don't see them as anything but oppressors.


tl;dr! :lol only kidding

Sounds like your family has had a pretty interesting life.

Going back to your point about respect, I think if you look at the younger royals they seem to have a different attitude and mindset than the traditional royals. People like William and Harry really seem like they give a shit about people. There aren't the usual airs and graces that are commonly associated with the royals. I'm not sure if you've seen the clip of Harry in the crowd at the Invictus Games one year, he's talking to someone in the crowd and a little girl next to him keeps leaning over and stealing his popcorn. He catches her and there is this lovely moment of genuine human interaction ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z3cp_Mh8bA ). These sorts of things are not usually associated with the royals and it's refreshing to see the next generation changing things. I would imagine their mother is a major factor in why they are the way they are.

I have enjoyed our debate/conversation/chat. So refreshing for it not to devolve into a shouting match. Take it easy


----------



## Reaper

Ninja_Hedgehog said:


> tl;dr! :lol only kidding
> 
> Sounds like your family has had a pretty interesting life.
> 
> Going back to your point about respect, I think if you look at the younger royals they seem to have a different attitude and mindset than the traditional royals. People like William and Harry really seem like they give a shit about people. There aren't the usual airs and graces that are commonly associated with the royals. I'm not sure if you've seen the clip of Harry in the crowd at the Invictus Games one year, he's talking to someone in the crowd and a little girl next to him keeps leaning over and stealing his popcorn. He catches her and there is this lovely moment of genuine human interaction ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z3cp_Mh8bA ). These sorts of things are not usually associated with the royals and it's refreshing to see the next generation changing things. I would imagine their mother is a major factor in why they are the way they are.
> 
> I have enjoyed our debate/conversation/chat. Take it easy


Same. When you're a new country that has just over-thrown a hundred years of rule by the British Raj, you can't help but have that kind of life. Most Pakistanis and Indians of that era did  

I'm glad our conversation didn't devolve into useless bickering. I won't ask you to change your mind on how you see the Royals, but I think I can't make any more convincing arguments before we enter into the territory where we both sound like we're doubling down and ending up with negative gains  I just hope you'll ponder the things I've said today. 

I definitely don't hold the _current_ Royals who were born after the 30's as having any responsibility in the crimes of their forefathers. So of course, in my view the Monarchy escaped accountability of their global tyranny silently through death which is something that is fairly normal. 

Now it would be interesting if the current Royals ever came out and acknowledge the sins of their fathers, but it's fine if they don't. I think that our opposition in where we come from gives us a completely different perspective on the British Monarchy and I acknowledge that. 

Hopefully as @Britland said though, the Monarchy is simply abolished, and the Royals are convinced to live our their lives in peace and away from any position of power or influence.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

Reap said:


> Same. When you're a new country that has just over-thrown a hundred years of rule by the British Raj, you can't help but have that kind of life. Most Pakistanis and Indians of that era did
> 
> I'm glad our conversation didn't devolve into useless bickering. I won't ask you to change your mind on how you see the Royals, but I think I can't make any more convincing arguments before we enter into the territory where we both sound like we're doubling down and ending up with negative gains  I just hope you'll ponder the things I've said today.
> 
> I definitely don't hold the _current_ Royals who were born after the 30's as having any responsibility in the crimes of their forefathers. So of course, in my view the Monarchy escaped accountability of their global tyranny silently through death which is something that is fairly normal.
> 
> *Now it would be interesting if the current Royals ever came out and acknowledge the sins of their fathers, but it's fine if they don't.* I think that our opposition in where we come from gives us a completely different perspective on the British Monarchy and I acknowledge that.
> 
> Hopefully as @Britland said though, the Monarchy is simply abolished, and the Royals are convinced to live our their lives in peace and away from any position of power or influence.


Sadly, unlikely to happen. Very few people ever own up to mistakes of the past, royal or otherwise :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

If Charles doesn't abdicate then I can see quite a few calls for getting rid of them. However I think William is still highly respected enough, like the queen, to allay any calls for it.

I actually enjoy the pomp and ceremony but I don't have anything against getting rid either. They'll still be filthy rich though.


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog

draykorinee said:


> If Charles doesn't abdicate then I can see quite a few calls for getting rid of them. However I think William is still highly respected enough, like the queen, to allay any calls for it.
> 
> I actually enjoy the pomp and ceremony but I don't have anything against getting rid either. They'll still be filthy rich though.


Would be beyond hilarious if Charles does get passed over. He's waited SO LONG to be King but very few people would want him instead of William :lol


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> If Charles doesn't abdicate then I can see quite a few calls for getting rid of them. However I think William is still highly respected enough, like the queen, to allay any calls for it.
> 
> I actually enjoy the pomp and ceremony but I don't have anything against getting rid either. They'll still be filthy rich though.


I am curious though to know just how many people actually realize just how much power the Royals still have in a Kingdom that still doesn't have a constitution  

Are the Royals really powerless? Are they really apolitical? Are they really "benevolent". These are questions that can be raised despite the fact that we've had a generation of popular Royals.


----------



## DOPA

BRITLAND said:


> I thought The Mirror was republican? One of their biggest editors Kevin Maguire is definitely a huge republican. In fact most left leaning papers like The Guardian are republican. Most people are just looking to have a moan and dig at Trump tbh. Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, the leaders of the left in the UK are also republicans.


The day after the anti-Trump protests, the Mirror on their front page had a picture of Trump sitting in the chair of Winston Churchill and essentially had a bunch of virtue signalling points as their headline, one of them being "You insulted our Queen". This coming from as you have already stated, a paper which is Republican in nature and does not like the monarchy. It is also a paper which to a certain extent criticizes British history, culture, traditions and values (though not nearly as much as the Guardian for example). Yet as soon as someone like Donald Trump comes along who they despise, they are willing to give up all their principles in order to criticize Trump over the most stupid of things.

It's not just the virtue signalling but the lack of principle which I find incredibly amusing. It shows the amount of partisan hacks there are around when it comes to Donald Trump. If you have to be a hypocrite and not live up to your own ideals because you hate someone that much then there is something wrong with you.

I say this by the way as someone who is not opposed to anti-monarchical arguments. I'm neither for or against the monarchy and I can sympathize with some of the arguments against them. 




BRITLAND said:


> The only folk that I can seriously see being upset are the patriotic baby boomers who have the most affection for the monarchy (and to a lesser extent middle age housewives in middle England who like the weddings and babies).


Agreed.



BRITLAND said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if the monarchy is abolished sometime after the death of Elizabeth II. Charles and Camilla aren't anywhere near as popular as she is and certainly won't fill her boots. Australia will likely be a republic by then too and probably Canada, New Zealand and wherever else after her death.


While it's true that Charles and Camilla are not popular at all, the next generation after, those being William, Harry and their spouses are pretty damn popular in their own right. Plus I reckon once Elizabeth II finally passes, Charles won't be on the throne long before he's gone too. He's already pretty damn old himself.

The monarchy is so entwined into British tradition, history and culture that I just can't see it being turned over night. Though I won't dismiss your prediction outright because it is true that younger generations, mine and below don't really care as much about the monarchy as those in the past. There are some, particularly on the left who want the monarchy completely abolished but most people are just apathetic on the whole and that may be enough for Republican hardliners to get their wish.


----------



## DOPA

@CamillePunk @DesolationRow @Vic Capri @Miss Sally @Tater @Reap @Rozalia @virus21 











Tucker and Dore both absolutely nailed this.


----------



## CamillePunk

Sad that our president has to back down on a peace-over-politics approach to foreign policy. The left and the torch-bearers of the Iraq War find themselves in full alignment here.

This nation doesn't deserve Trump. On that, I guess we can all agree.


----------



## Rozalia

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/james-gunn-exits-guardians-galaxy-vol-3-1128786



> The move comes after conservative personalities resurfaced old tweets Thursday in which the filmmaker joked about controversial topics such as pedophilia and rape. Gunn has been an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump.


Isn't it odd how so many of Trump's enemies who make grand hyperbolic statements about him turn out to be pieces of garbage... almost like they know they are and are trying to virtue signal to convince others but most importantly themselves that they are good people... and you're a really good person if you're opposing LITERALLY HITLER right? Interesting.



DOPA said:


> Tucker and Dore both absolutely nailed this.


What is incredible is such reasoned and calm talk will be thrown off as mad ramblings by people who can't see how possessed they are.

We have people who used to profess they were against the "mad neo-cons" joining hands with them.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> I am curious though to know just how many people actually realize just how much power the Royals still have in a Kingdom that still doesn't have a constitution
> 
> Are the Royals really powerless? Are they really apolitical? Are they really "benevolent". These are questions that can be raised despite the fact that we've had a generation of popular Royals.


Well, a family that privately owns that much property (outside of the crown estate which is itself pretty ridiculous) and who can get an invite into any world leader's place of residence with relative ease SURELY can't have that much power, right? /sarcasm.

I think people vastly underestimate what the Royals actually do wield from a political standpoint - we've been run by Parliament for centuries, and yet until the current monarch very few people considered the Royals to be purely ceremonial in operation. I think there's a lot the Queen and her family do that people simply don't realise because on paper they have a ceremonial position, and that's before we even get to the seriously potent effect the Royals can have on public opinion. So the Queen, who was raised to rule in a family with centuries of astute politicians and literally the best education money can buy is just some little old lady who has no opinions and doesn't remotely utilise any of that knowledge and the influence she can wield on behalf of her country? I'm very dubious at that assertion myself. There's been numerous evidence over the years that the Queen still has a hand in running things, often coming directly from the politicians who've worked and interacted with the old dear along the way. 

In general though, I'm indifferent to the monarchy. I like William and Harry as people, from the evidence I've seen (and that might be more than some) they're both great people who genuinely care about the world. I think they serve their purpose, and plenty of die-hard patriots seem to love them so that's good for them I guess. I'd prefer a republic myself, however, I'm not going to sweat that much over it. Either way I'm still not in a group where the government are particularly looking after my interests. 

P.S: The Queen would definitely negotiate Brexit better than May or Corbyn would - our Liz don't play. >


----------



## Vic Capri

> Isn't it odd how so many of Trump's enemies who make grand hyperbolic statements about him turn out to be pieces of garbage... almost like they know they are and are trying to virtue signal to convince others but most importantly themselves that they are good people... and you're a really good person if you're opposing LITERALLY HITLER right? Interesting.


It seems like the people who virtue signal the loudest have the most to hide.

- Vic


----------



## virus21

Vic Capri said:


> It seems like the people who virtue signal the loudest have the most to hide.
> 
> - Vic


We learned that in the 80s and 90s with the Mega Church pastors and televangelists


----------



## Rozalia

virus21 said:


> We learned that in the 80s and 90s with the Mega Church pastors and televangelists


That is a good point. Especially as the church of progressivism are the new priests telling everybody they're sinners and should follow the church's teachings to rid themselves of sin.

Then there is white people and their "original sin", another church concept, even though black people in places like in America are likely connected to these slavers of old (rape) than many whites whose families moved to the country after after all that slave business ended. And I say at the risk of punishment as I know someone here doesn't want to hear such things.

It's all quite funny. As someone who from a young age was against censorship and such overbearing so called morality I thought that when the religious lost their power and became discredited that it would end. Little would I know that they would simply be replaced by the priests of the left. An even more contemptible sort. More to it of course but it is like we traded homophobe priests for racist priests. Sad.



Vic Capri said:


> It seems like the people who virtue signal the loudest have the most to hide.
> 
> - Vic


Quite right. "I'm for minorities, I'm a progressive" may as well be a flashing light on your head saying that you're a racist. Same with men who say are feminists and respect women, and then are found to be sex offenders.


----------



## Stephen90

Speaking of Trump supporters


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Stephen90 said:


> Speaking of Trump supporters


For real though, I can't be the only one who thinks she needs to seek some medical help surely? If she's a totally sane person with no mental health issues I'd be VERY shocked.


----------



## CamillePunk

I believe her. Don't think she meant to be racist at all. Her record is pretty good when it comes to promoting anti-racism.

I really wish they weren't dropping her from the new season of the show. The latest one was really good.


----------



## Draykorinee

She cant be racist, she has a black friend.


----------



## Tater

Reap said:


> Well ... it's obvious why they can't do that.
> 
> No corporation would allow such bills to pass ... and considering that lobbying is both alive and well, the bills are prepaid for anyways.


People don't want to admit it but this is the exact definition of fascism. Private corporations and public government are in bed together. It's a codependent authoritarian right wing relationship.



DOPA said:


> @CamillePunk @DesolationRow @Vic Capri @Miss Sally @Tater @Reap @Rozalia @virus21
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tucker and Dore both absolutely nailed this.


You know we are living in strange times when Tucker fucking Carlson and Jimmy Dore are on the same page on anything.


----------



## Stephen90

RavishingRickRules said:


> For real though, I can't be the only one who thinks she needs to seek some medical help surely? If she's a totally sane person with no mental health issues I'd be VERY shocked.


She needs to take responsibility like Hogan did. I believe she would have been forgiven like Hogan is. Instead she just rather dig her hole deeper.


----------



## Rozalia

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1020642287725043712

What a legend!

Deep State: We will work hard to uncover things on Trump to bring him down... ha ha... Trump had sex with porn stars!
Trump supporter: Rich business man has sex with pornstars and models, why we've never heard of that idiots. Trump living the dream. What a man.

What next for these jokers? Are they going to report that Trump likes anal sex with women? I can see the stories now. "Why sex up the ass should be reserved just for gay men. Trump shows what a homophobe he is for appropriating this act", "How anal sex represents white supremacy", "Trump having anal sex is yet another sign he is unfit for the presidency and needs to be impeached", and of course "What is anal sex? A CNN report".



Tater said:


> People don't want to admit it but this is the exact definition of fascism. Private corporations and public government are in bed together. It's a codependent authoritarian right wing relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> You know we are living in strange times when Tucker fucking Carlson and Jimmy Dore are on the same page on anything.


Well... I do believe fascism requires in that tango to be the government to be the one actually in charge. If business is in charge then it is simply an oligarchy or some sort of Corporate system. 



draykorinee said:


> She cant be racist, she has a black friend.


Mocking the black friend statement is so 2008. Get with the times, mocking someone when they say they have had many relations with black lovers is the thing to do in this era.


----------



## DOPA




----------



## BRITLAND

Reap said:


> I am curious though to know just how many people actually realize just how much power the Royals still have in a Kingdom that still doesn't have a constitution
> 
> Are the Royals really powerless? Are they really apolitical? Are they really "benevolent". These are questions that can be raised despite the fact that we've had a generation of popular Royals.


Charles Windsor, next in line to the throne is notorious for lobbying on various affairs from climate change to education, known as the 'black spider memos'. A former Attorney General Dominic Grieve refused to release these claiming "would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch because, if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king". 

It even has its own Wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_spider_memos

Prince Charles admits he lobbied Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond over Teach First (education is meant to be responsibility of the Scottish Government and Parliament, UK level figures shouldn't really interfere in the matter, not least a royal who is meant to be impartial)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...mits-he-lobbied-alex-salmond-over-teach-first

Prince Charles 'lobbied for climate policy change without disclosing offshore financial interest'
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...shore-finances-money-investment-a8042736.html

The Monarch technically has the power to VETO, I know it sound silly but I wouldn't be surprised if in some point in the late 2020s-2050s a King Charles III actually vetoed bills. 

There's also Prince Andrew, brother to Charles and 8th in line who has an entire history of dodgy affairs from using his position as a UK trade representative to boost arms sales to unpleasant governments and allegations of sex abuse. 



DOPA said:


> While it's true that Charles and Camilla are not popular at all, the next generation after, those being William, Harry and their spouses are pretty damn popular in their own right. Plus I reckon once Elizabeth II finally passes, Charles won't be on the throne long before he's gone too. He's already pretty damn old himself.


As a future predictions geek I've always made the prediction that Elizabeth II will pass away in 2027 or at least around that time frame, by then Charles will be around 80 but I can see him having the gig for a good 25 years as the royals tend to live pretty long lives compared to most of us plebs. 

I can see it going either way in the UK I guess and I do predict it will become a bigger debate when the younger generations get a bigger role in politics but I'm fairly confident that Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica and Papua New Guinea will become republics during the reign of Charles. Scotland too if it were to become independent in the next 10-15 years or so but that's for another debate.



RavishingRickRules said:


> In general though, I'm indifferent to the monarchy. I like William and Harry as people, from the evidence I've seen (and that might be more than some) they're both great people who genuinely care about the world. I think they serve their purpose, and plenty of die-hard patriots seem to love them so that's good for them I guess. I'd prefer a republic myself, however, I'm not going to sweat that much over it. Either way I'm still not in a group where the government are particularly looking after my interests.


I've always got the sense of arrogance from the royals and a little entitlement too (Charles in particular). Not that I have any strong hate for William and Harry, I'm just not fond of the concept of having a royal family who by right of birth will hold prestigious roles, act as national ambassadors, go to private schools, private healthcare etc. They also vetoed having Buckingham Palace open to tourists for more times during the year despite the fact the royals are rarely at the Palace and if so only are for work duties. That and the fact that isn't their private property but state property, they have plenty of privately owned properties such as their Balmoral estate in Aberdeenshire. Also not keen on the idea of them having their own chefs etc paid by the taxpayer. I understand things like advisors and security but not personal chefs and pot cleaners ffs.


----------



## DesolationRow

@DOPA; thank you for the mentions to watch the inimitable Tucker Carlson! 

Bernie Sanders somehow never disappoints in being disappointing. 


A short-lived discussion pertaining to monarchy was had here not too many posts ago so I thought that I would chime in with a few thoughts on that form of government:

Firstly, of course, monarchy in the twenty-first century is something that in the West, certainly, is limited to largely symbolic roles and only seems visited upon in the outermost reaches of given polities' administrative or managerial spheres. The last one hundred years since the Great War have represented a century of moving away from monarchical and dynastic rule, and that century only represented a further acceleration following a long twilight exhibit of waning monarchical power for a fair number of generations.

To quote British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, "The tendency of an advanced civilization is in truth Monarchy. Monarchy is indeed a government which requires a high degree of civilization for its full development. ...An educated nation recoils from the imperfect vicariate of what is called representative government." 

It is perhaps only coincidental that one quotes Disraeli, who led English conservatives around the bend and back again and once the entire process was through the party apparatchiks could only be so pleased as his Machiavellian cunning. Rewinding the civilizational clock back quite a bit Plato and his disciple Aristotle were staunch monarchists. One hundred years into the Athenian relaunching of democracy Aristotle found himself in exile to escape the fate of Socrates but he also observed that monarchy, aristocracy and democracy are in homogeneous populations of reasonably intelligent people, easily molded to work rather well or poorly. Likewise, St. Thomas Aquinas argued rather persuasively that a regulated democracy was the least poor among the three evil forms of government, with ochlocracy and tyranny being markedly worse. It should also be noted that tyranny as it was understood as a concept for thousands upon thousands of years simply meant the ruling over of a population by an intrinsically alien, foreign power. 

Polybius found himself both agreeing with and dramatically expanding upon Plato's thesis which stated that democracy rather naturally and sometimes quickly mutates into dictatorship or tyranny. Polybius posited the theory of an _anakyklosis_ or a natural spherical evolutionary process which chronicles the seedling of monarchy becoming the burgeoning life form of aristocracy, with aristocracy giving way to democracy and democracy inevitably leading to dictatorship or tyranny. Books VIII and IX of Plato's _Republic_ are somewhat eerie in that they almost indelibly and perfectly match up in describing the transformation of Otto von Bismarck's Germany to the imperial power to the Weimar Republic to National Socialist "hyper-state" in the managerial sense. 

Tacitus recognized with almost auspicious consideration just how Rome moved from republicanism to Caesarism--his writings again and again demonstrably signpost the curious transmutation as Aristotle may have called it. 

One of the keenest strengths of monarchism historically has been the gulf engendered between subjects and heads of state or monarchs. It is easy to argue on behalf of the problems embedded in monarchies gone wrong; at their worst, for instance, kings threw whole armies into one another on the field of combat for sport. Where monarchism displays a certain advantageous quality is when it is a recurring political theme. By the late 1900s the only native European dynastic houses were the Karagjogjevic in Serbia and the Petrovic-Njegos in Montenegro. The Holstein-Gattorps were ruling in Russia, the Bourbons ruled in Spain. The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha ruled in Saxe-Courg, Great Britain, Belgium, Bulgaria and Portugal while the Alemannic Hohenzollerns ruled in Prussia and Rumania. The Netherlands and Luxemburg were ruled over by the Nassaus. The Swiss-Lotharingian Hapsburgs ruled in Austria-Hungary. The French Savoys ruled in Italy. Denmark, Greece and Norway were ruled over by Sonderburg-Glicksburg-Augustenburgs. As we review the conduct of monarchs in the latter half of the nineteenth century in Europe we repeatedly see magnanimity and kindness toward one another and one another's subjects. For instance, the soundly defeated Napoleon III dined as a prisoner with William I of Bismarck and Prussia in the Wilhelmshohe Castle in 1870. This is diametrically opposed to what occurred in the twentieth century: beyond the igniting of fervently nationalistic regimes divorced from the constraints of vaguely gentlemanly behavior and mutual stewards of respective groups of subjects, as the letters between houses in the 1860s, 1870s, 1880s, etc. frequently display, including between the British and Russian monarchs while engaged in their often brutal "Great Game" in South Asia or the almost naively sweet correspondences between the eldest grandson of Great Britain's Queen Victoria, German Kaiser Wilhelm II, and his British "cousins" or the "Willy-Nicky" correspondences between Wilhelm II and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. By 1917-'18, the entire complexion of European statecraft takes on a much colder air, with darker, murkier hues. The British refused to grant asylum to the Russian Imperial family as it was becoming clear what that family's fate would be without intervention, for instance. 

As Bertrand de Jouvenel noted in _On Power_, "The mistake is one which was exposed in advance by Montesquieu: 'As it is a feature of democracies that to all appearance the people does almost exactly as it wishes men have supposed that democratic governments were the abiding-place of liberty: they confused the power of the people with the liberty of the people.' This confusion of thought is at the root of modern despotism." Indeed, American revolutionary Thomas Jefferson wrote not infrequently of the dangers of an "elective despotism" in the future of the American republican experiment. 

Monarchism benefits primarily due to the autonomy of the form of government. An honest king, having soaked up knowledge, information, the ways of statecraft and gleaning pieces of advice from a master of coin or any number of other positions. Not owing their place to a particular faction or political party, a powerful interest group or even a loosely-coordinated class, the monarch constitutes a kind of bulwark against certain pitfalls (while admittedly opening up some others, though they tend to be considerably less routine historically). Monarchs are free, with only some mitigation, historically, to stand out on the stage before their own subjects and supersede quotidian political considerations. Democracies tend to be politically tumultuous animals, and when first-term presidents in the U.S., for instance, are always having to look over their shoulders to survey their poll numbers and approval ratings, troubles both domestically and abroad may mount. (One reason why Donald Trump's statement--"I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics..."--concerning attempts to oversee a rapprochement of some kind with Russia was so delicious.)

The careful and judicious monarch, then, is empowered to plan for generations, not for the next election cycle or to keep their approval rating above a certain mark. Monarchies and to a lesser extent aristocracies also have lifelines in the way that monarchs and aristocrats may see to the betterment of their country or nation in the way a father is to provide and care for the nurturing and growth of a child. Indeed, monarchs and aristocrats with children generally looked at the continued development and success of their states as being intertwined with their children's future. The Calvinist argument to mind one's garden can be applied to the dynastic care-taking of a state. 

Of course it did not always work out that way. Such is the fallen world of man. However, when we speak of governments, it may behoove us to recall the measured but tender words of monarchist Charles Marraus, "_Le mondre mal. La possibilite du bien._." (Missing the accent mark at the moment.) Or, "The least evil. The possibility of something good."


----------



## Vic Capri

https://www.thewrap.com/usa-today-drops-columnist-cheri-jacobus-tweet-convicted-pedophile-jeffrey-epstein/

Justice.

- Vic


----------



## Rozalia

DOPA said:


>


I knew the moment he got wrecked by those two BLK women that he was a weakling. Of course he would then go on to kiss Clinton's feet. He'd need a spine to tell Clinton to piss off, something he doesn't have, and the Bernie people think this pathetic disgrace can stand up to the powers that be.



Vic Capri said:


> https://www.thewrap.com/usa-today-drops-columnist-cheri-jacobus-tweet-convicted-pedophile-jeffrey-epstein/
> 
> Justice.
> 
> - Vic


Wasn't just the child molestation thing either. She hoped black women who supported Trump would get caught by the KKK.


----------



## DesolationRow

Meanwhile, Ecuador appears to be set to annul their asylum protection for Julian Assange. He will be processed to the custody of the British government unless another country's government grants him asylum.


----------



## Vic Capri

Wow...

- Vic


----------



## DesolationRow

Cheri Jacobus told black women, "I hope you get caught by the KKK"? Because they were supporting Donald Trump? That is one contumelious and deranged statement.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

BRITLAND said:


> I've always got the sense of arrogance from the royals and a little entitlement too (Charles in particular). Not that I have any strong hate for William and Harry, I'm just not fond of the concept of having a royal family who by *right of birth will hold prestigious roles, act as national ambassadors, go to private schools, private healthcare etc.* They also vetoed having Buckingham Palace open to tourists for more times during the year despite the fact the royals are rarely at the Palace and if so only are for work duties. That and the fact that isn't their private property but state property, they have plenty of privately owned properties such as their Balmoral estate in Aberdeenshire. Also not keen on the idea of them having their own chefs etc paid by the taxpayer. I understand things like advisors and security but not personal chefs and pot cleaners ffs.


You might want to quit the world then tbh, royal or not that's how it works. The vast majority of people in those prestigious roles come from wealthy political families who've also held similar roles. The majority of students at the best schools in the country are related to former students of those schools. Private healthcare anybody can have tbh, you just have to afford it. Like I say though, privilege of birth is alive and well and will remain live and well regardless of whether the nobility are the nobility or just the wealthiest people in the country. If you remove noble status, you still have a group of people who've owned vast holdings of real estate for centuries and had as much time to build up their considerable wealth. The top schools will still be full of those people, as will the government. Basically you remove the status and you get a bunch of David Camerons the man so close to nobility they call him Upper-upper-middle class because he's essentially nobility in all but name (descended from a Royal bastard.)


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> Cheri Jacobus told black women, "I hope you get caught by the KKK"? Because they were supporting Donald Trump? That is one contumelious and deranged statement.


It's like I keep telling people who think these Political/Ideological Zealots can be "Allies", you simply cannot trust them, they'll turn on you in a flash, they say they're anti-racist until you don't go with what their world view is and then they show their true racist colors. These people are not your allies.


----------



## BRITLAND

RavishingRickRules said:


> You might want to quit the world then


I already decided that a long time ago, I just don't have the guts to pull the trigger :mj2


----------



## Tag89

this feels appropriate


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Imagine getting angry at Trump for befriending Putin, after the last 100 years of world history, where the rivalry between US and Russia caused crisis after crisis.

Especially the EU and Germany need to shut up. A potential war between Russia and the US would be fought in Europe, nowhere else.

Cretins.
Utter. Cretins.


----------



## Rozalia

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/21/trump-putin-kissing-homophobic-queer-joke

All of you who post this Putin/Trump love stuff may not have taken it on board when I said it, but they're giving you your marching orders now. The priests have spoken and you better bow.


----------



## CamillePunk

Better to have gay murals of Trump and Putin than to have hostility between nuclear powers.


----------



## Sincere

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> Imagine getting angry at Trump for befriending Putin, after the last 100 years of world history, where the rivalry between US and Russia caused crisis after crisis.
> 
> Especially the EU and Germany need to shut up. A potential war between Russia and the US would be fought in Europe, nowhere else.
> 
> Cretins.
> Utter. Cretins.


----------



## FITZ

Let's be honest. If there were no people left alive on earth today it would be because of Russia and the US going to war with each other. 

I'm not going to be naive and say that Russia is our best friend and wants what's best for us. But not provoking them into war is certainly a positive.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Yeah nothing wrong with better relations imo. With the caveat that Putin is a former KGB agent and shouldn't be trusted as far as you can throw him.


----------



## dele

Rozalia said:


> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1020642287725043712
> 
> What a legend!
> 
> Deep State: We will work hard to uncover things on Trump to bring him down... ha ha... Trump had sex with porn stars!
> Trump supporter: Rich business man has sex with pornstars and models, why we've never heard of that idiots. Trump living the dream. What a man.
> 
> What next for these jokers? Are they going to report that Trump likes anal sex with women? I can see the stories now. "Why sex up the ass should be reserved just for gay men. Trump shows what a homophobe he is for appropriating this act", "How anal sex represents white supremacy", "Trump having anal sex is yet another sign he is unfit for the presidency and needs to be impeached", and of course "What is anal sex? A CNN report".


The problem isn't that he fucked a porn star. As with many entanglements of the Donald, it's about where the money came from. If he used campaign funds as his own piggy bank (spoiler alert: he did) to pay off people and to enrich himself and his family (again, spoiler alert: he did) that is a major problem.



Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> Imagine getting angry at Trump for befriending Putin, after the last 100 years of world history, where the rivalry between US and Russia caused crisis after crisis.
> 
> Especially the EU and Germany need to shut up. A potential war between Russia and the US would be fought in Europe, nowhere else.
> 
> Cretins.
> Utter. Cretins.


The problem isn't the normalization of relations with Russia. That's an admirable goal. 

The problem is, given all of the shit swirling around this president regarding Russia, why is he kowtowing to Putin on the world's stage? For a guy who is so conscious about power dynamics and the appearance of looking strong and America First, why did he act so meekly to Putin? Is it because he associates any "Russian intervention" as an invalidation to his victory in 2016 (he does)? Is it because he wants help in 2018 and 2020 (he does)? Does the piss tape exist (it does)?



Sincere said:


>


Funny, Putin embarrassed and humbled every person in that meme, including Trump.


----------



## Draykorinee

Don't really care about him being best friends with Putin, just don't rubbish your intelligence staff by siding with him.


----------



## Rozalia

dele said:


> The problem isn't that he fucked a porn star. As with many entanglements of the Donald, it's about where the money came from. If he used campaign funds as his own piggy bank (spoiler alert: he did) to pay off people and to enrich himself and his family (again, spoiler alert: he did) that is a major problem.
> 
> The problem isn't the normalization of relations with Russia. That's an admirable goal.
> 
> The problem is, given all of the shit swirling around this president regarding Russia, why is he kowtowing to Putin on the world's stage? For a guy who is so conscious about power dynamics and the appearance of looking strong and America First, why did he act so meekly to Putin? Is it because he associates any "Russian intervention" as an invalidation to his victory in 2016 (he does)? Is it because he wants help in 2018 and 2020 (he does)? Does the piss tape exist (it does)?
> 
> Funny, Putin embarrassed and humbled every person in that meme, including Trump.


You seem to think you can confirm a lot of things. You can't so they logically default to no, not yes. According to Giuliani Trump funnelled some money to pay Cohen to repay the amount of money used which is all perfectly legal.

Second, in no way could his campaign be characterised as him trying to enrich himself or his family. He has had something like a billion wiped off his wealth at this point. Politics are divisive, divisiveness, even if you were to be correct, is bad for business. This is why businessmen buy politicians instead of ruling directly. 

Thirdly, you have no grasp of such actual dynamics if you think it means that you have to punch everyone you meet in the face, "to appear strong". As Trump has shown, he treats everyone nicely when he meets with them. He'll have some convo, they'll trade saying they're both the best, and all good. The likes of Putin, having a brain leaves it there. Guys like Justin Castro will the moment they're out of the room start talking that Trump is a bad bad man who needs to be opposed. A man respects another man, a man does not respect little punks who will kiss your arse in fear when you're around and then later when you are gone badmouth you.

Finally. The piss tape? Just absurd. The "dossier" as known is nonsense put together, no evidence but apparently if a spy puts something down in a paper we have to believe it's true, such people wouldn't just make stuff up... of course not. Not that Trump hasn't pissed over something of Obama's of course, his legacy, you got that if that counts. Obama shouldn't have insulted Trump that one time at that dinner.



draykorinee said:


> Don't really care about him being best friends with Putin, just don't rubbish your intelligence staff by siding with him.


Never question the spy bureaucrats. Remember Iraq and it's WMDS and other nonsense? Never. Question.

They are made of humans. Humans have the capacity to be corrupt. Many of these top officials from those agencies we have seen have shown an obvious bias and hatred of Donald Trump. That is why if he doesn't trust them that he doesn't, not that he is some secret agent the Soviet Union put together way back when, but that he knows a lot of the bastards in there are actively working against him. Would you trust someone working against you and would love to hurt you by getting you into some messy war? If you say yes to that then just forget the above and just pledge allegiance to the Spy bureaucrats as clearly you think they should be the masters of the country.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Don't really care about him being best friends with Putin, just don't rubbish your intelligence staff by siding with him.


I don't like the conspiracy theory stuff. I don't like Trump anymore. But shitting on the intelligence agencies is something every American should get behind. In just 2 years there have been several security lapses internally that have led to mass shootings. 

This is also the same intelligence community that has overthrown dozens of governments in the world, helped create Al Qaeda, funded several islamist terrorist groups and is pursuing a strategy that is undermining the presidency. 

He can shit on them all he wants.


----------



## Draykorinee

Did I say you can't shit on the intelligence agencies? 

Just don't shit on them in favor of the Russians on the basis of what Putin says.

Let's not create strawman arguments.


----------



## Rozalia

draykorinee said:


> Did I say you can't shit on the intelligence agencies?
> 
> Just don't shit on them in favor of the Russians on the basis of what Putin says.
> 
> Let's not create strawman arguments.


"Just don't shit on them in favor of the Iraqis on the basis of what Saddam says."
"Just don't shit on them in favor of the Libyans on the basis of what Gaddafi says."

So on.


----------



## CamillePunk

could've had all this if we could've just gotten past her damn e-mails!

She's gonna run in 2020 and it's gonna be hilarious.


----------



## CamillePunk

@DOPA @DesolationRow

Well since we don't have a political correctness thread anymore I guess I'll post this in here. :lol

Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux interviewed by Sky News in Australia about the mass murdering of farmers in South Africa, as well as the racial differences in IQ and why nobody wants to talk about it:


----------



## Reaper

:mj4













And this is for my British friends  










Last one:


----------



## CamillePunk

I'd watch that show.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> could've had all this if we could've just gotten past her damn e-mails!
> 
> She's gonna run in 2020 and it's gonna be hilarious.


If Hillary is the Dem nominee in 2020, I will actively be rooting for Trump to win, no matter how much of a piece of shit he is, that psycho cunt never needs to be sitting in the WH.



Reap said:


> I don't like the conspiracy theory stuff. I don't like Trump anymore. But *shitting on the intelligence agencies is something every American should get behind.* In just 2 years there have been several security lapses internally that have led to mass shootings.
> 
> This is also the same intelligence community that has overthrown dozens of governments in the world, helped create Al Qaeda, funded several islamist terrorist groups and is pursuing a strategy that is undermining the presidency.
> 
> He can shit on them all he wants.





draykorinee said:


> Did I say you can't shit on the intelligence agencies?
> 
> Just don't shit on them in favor of the Russians on the basis of what Putin says.
> 
> Let's not create strawman arguments.


Reaper is correct. The so called intelligence community deserves to be shat on, regardless of how shitty Trump is as president.


----------



## yeahbaby!

What's really the point about speculating the current Trump-Russia situation when he doesn't have the guts to back up what he said in Helsinki THE DAY AFTER with that 'would - wouldn't' bullshit? Has that already been forgotten? 

I'd understand that from someone who's been learning english for a week, but not the POTUS who by his own admission is a great negotiator and 'has all the best words'.

Trump changes with the wind and can't be trusted - does he need to literally shit in his supporter's mouths before they wake up?


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1021180629625573376
His own party is abandoning him though!


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1021180629625573376
> His own party is abandoning him though!


Of the Republicans on this list, Ike is the only one I have real respect for.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Well since we don't have a political correctness thread anymore I guess I'll post this in here.


Truth hurts.

- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> @DOPA @DesolationRow
> 
> Well since we don't have a political correctness thread anymore I guess I'll post this in here. :lol
> 
> Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux interviewed by Sky News in Australia about the mass murdering of farmers in South Africa, as well as the racial differences in IQ and why nobody wants to talk about it:


Lol at Bolt basically fellating them both by joining in on the 'The Left' blaming party while throwing in a few fluffy 'challenges', but you should probably know he's basically considered a right wing clickbait joke of a journalist who's actually been found guilty of racial discrimination in the past.

An impartial objective interview this was not.


----------



## Slickback

Heck yea! :trump


*DON'T FUCK WITH THE DONALD *


----------



## CamillePunk

Oh no he's gonna get all the people who were attacking him for not "standing up for the US" to criticize him for literally standing up for the US :lmao the absolute madman


----------



## Kiz

nothing screams sanity like caps lock on twitter


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Oh no he's gonna get all the people who were attacking him for not "standing up for the US" to criticize him for literally standing up for the US :lmao the absolute madman


I'm almost 100% sure this will happen because these people cannot make up their minds on what they want. I am going to enjoy the laugh I get from the people flip flopping on this. :grin2:



yeahbaby! said:


> Lol at Bolt basically fellating them both by joining in on the 'The Left' blaming party while throwing in a few fluffy 'challenges', but you should probably know he's basically considered a right wing clickbait joke of a journalist who's actually been found guilty of racial discrimination in the past.
> 
> An impartial objective interview this was not.


Is there really any sort of objective interviews or unbiased sources for information and News now? I listen to both Left and right types, especially those who value Freedom of Speech and none of them are without some bias. I've seen people who are intelligent and well spoken people hold back on saying anything against their "side" not solely because of bias but the retribution they'll receive from their "side".

It seems if facts and statistics don't go a person's way they double down on their narrative instead of exploring as to why the facts are the facts and how to overall improve. Objective reporting needs to come back, unbiased reporting needs to come back, we need to become a society based on facts and improvement over biased and "good" rhetoric and platitudes.


----------



## Draykorinee

Tater said:


> If Hillary is the Dem nominee in 2020, I will actively be rooting for Trump to win, no matter how much of a piece of shit he is, that psycho cunt never needs to be sitting in the WH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reaper is correct. The so called intelligence community deserves to be shat on, regardless of how shitty Trump is as president.


As somebody who has constantly shat on intelligence agencies in this section I agree. I never once said you couldn't or shouldn't as a whole but he chose to ignore the investigation with a flippant comment after talking to Putin, I don't agree with that personally.


----------



## Rozalia

yeahbaby! said:


> What's really the point about speculating the current Trump-Russia situation when he doesn't have the guts to back up what he said in Helsinki THE DAY AFTER with that 'would - wouldn't' bullshit? Has that already been forgotten?
> 
> I'd understand that from someone who's been learning english for a week, but not the POTUS who by his own admission is a great negotiator and 'has all the best words'.
> 
> Trump changes with the wind and can't be trusted - does he need to literally shit in his supporter's mouths before they wake up?


So you hate him for saying X and not Y. He walks it back and says Y. You now hate him for walking back from X. If he had not you'd continue hating him for not walking back from X.

In short. This is not how you act if you want to be taken the least bit seriously. It sends out the message that you're deranged. As such in no way are you someone who can comment on Trump supporters, they can see what you are hence why people like you simply have the opposite effect. 

The hardcore Trump base thinks the spy agencies are scumbags. The more conspiracy minded also know what happened to the last president who didn't show enough respect, which was he never made it to the end of his term as his head went boom. It is very dangerous to mess with these guys, they're killers after all, and Trump's team no doubt informed him it was a fight for another time.



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1021180629625573376
> His own party is abandoning him though!


It is an attempt to take away support. You say that he is losing support, people regret giving him their vote, that he will be a loser... you don't want to support a loser do you?

Sadly for them while such things can be effective, especially on women I've read if you also make out that Trump goes against society and you'll be an outcast if you support him. This sort of thing only tends to work on "moderates", the neoliberals and such. People who are more hardcore in their views don't get affected much by this as they are scorned as losers by the enemy anyway.



CamillePunk said:


> Oh no he's gonna get all the people who were attacking him for not "standing up for the US" to criticize him for literally standing up for the US :lmao the absolute madman


This is exactly it.


----------



## Rozalia

draykorinee said:


> As somebody who has constantly shat on intelligence agencies in this section I agree. I never once said you couldn't or shouldn't as a whole but he chose to ignore the investigation with a flippant comment after talking to Putin, I don't agree with that personally.


You got wrecked, give it up. Come on, get out of the hole you dug. How is Russia different than Iraq and Libya. By your words the lies they cooked up then should not have been questioned, and indeed with Iraq those that did were slandered as being traitors.


----------



## Kiz

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/379717298296086529
:mj4

did SPACE FORCE get twitter :CENA


----------



## CamillePunk

That'll be a great tweet to point to in the event Trump actually attacks Iran.

I guess it's part of this maximum pressure campaign Pompeo was talking about:

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/W...ign-against-Iran-government-legitimacy-563158


----------



## Draykorinee

Rozalia said:


> You got wrecked, give it up. Come on, get out of the hole you dug. How is Russia different than Iraq and Libya. By your words the lies they cooked up then should not have been questioned, and indeed with Iraq those that did were slandered as being traitors.


I don't remember any president chatting to Sadam or Gadaffi and spontaneously disagreeing with his intelligence agencies and then backtracking on disagreeing with the intelligence agencies. 

You're conflating different scenarios that have no link to my concern that he took the word of another country's leader over his own intelligence agency and publicly voiced that. 

My concern is not that he shat on his own intelligence agency, he's done that a hundred times already.


----------



## Rozalia

draykorinee said:


> I don't remember any president chatting to Sadam or Gadaffi and spontaneously disagreeing with his intelligence agencies and then backtracking on disagreeing with the intelligence agencies.
> 
> You're conflating different scenarios that have no link to my concern that he took the word of another country's leader over his own intelligence agency and publicly voiced that.
> 
> My concern is not that he shat on his own intelligence agency, he's done that a hundred times already.


Exactly the point. They didn't and couldn't as then they'd be "traitors". If the spy bureaucrats tell you there are WMDs off flimsy nonsense then you better not question. You going to believe Iraq/Libya/whoever over the boys of the red, white, and blue down at the agency traitor? 

Imagine the amount of damage that could have been avoided if enough people in positions of power said, wait a bit, this doesn't seem quite right.


----------



## Draykorinee

Rozalia said:


> Imagine the amount of damage that could have been avoided if enough people in positions of power said, wait a bit, this doesn't seem quite right.


And I'm fine with this if that was based on sound evidence and not just the say-so of Putin. 

Look at the Novichok poisoning, no way in hell was that a Russian assassination attempt and I was arguing with one of my family members this weekend about it. I don't trust intelligence agencies, but I sure as hell don't trust Putin and his word either.


----------



## CamillePunk

who is saying to trust Putin I haven't seen that position being argued for by anyone


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1021197416941449219
:lol


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> who is saying to trust Putin I haven't seen that position being argued for by anyone


Don't be obtuse, Putin said Russia had no part to play in election rigging, Trump elected to chose that over his own intelligence agencies investigations. This really shouldn't need explaining.

I don't believe for a second anyone trusts Putin in this thread (Or Trump for that matter), that wasn't implied in my post anywhere..


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Don't be obtuse, Putin said Russia had no part to play in election rigging, Trump elected to chose that over his own intelligence agencies investigations. This really shouldn't need explaining.
> 
> I don't believe for a second anyone trusts Putin in this thread (Or Trump for that matter), that wasn't implied in my post anywhere..


Uhhh ... The American Intelligence Agencies have admitted very timidly that no election interference occurred. What you're regurgitating is a media driven myth and frenzy. 

https://sputniknews.com/us/201807191066489936-fbi-russia-election-meddling-trace/

Even the FBI is now trying to kill the narrative.


----------



## DesolationRow

Illuminating article: http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-23/trump-s-iran-tweet-is-revenge-for-being-snubbed



> Iran Faces the Consequences of Snubbing Trump
> 
> The U.S. president has made nice with North Korea and Putin, but keeps Iran in the firing line.
> 
> By Leonid Bershidsky
> 
> July 23, 2018, 5:57 AM PDT
> 
> Trump’s latest tweet telling Iran it would suffer “consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before” is an almost-verbatim rehash of his August 2017 threat to North Korea; then, Trump promised “fire, fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.” It’s about as serious this time around, but there’s more bad blood behind Trump’s deployment of all caps against Iran.
> 
> Trump’s tweet is a response to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s speech on Sunday, in which Rouhani warned the U.S. president not to “twist the lion’s tail.” “The Americans,” Rouhani said, need to realize that making peace with Iran is the mother of all peaces and waging war against Iran is the mother of all wars.”
> 
> Rouhani, of course, wasn’t threatening to attack the U.S. but warning it against attacking Iran. The rhetoric is not particularly different from North Korea’s, if more hollow: Iran, unlike North Korea, has no nuclear weapons and there’s no way it can hold off the U.S. conventional military might. But the Iranians make Trump madder than North Korean leader Kim Jong Un – not because they are more dangerous but because they refuse to play along with him.
> 
> Kim agreed to meet with Trump, and it made for a great TV show. That, apparently, has been more important to Trump than the substance of his country’s problem with North Korea: Though there’s been little follow-through on the nebulous agreements reached in Singapore, Trump has stopped insulting and threatening Kim on and off Twitter.
> 
> The Iranian leaders, for their part, have been adamant about not wanting to talk to Trump. The Mehr news agency, one of the Iranian regime’s international voices, reported recently, citing Rouhani’s chief of staff Mahmoud Vaezi, that Trump asked “eight times” to meet with Rouhani while the latter attended the United Nations General Assembly in New York last year but was rebuffed. The “eight times” could be a bit of poetic license, but The Washington Post, too, reported last year that Trump had been interested in a meeting and asked French President Emmanuel Macron to broker it; that didn’t work either.
> 
> Quite likely, Trump wanted to renegotiate the 2015 multilateral nuclear deal with Iran, which Trump has long held was too weak to be in U.S. interests. So the Iranian snub had consequences: In May, Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has skillfully stoked Trump’s anger by keeping his attention on Iran’s presence in Syria, where the Islamic Republic has provided boots on the ground to President Bashar Al-Assad and his ally President Vladimir Putin of Russia. And Saudi Arabia, whose leaders have worked to build a cosy relationship with Trump, has been after Trump to curb Iran’s influence in the region.
> 
> It’s probably too late now for a Singapore-style photo opportunity. Trump’s anger at Iran will continue to have consequences, perhaps not the threatened cataclysm, but unpleasant ones nonetheless.
> 
> They likely won’t be in Syria. Netanyahu is working with Putin to keep Iranian forces from the Syrian-Israeli border in the Golan Heights as the Assad troops are taking over the region. They apparently have struck an informal deal under which, if Putin fails to keep the Iranians in check, Russia will not object to Israeli strikes against Iranian military infrastructure in Syria.
> 
> Trump apparently endorsed the Russian-Israeli deal at his meeting with Putin in Helsinki. “President Putin is very much involved now with us in a discussion with Bibi Netanyahu on working something out with surrounding Syria and — Syria, and specifically with regards to the security and long-term security of Israel,” Trump said last week.
> 
> With Putin and Netanyahu handling the situation on the ground to Trump’s satisfaction, the U.S. needn’t get involved militarily in Syria. The threat, however, exists elsewhere. The Iranian leaders – both Rouhani and Ayatollah Khamenei – have recently said that if Iran is not allowed to export oil, other Persian Gulf nations won’t be able to do that, either. This could be interpreted as a veiled threat to block the Hormuz Strait, through which some 30 percent of global oil exports go; some lower-ranking Iranian officials have said openly that such a plan exists.
> 
> It’s dubious that Iran will go that far and risk a military confrontation with the U.S. – especially since its naval forces in the area largely consist of ships dating back to the 1960s and ‘70s. This is not a battle Iran can win. So even if the U.S. tries to block Iranian tankers from sailing through Hormuz, Iran likely will concentrate on alternative, land-based export routes and count on the EU, Russia and China to help it fight U.S. sanctions. EU nations are looking at keeping financial channels open for Iran when the U.S. sanctions hit full force in November.
> 
> It might have been wise for the Iranian leaders to talk with Trump as Kim and Putin have done, if only to establish contact and ensure some U.S. flexibility. Their approach, however, is not transactional: On Saturday, Khamenei stressed that the country wouldn’t “separate diplomacy from ideology.” Barring major domestic disturbances, Iran is preparing for a head-on confrontation, if only an economic one. It’s betting it won’t be a catastrophe. Before the nuclear deal, the U.S. was punishing Iran with the help of allies and even some adversaries. Thanks to Trump, that’s not the case today.


----------



## Draykorinee

Reap said:


> Uhhh ... The American Intelligence Agencies have admitted very timidly that no election interference occurred. What you're regurgitating is a media driven myth and frenzy.
> 
> https://sputniknews.com/us/201807191066489936-fbi-russia-election-meddling-trace/
> 
> Even the FBI is now trying to kill the narrative.


Thanks but I didn't get my info from the media I got it from the reports from the Senate committee that were published for all to read.

I'm happy to accept other sources of information and had not read the sputnik one. That does not trump (pun intended) the other investigations that have shown otherwise.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> Thanks but I didn't get my info from the media I got it from the reports from the Senate committee that were published for all to read.


And in light of new information that refutes this, you're going to hold on to that older info based on what?


----------



## Draykorinee

Reap said:


> And in light of new information that refutes this, you're going to hold on to that older info based on what?


I'm just aware that I haven't actually seen the video and its based on one media source, CNN had this



> Wray also said that his "view has not changed" on the fact, established by the 2017 intelligence community assessment, that "Russia attempted to interfere with the last election."



This came from NBC 



> "My view has not changed, which is that Russia attempted to interfere with the last election and that it continues to engage in maligned influence operations to this day," Wray told NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt at the Aspen Security Forum.


.

Edit: Well, 4 minutes in to the interview I watched he says the above. I don't know why sputnik decide to omit that as it paints a hugely different story. At least now I know not to trust that source much.

Edit again: sputnik are saying there is no influence in the CURRENT midterm not that they didn't interfere in other previous ones. A misunderstanding on what you read maybe.


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> Don't be obtuse, Putin said Russia had no part to play in election rigging, Trump elected to chose that over his own intelligence agencies investigations. This really shouldn't need explaining.


It fascinates me how readily people are to take at face value the things Trump says in public while also alleging that much of what he says is a lie.


----------



## Rozalia

CamillePunk said:


> It fascinates me how readily people are to take at face value the things Trump says in public while also alleging that much of what he says is a lie.


Fool: Trump always lies, he means the opposite of what he says.
...
Takes everything Trump says as 100% straight and honest.

You're right in how absurd these people are.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> It fascinates me how readily people are to take at face value the things Trump says in public while also alleging that much of what he says is a lie.


There's not really much alleging going on, he does lie.


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> There's not really much alleging going on, he does lie.


I agree. So why are you taking what he says he believes about election meddling at face value, especially when there's a good reason to lie (normalizing relations with a nuclear power), and nothing to gain from telling the truth aside from hypothetical brownie points from people who hate everything he says and does anyway?


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> I agree. So why are you taking what he says he believes about election meddling at face value, especially when there's a good reason to lie (normalizing relations with a nuclear power), and nothing to gain from telling the truth aside from hypothetical brownie points from people who hate everything he says and does anyway?


I can see your point of view. However he clearly upset his own people at the same time, not just those who hated him before.


----------



## Rozalia

draykorinee said:


> I can see your point of view. However he clearly upset his own people at the same time, not just those who hated him before.


John McCain and other such losers are not his people. Trump is incredibly popular his base who see him as someone fulfilling promises.


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> I can see your point of view. However he clearly upset his own people at the same time, not just those who hated him before.


Peace over politics, he said. I'd like to believe he meant that.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Rozalia said:


> Fool: Trump always lies, he means the opposite of what he says.
> ...
> Takes everything Trump says as 100% straight and honest.
> 
> You're right in how absurd these people are.


No one takes Trump 100% honest, even his supporters in this thread have all but admitted that in the past and said they're fine with it. It's okay to point out his wild statements on twitter, followed by public backflips because it shows how flimsy his credibility is.

I think I've yet to hear from you how you could possibly defend his would/wouldn't fiasco? Do you think any leader in a private enterprise could possibly get away with such an absurdity?


----------



## Rozalia

yeahbaby! said:


> No one takes Trump 100% honest, even his supporters in this thread have all but admitted that in the past and said they're fine with it. It's okay to point out his wild statements on twitter, followed by public backflips because it shows how flimsy his credibility is.
> 
> I think I've yet to hear from you how you could possibly defend his would/wouldn't fiasco? Do you think any leader in a private enterprise could possibly get away with such an absurdity?


If he is lying or telling the truth depends on how the lefty feels about the subject.

I could go into stuff like it could be the power of the agencies and how Trump should retreat for now and hit them elsewhere. How it may not be a fight for right now as he needs to hammer Democrat foolishness and not grant them unneeded distractions, and of course he could have honestly simply made a mistake.

Truth is this. Trump is a man who fought against the Bush and then Clinton dynasties, and burned both of them to the ground. While being 24/7 under attack as everything bad under the son and outspent 2 to 1 he decisively defeated the Democrats who many genuinely believed due to demographics that they would never have a Republican win. For all the talk of racism Trump outperformed Romney with blacks and Hispanics. 

Then there are issues such as the Paris accord, which he attacks and pulls out. Then the numbers come in, America is number 1 while Paris Accord nations are largely dishonest liars.

I largely only used this site for wrestling stuff, but elsewhere while this was going on I was a big supporter of Trump as I could see what he as doing, how every little thing that totally was going to finish him was instead going to boost him. In short... do not doubt Trump. He has shown he knows exactly what he is doing.

Don't believe me? Wait until 2020, perhaps we'll even see it in 2018. Trump knows he can twist the Democrats into supporting utter vote losing policies by being against them and make them go against sense by being for something. Short of some big event the Democrats are going to be completely crushed.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Rozalia said:


> If he is lying or telling the truth depends on how the lefty feels about the subject.
> 
> I could go into stuff like it could be the power of the agencies and how Trump should retreat for now and hit them elsewhere. How it may not be a fight for right now as he needs to hammer Democrat foolishness and not grant them unneeded distractions, and of course he could have honestly simply made a mistake.
> 
> Truth is this. Trump is a man who fought against the Bush and then Clinton dynasties, and burned both of them to the ground. While being 24/7 under attack as everything bad under the son and outspent 2 to 1 he decisively defeated the Democrats who many genuinely believed due to demographics that they would never have a Republican win. For all the talk of racism Trump outperformed Romney with blacks and Hispanics.
> 
> Then there are issues such as the Paris accord, which he attacks and pulls out. Then the numbers come in, America is number 1 while Paris Accord nations are largely dishonest liars.
> 
> I largely only used this site for wrestling stuff, but elsewhere while this was going on I was a big supporter of Trump as I could see what he as doing, how every little thing that totally was going to finish him was instead going to boost him. In short... do not doubt Trump. He has shown he knows exactly what he is doing.
> 
> Don't believe me? Wait until 2020, perhaps we'll even see it in 2018. Trump knows he can twist the Democrats into supporting utter vote losing policies by being against them and make them go against sense by being for something. Short of some big event the Democrats are going to be completely crushed.


Okay that's great, I'll ask again:

I think I've yet to hear from you how you could possibly defend his would/wouldn't fiasco? Do you think any leader in a private enterprise could possibly get away with such an absurdity?


----------



## CamillePunk

@DOPA @DesolationRow @Sincere @Fringe @Miss Sally

Scott Adams on why Rand Paul wants to fuck up John Brennan's shit and why we should be on Paul's side.


----------



## Rozalia

yeahbaby! said:


> Okay that's great, I'll ask again:
> 
> I think I've yet to hear from you how you could possibly defend his would/wouldn't fiasco? Do you think any leader in a private enterprise could possibly get away with such an absurdity?


A private enterprise? So some big company say ignoring questions of their dealings with say Saudi Arabia and saying some line about how we need to give everyone a fair shake? Very easily. If you haven't noticed Trump has already moved on and so is everyone else.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Rozalia said:


> A private enterprise? So some big company say ignoring questions of their dealings with say Saudi Arabia and saying some line about how we need to give everyone a fair shake? Very easily. If you haven't noticed Trump has already moved on and so is everyone else.


So you simply can't defend the direct question I asked you. Forget the private enterprise and defend Trump. *Answer the direct question about that specific situation if you have the guts.* I'm directly challenging you about that and you know what I mean.

Trump himself didn't have the guts to say he was wrong after the fact so he came up with some 180 bullshit instead which completely changed his pro Putin message.


----------



## Rozalia

yeahbaby! said:


> So you simply can't defend the direct question I asked you. Forget the private enterprise and defend Trump. *Answer the direct question about that specific situation if you have the guts.* I'm directly challenging you about that and you know what I mean.
> 
> Trump himself didn't have the guts to say he was wrong after the fact so he came up with some 180 bullshit instead which completely changed his pro Putin message.


? Weak.

Alright lets play. Would it make you happy if he said he has been a bad man, please forgive him for sins? Please. Putin by the way is a smart lad and doesn't care. Trump wants peace and Putin knows it, he also knows how politics works.


----------



## CamillePunk

In a private enterprise people would look at the bottom line, which is fantastic, and let Trump keep doing his job the way he's doing it. :lol


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1021545354993512448

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1021534548428054535


----------



## yeahbaby!

Rozalia said:


> ? Weak.
> 
> Alright lets play. Would it make you happy if he said he has been a bad man, please forgive him for sins? Please. Putin by the way is a smart lad and doesn't care. Trump wants peace and Putin knows it, he also knows how politics works.


You haven't played since you refuse to address the specific would/wouldn't thing I've asked you to do several times now.

I'll leave you to it at this point since you refuse to answer the specific question. You're either trolling me or something so please have nice day, as Mankind would say.


----------



## Sincere

CamillePunk said:


> @DOPA @DesolationRow @Sincere @Fringe @Miss Sally
> 
> Scott Adams on why Rand Paul wants to fuck up John Brennan's shit and why we should be on Paul's side.


I love hearing Scott Adams' perspective on things, he always has an interesting angle on that news cycle de jour. And generally speaking, Rand is easy to support. I very rarely find myself disagreeing with him too much, and even when I do disagree with him, I find I can easily appreciate and understand his perspective or reasoning (much like his father).


----------



## Rozalia

yeahbaby! said:


> You haven't played since you refuse to address the specific would/wouldn't thing I've asked you to do several times now.
> 
> I'll leave you to it at this point since you refuse to answer the specific question. You're either trolling me or something so please have nice day, as Mankind would say.


Bloody hell. All right genius lets go back to it.



> I think I've yet to hear from you how you could possibly defend his would/wouldn't fiasco? Do you think any leader in a private enterprise could possibly get away with such an absurdity?


The Donald misspoke. Owner of X big business misspoke. It was not my intentions. There are million different basic statements to defend yourself/your boss. You posed a stupid question and I made the mistake of trying to expand things for you. 

Don't worry, we'll not deal in the more complicated stuff further.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> @DOPA @DesolationRow @Sincere @Fringe @Miss Sally
> 
> Scott Adams on why Rand Paul wants to fuck up John Brennan's shit and why we should be on Paul's side.


I sincerely like Rand Paul. He's the best of all the elected Republicans. It's just a shame that he's not as principled as his dad.


----------



## Rozalia

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/23/liberals-donald-trump-support

What I have been saying for a long time and people just don't listen. If you are against Trump (pbuh) then read this and hopefully cure yourself of TDS. Don't get me wrong, it's fun to see you guys be so wrong, proclaim that finally he is finished, and such. However mental illness isn't good, take this article, take some days off from the endless outrage nonsense, and get better.

If you heal up real good then you'll finally accept MAGA into your heart. Don't thank me, thank Trump (pbuh)


----------



## virus21

> LITTLE ROCK — The Arkansas Democratic Party has renamed its annual fundraising dinner to honor former President Bill Clinton after the names of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were stripped from the event.
> 
> The party on Wednesday said that the annual event formerly known as the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner would now be named after the 42nd president and former Arkansas governor. Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards is scheduled to headline the newly named Clinton Dinner on July 22 in Little Rock.
> 
> The party last year joined several other state parties that distanced themselves from Jefferson and Jackson over concerns about their slave ownership. Clinton headlined the final fundraiser held under the Jefferson-Jackson name last year.
> 
> Read Thursday's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette for full details.


https://web.archive.org/web/20180723145752/http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2017/may/24/arkansas-democrats-dinner-renamed-honor-bill-clint/?f=news-arkansas


----------



## greasykid1

Rozalia said:


> Bloody hell. All right genius lets go back to it.
> 
> The Donald misspoke. Owner of X big business misspoke. It was not my intentions. There are million different basic statements to defend yourself/your boss. You posed a stupid question and I made the mistake of trying to expand things for you.
> 
> Don't worry, we'll not deal in the more complicated stuff further.


I could do with clarification here too ...

I have no problem believing that anyone could "misspeak" at any time. Humans gonna human 

But how do you defend the "would/wouldn't" claim when actually, during the summit, Trump spend the WHOLE THING defending Putin, asserting that there was no collusion, no interference, that Russia had no part in any underhanded behaviour ... and then merely backed up EVERYTHING he had said up to that point by saying he didn't see any reason why it WOULD be Russia?

If he had said, at that point, "I don't see any reason why it WOULDN'T be Russia", that would have contradicted literally EVERY OTHER STATEMENT on the matter that he had made at the summit.

He defends this one answer saying he misspoke, but the entire summit was spent trashing the FBI and standing with Putin. To me, it's a blatant lie, and it's pretty shocking that anyone can not see through it.


----------



## Draykorinee

Rozalia said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/23/liberals-donald-trump-support
> 
> What I have been saying for a long time and people just don't listen. If you are against Trump (pbuh) then read this and hopefully cure yourself of TDS. Don't get me wrong, it's fun to see you guys be so wrong, proclaim that finally he is finished, and such. However mental illness isn't good, take this article, take some days off from the endless outrage nonsense, and get better.
> 
> If you heal up real good then you'll finally accept MAGA into your heart. Don't thank me, thank Trump (pbuh)


No matter how hard you try you'll never replace deepemblem in the head up trumps arse champion.


----------



## Stephen90

Why do all republicans keep falling for Sasha Baron Cohen?


----------



## samizayn

Also why are we acting like this was a huge coup for intl relations? Only the case if Putin has developed a bizarre selective deafness. If someone compliments you to your face, maybe you'll like them more. You won't like them after they publicly admit they were lying about what they said when you were in the room. You'll just write off the interaction as one you had with a lying coward and his weasel words. 

I hope by some miracle this will help prevent hostilities between the two nations, but the whole thing was a joke and a farce. I don't see it doing anything at all, except maybe boost morale among the domestic agencies.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1020645157035704320
:draper2


----------



## Rozalia

greasykid1 said:


> I could do with clarification here too ...
> 
> I have no problem believing that anyone could "misspeak" at any time. Humans gonna human
> 
> But how do you defend the "would/wouldn't" claim when actually, during the summit, Trump spend the WHOLE THING defending Putin, asserting that there was no collusion, no interference, that Russia had no part in any underhanded behaviour ... and then merely backed up EVERYTHING he had said up to that point by saying he didn't see any reason why it WOULD be Russia?
> 
> If he had said, at that point, "I don't see any reason why it WOULDN'T be Russia", that would have contradicted literally EVERY OTHER STATEMENT on the matter that he had made at the summit.
> 
> He defends this one answer saying he misspoke, but the entire summit was spent trashing the FBI and standing with Putin. To me, it's a blatant lie, and it's pretty shocking that anyone can not see through it.


Isn't according to his enemies Trump (pbuh) supposed to be an idiot who talks like an idiot? In addition for those unaware when Trump (pbuh) speaks if he has notes you'll notice they are big words, as in the size is massive. Perhaps the size on this paper given to him was standard so he saw it wrong.

Or maybe he meant to say it and meant to then do and say what has happened since then. 



draykorinee said:


> No matter how hard you try you'll never replace deepemblem in the head up trumps arse champion.


You could read the article and comment *****.


----------



## Draykorinee

Rozalia said:


> You could read the article and comment *****.


I read it, its not really relevant to me because its not based on any position I take about Trump. I don't disagree with a lot of what he says in regards to hyperbole.

It does not say anything about him being a good president.

As Kyle said in one of his videos yesterday, people are being so hyperbolic about Russia they ignore the fact that Israel admitted to making Trump change his mind on the Iran deal. Maybe if people focused on actual issues instead of going 'Russia' all the time, we'd get somewhere in convincing Republicans to not support him.


----------



## KurtAngle2000

Whoopi Goldberg should be fired from the view, you don't treat guest like that. That fact that the left has to silence people and can't even listen to their argument and respond, shows that they know they're wrong, they don't want to hear the truth, so they block it out, if they were truth seekers they would listen to the opposing argument, then if it's wrong rebut, but since it's the truth and they know they're gonna be wrong they silence those and speak over them, threaten them with violence if they dare disagree.

Roseanne was fired asap for a Non-Racial joke as the woman she joked about did look like the movie character that was referenced, she didn't say she looks like an app, she says she looks like the character from planet of the apes.

If she was fired for a joke, surely Whoopi will be fired by the same network for her Trump Derangement Syndrome, her intolerance, her verbal abuse(silencing and then cursing at) and her physical violence(spitting) against Judge Jeanine Pirro

Otherwise ABC as a network was in the wrong for firing Roseanne for a mere joke, the View should've fired Joy when she made her illogical comment towards Christians


----------



## Reaper

So Trump's economy is about as socialist as you can get. 

He fucks up the farmers with his trade war and is now giving them a 12 billion dollar bail out from tax payers..

fpalm 

Love Murica. No matter which way you vote everyone loses.

Remember the time when Republicans puked blood and guts when Obama bailed out corporations? 

Oh before anyone thinks that farming is not also giant corporate entities go do some research. But I know that people are going to project their view of the rural poor downtrodden average Joe to defend this move. 

Nah. Farming is just as much a mega corporations activity in America as everything else. Your average Joe tilling a 2 acre piece of land ain't getting nothing.

Good thing wifey and I are saving what we can. Trump is gonna leave Amereicans in a huge fucking hole.


----------



## CamillePunk

Whoopi Goldberg thinks a drugged up 13 year old girl can consent to sex. She doesn't get to be taken seriously by reasonable people anymore sorry.


----------



## Reaper

Poor Rand Paul though. I feel bad for him. Been shot at, physically attacked and still trying his darndest to right this ship.


----------



## Draykorinee

As Donald Trump has to bail out his own mistakes people are talking about Whoopi Goldberg, the state of fucking politics.


----------



## DesolationRow

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1020645157035704320
> :draper2


It's not surprising. Before the Trump economy wages were simply stagnant but over the past twelve months the rate of inflation at 2.9%--and some sources suggest it's as high as 3.3% for as much as three-fifths of U.S. workers in what are typically labeled "nonsupervisory" sectors of workers including manufacturing, fast food and health care--has outstripped the 2.8% jump in wages since spring 2017. For at least a third of American workers the differential between the bite inflation is taking out of their would-be increase in wages is even more sizable because of interconnected business relations orbiting around gas prices. Even adjusting for inflationary spikes the energy-related costs are proving too considerable for about 80% of American workers' paychecks to overcome through inflation. Another factor which is far more benign is that a whole bunch of low-end jobs have been taken in the past year or so, at a far greater rate than has been seen in the U.S. in quite a while. Naturally wages across the board for those nonsupervisory realms of the economy take a hit or are at least stalled when demand for workers drops, as it has since mid-2017. Though that is component is only slowing the growth of wages, whereas the inflationary prongs are the more direct and consequential assault.


----------



## KurtAngle2000

CamillePunk said:


> Whoopi Goldberg thinks a drugged up 13 year old girl can consent to sex. She doesn't get to be taken seriously by reasonable people anymore sorry.


It's sad because liberals/the left holds Whoopi Goldberg as some intellectual authority.

You see why many are leaving the left.


----------



## KurtAngle2000

Bill Maher is also delusional, wants a Recession so he can see Trump fail.

Surely won't hurt an elitist rich like Bill, surely would affect my lower class self.


----------



## DOPA

A rare instance where Kyle actually sides against Bernie.

Rand continues to prove that at times he's literally the only sane voice in the Senate. Meanwhile Bernie is acting like a complete cuck, siding with the people who *screwed him out of the Democratic nomination in 2016.*

When it comes to the crunch, Bernie is utterly weak.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

KurtAngle2000 said:


> It's sad because liberals/the left holds Whoopi Goldberg as some intellectual authority.
> 
> You see why many are leaving the left.


I don't know any liberals that give a **it what her or anyone on The View has ever said. Why would anyone want some 60 year old brain dead actress to be the spokesperson for their viewpoint.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Whoopi Goldberg thinks a drugged up 13 year old girl can consent to sex. She doesn't get to be taken seriously by reasonable people anymore sorry.


Didn't you hear though? It wasn't 'rape' rape. It was.... a lesser kind of rape.... somehow.


If Jumpin Jack Flash was on TV I'd probably still watch it though. Cog Diss and all.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Reap said:


> So Trump's economy is about as socialist as you can get.
> 
> He fucks up the farmers with his trade war and is now giving them a 12 billion dollar bail out from tax payers..
> 
> fpalm
> 
> Love Murica. No matter which way you vote everyone loses.
> 
> Remember the time when Republicans puked blood and guts when Obama bailed out corporations?
> 
> Oh before anyone thinks that farming is not also giant corporate entities go do some research. But I know that people are going to project their view of the rural poor downtrodden average Joe to defend this move.
> 
> Nah. Farming is just as much a mega corporations activity in America as everything else. Your average Joe tilling a 2 acre piece of land ain't getting nothing.
> 
> Good thing wifey and I are saving what we can. Trump is gonna leave Amereicans in a huge fucking hole.


$12 billion now. No telling what the amount will be when they're made permanent. I mean, when have farm subsidies ever been temporary?

Well at least small family farms will get their share of :lol sorry couldn't get through it without laughing.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

:lol


----------



## Tater

Reap said:


> So Trump's economy is about as socialist as you can get.
> 
> He fucks up the farmers with his trade war and is now giving them a 12 billion dollar bail out from tax payers..
> 
> fpalm
> 
> Love Murica. No matter which way you vote everyone loses.
> 
> Remember the time when Republicans puked blood and guts when Obama bailed out corporations?
> 
> Oh before anyone thinks that farming is not also giant corporate entities go do some research. But I know that people are going to project their view of the rural poor downtrodden average Joe to defend this move.
> 
> Nah. Farming is just as much a mega corporations activity in America as everything else. Your average Joe tilling a 2 acre piece of land ain't getting nothing.
> 
> Good thing wifey and I are saving what we can. Trump is gonna leave Amereicans in a huge fucking hole.


Socialism for the rich isn't really socialism though. It's crony capitalism and it's been going on for far longer than Trump has been in office. I'm not a complete 100% free market guy but I remember when the banks collapsed a decade ago and Ron Paul was like, fuck em, let em collapse instead of giving them trillions in free tax payer money. I'm not so sure how good or a bad thing it would have been but man, it sure would have been one helluva show.



DesolationRow said:


> It's not surprising. Before the Trump economy wages were simply stagnant but over the past twelve months the rate of inflation at 2.9%--and some sources suggest it's as high as 3.3% for as much as three-fifths of U.S. workers in what are typically labeled "nonsupervisory" sectors of workers including manufacturing, fast food and health care--has outstripped the 2.8% jump in wages since spring 2017. For at least a third of American workers the differential between the bite inflation is taking out of their would-be increase in wages is even more sizable because of interconnected business relations orbiting around gas prices. Even adjusting for inflationary spikes the energy-related costs are proving too considerable for about 80% of American workers' paychecks to overcome through inflation. Another factor which is far more benign is that a whole bunch of low-end jobs have been taken in the past year or so, at a far greater rate than has been seen in the U.S. in quite a while. Naturally wages across the board for those nonsupervisory realms of the economy take a hit or are at least stalled when demand for workers drops, as it has since mid-2017. Though that is component is only slowing the growth of wages, whereas the inflationary prongs are the more direct and consequential assault.


I deal with this in Hawai'i. We have a super low unemployment rate at 2.1% but that doesn't mean shit when they're all low paying crappy jobs. Trump is doing the exact same shit Obama did. He's bragging about how great his economy is doing by citing unemployment numbers but while the amount of jobs are increasing, the take home pay of employees is decreasing. That's the part they don't tell you and to be perfectly honest, I'm surprised Bloomberg posted these numbers.



DOPA said:


> A rare instance where Kyle actually sides against Bernie.
> 
> Rand continues to prove that at times he's literally the only sane voice in the Senate. Meanwhile Bernie is acting like a complete cuck, siding with the people who *screwed him out of the Democratic nomination in 2016.*
> 
> When it comes to the crunch, Bernie is utterly weak.


I don't agree with Kyle on everything. As a matter of fact, I often find myself arguing against his points (while I listen to his show at work and no one can hear me bitching :lol) but to his credit, he is consistent with his views and is not a partisan hack. Even in disagreement, I still respect his opinion.

I don't know how much you listen to Jimmy's show but he regularly rips Bernie for being a cuck. The man spent his entire career as an independent and the moment he gets real power to change things, he starts sheepdogging for the party that stole the nomination from him. What's so sad about all of this is that centrist Bernie is still the better than all the center right Republicrats he caucuses with.


----------



## Stephen90

CamillePunk said:


> Whoopi Goldberg thinks a drugged up 13 year old girl can consent to sex. She doesn't get to be taken seriously by reasonable people anymore sorry.


Who took Whoopi Goldberg seriously in the first place?


----------



## Vic Capri

*Today's scandal*: Get me a coke please!

- Vic


----------



## Rozalia

Vic Capri said:


> *Today's scandal*: Get me a coke please!
> 
> - Vic


Trump drinks diet coke not regular coke, so it can't be him. The person in the recording is likely John Miller who is known for his voice sounding like Trump.


----------



## DesolationRow

Tater said:


> I deal with this in Hawai'i. We have a super low unemployment rate at 2.1% but that doesn't mean shit when they're all low paying crappy jobs. Trump is doing the exact same shit Obama did. He's bragging about how great his economy is doing by citing unemployment numbers but while the amount of jobs are increasing, the take home pay of employees is decreasing. That's the part they don't tell you and to be perfectly honest, I'm surprised Bloomberg posted these numbers.


'Tis true. The economy is formally rather robust with impressive GDP numbers but there is a not-so-great side to the story as well chiefly due to gas price hikes and overall inflation which hit a six-year high a couple of months ago and with so many jobs taken and the GDP humming along inflationary gauges suggest that there will be more where that came from through the rest of 2018.

Some quirkiness is at play, too, with Americans actively saving more money in 2018 than they have since 2009. Consumer spending stalled this past spring compared to what was forecast due to this interesting phenomenon.

Another component is considerable shifts in regional economies. For instance employers are finding it difficult to fully stock their east coast factories with qualified workers and that is exacerbating conditions for companies so reliant on energy. Lots of factories on the east coast are anticipating inflationary rates for the prices of goods they churn out to be nearing as much as 3.00%.

Ron Paul was wonderfully defiant of the narrative in 2008 concerning the banks. His stand was not popular in the Beltway but it was truly principled. 


That picture shared by @RavishingRickRules; is funny. :lol


----------



## Tater

DesolationRow said:


> gas price hikes


I am being genuinely honest when I say that not owning an automobile is quite the privilege. Living where I do in Hawai'i, the weather is never too cold, my job is only 2 miles away and everywhere else I need to go is even closer. I can leave at 10:50 for a movie that starts at 10:45 and be there by the time the trailers are over and the movie is starting. Plus, considering the amount of beer I drink, I'd probably be a fatass if I didn't ride my bike everywhere and burn off those calories. :lol


----------



## Ninja Hedgehog




----------



## DesolationRow

Tater said:


> I am being genuinely honest when I say that not owning an automobile is quite the privilege. Living where I do in Hawai'i, the weather is never too cold, my job is only 2 miles away and everywhere else I need to go is even closer. I can leave at 10:50 for a movie that starts at 10:45 and be there by the time the trailers are over and the movie is starting. Plus, considering the amount of beer I drink, I'd probably be a fatass if I didn't ride my bike everywhere and burn off those calories. :lol


That is awesome. There are days with this increasingly unreal Bay Area traffic that I wish I could enjoy a set-up similar to yours. :lol


----------



## Reaper

My posts on the economy from January 2018. Highlighting some of the points I made then that are sadly coming true. Additional notes in red. 



Reap said:


> CPI is rising btw. *So while the economy "booms", what has happened is that the expectation of people having more money has as always resulted in higher prices on core consumer goods.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Unless there is real wage growth in 2018 to offset inflation (we can't cherry-pick a few companies giving bonuses and raising wages here and there as evidence of that) there is likely no net gain for the day-to-day customer.
> * *<--- The real wage growth as not happened. Only 4% of companies have announced wage increases, while more than 80% are not even considering it in 2019. Most companies have done stock buy backs and raised share prices however. All the signs of a depressed economy are showing. With Trump's Tariffs, the situation has been made even worse. *
> 
> I'm already noticing the impact of inflation on our monthly paycheck btw. Looking at the money going in and out of my account last few months, I'm spending more on Groceries and Gas in the last three months than the three months before and my consumption habits haven't changed. My utilities are higher too. After average all year at around 187, this month I paid 213.
> 
> And this seems to verify my rising costs:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Core consumer prices in the United States which exclude cost of food and energy increased 1.8 percent year-on-year in December of 2017, higher than 1.7 percent in November and market expectations of 1.7 percent. Prices rose faster for medical care commodities (2.3 percent from 1.8 percent). On the other hand, inflation was steady for shelter (3.2 percent) and medical care services (1.6 percent) while cost continued to decline for apparel (-1.6 percent, the same as in November), new vehicles (-0.5 percent from -1.1 percent) and used cars and trucks (-1 percent from -2.1 percent). On a monthly basis, core consumer prices went up 0.3 percent, the biggest gain in 11 months amid rising cost of rents, healthcare and autos. Core Inflation Rate in the United States averaged 3.65 percent from 1957 until 2017, reaching an all time high of 13.60 percent in June of 1980 and a record low of 0 percent in May of 1957.
> 
> 
> 
> It's all inter-connected ... *with the expectation of more consumer spending power comes the ability to raise prices ... and in some cases if wages don't keep up (which they really aren't) people still have less money overall. Consumer spending will either decline or remain stagnant throughout 2018 and I believe we will see a slight increase in inflation with the expectation of 2019's tax returns.*
Click to expand...

 *<--- We've seen more than a slight increase in inflation. It is now hitting 3.0 which they say was expected, but of course, there has been no wage growth. Inflation is expected to become worse. Wages are not expected to rise. Prices of all industrial goods and now even food are going to rise if Trump doesn't pull back on his trade war. *



Reap said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Yeah. The forecast actually as CPI, Interest rates and Inflation on the rise, but wage _growth _on a decline (this doesn't mean that wages are declining but that the _rate of growth_ is declining). *<--- Rate of growth of wages is less than inflation now and that's never a good sign*
> 
> This could lead to lowering consumer confidence and people hunkering down on spending as the year goes on.
> 
> 2018 is an interesting year where I don't think a lot is going to happen.
> 
> At the same time, the government does not seem remotely interested in curtailing their own spending at this point so to me it just seems like we're not heading towards the amazingly good times as promised. But rather more par for the course with a mediocre/under-performing economy.
> 
> The forecast for US Govt Debt looks sickening:


Keep up with more of my financial forecasts. So far, I've been very much spot on. 

Buckle down on your current jobs. Improve job performance. Find second sources of income. Keep that credit debt low. I'm not saying prepare for the worst like create bomb shelters or anything like that, just saying that this is the time to be careful with your tax credits and keep them in the bank for rainy days instead of buying that new car you always wanted. Use whatever credit you have for emergencies. If you're in a homestead state, the time is now to make sure you have all your paper-work etc in place. 

I don't expect jobs to shrink. 

Another economic slowdown indicator is that the housing market is now starting to show another decline in So-Cal despite new development. This is never a good sign.


----------



## Reaper

A few more notes in Employment: 










The ADP employment change tracks how many jobs are added on a regular basis, and if you notice, there is a noticeable downward trend since 2014 over the last 5 years. The market expectation was about 190k jobs to be added in June 2018, but this fell short by about 13k jobs. 

Wages on the other hand: 



> *Why Wage Growth Is Slow: Employers Don't Need To, Or Want To, Pay More*
> 
> The main question economists in the US seem to love debating these days is why wage growth is so slow — barely above inflation, which means, in real purchasing power, next to nothing.
> 
> Working people would like to know, too. The latest Gallup survey on what people think is the most important problem facing the company should be the "situation with Russia," if you gauge by media coverage. That topic doesn't even get a 1% share of attention.
> 
> Instead, the main issues are dissatisfaction with government and poor leadership (25%), immigration (8%), race relations (7%), and healthcare (6%).
> 
> Economic problems are mentioned by 20% of the population, and I suspect that healthcare and leadership both tie back, at least in part, to money issues. The unemployment numbers, while they look good, ignore the bifurcation of society. Those with skills that are in both shortage and high demand are doing well. People less skilled are the ones helping to keep that median wage from rising too quickly.
> 
> That still leaves the question of why so many fail to benefit from a supposedly improving economy. International Monetary Fund economist Yasser Abdih this week said he had an answer, and one summed up in a single graphic and paragraph:
> 
> 
> The Chart of the Week, based on our new study, offers a plausible answer: slower growth in labor productivity—the amount of goods or services produced in an hour of work—and a decline in the share of income that goes to workers. Both have held wages down, overcoming the positive impact of a declining unemployment rate.
> 
> University of Massachusetts at Amherst Professor of Economics Gerald Friedman saw a tweet about the IMF blog post and thought it a tad … circular:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1019542572887404544
> He's certainly right as a fast take. If labor gets a declining share of corporate income, it means pay isn't going up as quickly. This is like saying if people don't get enough sleep at night, they will be tired in the morning.
> 
> There was also a second important part: the slowing of productivity. *Although companies do get more out of workers, it isn't growing at the rates it once did. And yet, profit growth continues to roll along, as this graph from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis shows. (The data includes adjustments to account for changes in inventory value and the need to repair, update, or replace capital investments for a more accurate picture of what is actually profit.)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Productivity increases are a long-standing source of profit growth. Companies do more with what they have. If you can't get the productivity growth in a world of investors who expect ever expanding value, the company will have to look elsewhere. As Abdih wrote:
> 
> How productive workers are is a key factor for employers when making compensation decisions. If workers aren’t producing as much, employers need to restrain pay growth to sustain profitability.
> 
> However, this sounds backward. Management typically controls productivity by providing tools to make workers more productive. It's not as though the entire labor force collectively strolled off to the water cooler.
> 
> The production process is the combination of labor, on one hand, and capital devoted to production on the other. The result is output value.
> 
> If you want to increase the output value, you can hire more people or invest more capital — resources of various types — to let those workers get more done per hour. You invest and improve productivity. The economic concept is capital deepening, the increased capital investment per worker to improve the business.
> 
> To do so, you have to redirect money to investment and away from immediately enriching shareholders, directors, and top management.
> 
> According to the St. Louis Fed, if you express capital deepening in terms of capital per hour and look at the year-over-year growth, the typical pattern is that capital per hour spikes during a recession because labor hours drop, then it rapidly falls. During a recovery phase, capital deepening again increases as business investment picks up.
> 
> After the Great Recession, it didn't.
> 
> Maybe part of a drop in productivity owes to baby boomers retiring, with less-experienced younger people taking their place. But it's not as though we've never seen generational shifts before. Companies aren't investing. That was supposed to be the whole point of the big tax cut passed at the end of last year.
> 
> Instead of all the extra profits going into capital investment and hiring — the sorts of things that might help increase productivity — there's a boom in stock buybacks, which is money directed to enrich shareholders.
> 
> If capital deepening is a major factor in increased productivity and if companies decide to plow money into buybacks and holding all costs down, including labor to historically unusual levels, to boost profits, then, yes, wages won't rise all that quickly and labor's share of income will drop.
> 
> *Now it's back to the question of why employees put up with this. Combine years of being frozen out and loosing practice in getting more with a systematic attack on union labor that helped improve the lot of working people, add in the shift of money away from workers, and you have a formula for many people getting stuck in a pay rut. Companies look at recent pay histories to set their compensation, and it becomes a self-perpetuating mechanism to prevent workers from getting too much.*


Well worth the read. The core argument is fairly simple: Profits are growing, productivity is not as high, but wages are being held down. His conclusion is that this is likely due to employers _intentionally _paying lower wages where they can easily pay more.


----------



## Tater

Reap said:


> Keep that credit debt low.


Never had a credit card, never will. I understand the pros and cons. I choose not to go down that path. I've made my fair share of mistakes in my life but having debt is not one of them.


----------



## Draykorinee

I have one but I keep it cleared most months, occasionally it builds to £500 and I do an extra few shifts to pay it off.


----------



## Reaper

Tater said:


> Never had a credit card, never will. I understand the pros and cons. I choose not to go down that path. I've made my fair share of mistakes in my life but having debt is not one of them.


I'm as off the grid as I can possibly be. I have just one card my wife got me to encourage me to build my credit, but I haven't used it .. However, my wife does and she's the full 9 yards when it comes to being your very typical 'burbanite  

I help her manage her debt while staying clear of having any of mine. Of course, I'm equally responsible for paying everything off though lol. But that's a willing decision I took when I proposed.


----------



## Rozalia

Ninja_Hedgehog said:


>


Trump: Don't let Putin win. Support federal voter ID.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1022076157884342272
People seriously do need to learn to stop attacking their own side during negotiations. :lol Mostly everyone, on both sides, looked like utter morons going after Trump while he was negotiating with Kim Jong Un (which includes the various Tweet storms before they ever even met, which most people failed to recognize as part of the process). Then we ended up in a pretty good place. 

Hence my apprehension about rushing to condemn the current tariff situation even though I'm a 100% free trade guy. It doesn't work so well if other countries don't reciprocate, so I'm fine with the president taking tough action to hopefully get us as close as we can be to that. In the meantime, trying to make our negotiating position as weak as possible seems like a bad idea.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1022076157884342272
> People seriously do need to learn to stop attacking their own side during negotiations. :lol Mostly everyone, on both sides, looked like utter morons going after Trump while he was negotiating with Kim Jong Un (which includes the various Tweet storms before they ever even met, which most people failed to recognize as part of the process). Then we ended up in a pretty good place.
> 
> Hence my apprehension about rushing to condemn the current tariff situation even though I'm a 100% free trade guy. It doesn't work so well if other countries don't reciprocate, so I'm fine with the president taking tough action to hopefully get us as close as we can be to that. In the meantime, trying to make our negotiating position as weak as possible seems like a bad idea.


You're not a free trade guy, stop lying or condemn these trade tariffs.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Actual indisputable cold hard proof that sometimes you're right to criticise your "side" in the negotiations if said negotiations could be performed better by a quadriplegic gerbil with a speech impediment:


----------



## Rozalia

I'm very much for protectionism myself so it's all good. As he has shown before, he puts them up to make people take down their own ones which is a good use of protectionism. I get a lot of people, especially in America are taken in by the free trade always meme, but if you show that you will be free trade no matter what then others will take advantage and slap you with protectionism. Look at China for example. Promotes everyone use free trade so they make a lot of money... also uses protectionism to make even more money, after all, they're dealing with mugs who purposely cripple themselves by taking protectionism off the table.


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> You're not a free trade guy, stop lying or condemn these trade tariffs.


I don't even want a state. :lol I'm not joining the chorus, sorry. I can think more than one news cycle ahead, and don't have a goldfish memory when it comes to Trump. 



RavishingRickRules said:


> Actual indisputable cold hard proof that sometimes you're right to criticise your "side" in the negotiations if said negotiations could be performed better by a quadriplegic gerbil with a speech impediment:


She's not even on her own country's side. Everyone knows she didn't want Brexit. She's negotiating for something she doesn't believe in. That's a very different situation.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> I don't even want a state. :lol I'm not joining the chorus, sorry. I can think more than one news cycle ahead, and don't have a goldfish memory when it comes to Trump.
> 
> She's not even on her own country's side. Everyone knows she didn't want Brexit. She's negotiating for something she doesn't believe in. That's a very different situation.


You're not fooling anyone. This is like your im not right wing I'm centrist comment.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> She's not even on her own country's side. Everyone knows she didn't want Brexit. She's negotiating for something she doesn't believe in. That's a very different situation.


Imagine believing people like Reese-Mogg and Boris Johnson are on the country's side and not just standing to make billions from short-selling the pound. Might want to do some research into how much money those people are standing to make whilst the rest of the country struggles to tread water to see what Brexit's REALLY about. :wink2:


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> You're not fooling anyone. This is like your im not right wing I'm centrist comment.


Pretty sure that didn't happen. :mj I'm an anarcho-capitalist. On the political compass I'm at the extreme right wing, on the libertarian side of things of course.  

Pretty sure what I said was that I'm not a conservative, which I'm not. Legalize all drugs, prostitution, abortion (even though I'm personally against it), never engage in wars that aren't strictly in defense of ourselves or an ally, abolish the very idea of corporations (which are a state construct), remove all of our military bases and personnel from around the world and heavily scale down the size of our military. That's me. So conservative. :lol

Let's see what kind of trade deals we end up with and what happens with the tariffs and subsidies (of which there are already so many in our economy) after we get there. Then I'll weigh in. Not before.


RavishingRickRules said:


> Imagine believing people like Reese-Mogg and Boris Johnson are on the country's side and not just standing to make billions from short-selling the pound. Might want to do some research into how much money those people are standing to make whilst the rest of the country struggles to tread water to see what Brexit's REALLY about. :wink2:


I don't think I've ever mentioned or speculated about those people or their motivations and beliefs in my entire life


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Pretty sure that didn't happen. :mj I'm an anarcho-capitalist. On the political compass I'm at the extreme right wing, on the libertarian side of things of course.
> 
> Pretty sure what I said was that I'm not a conservative, which I'm not. Legalize all drugs, prostitution, abortion (even though I'm personally against it), never engage in wars that aren't strictly in defense of ourselves or an ally, abolish the very idea of corporations (which are a state construct), remove all of our military bases and personnel from around the world and heavily scale down the size of our military. That's me. So conservative. :lol
> 
> Let's see what kind of trade deals we end up with and what happens with the tariffs and subsidies (of which there are already so many in our economy) after we get there. Then I'll weigh in. Not before.I don't think I've ever mentioned or speculated about those people or their motivations and beliefs in my entire life


So you employ a let's just do whatever,, wait to see what happens then complain or celebrate.


----------



## CamillePunk

Literally while I'm arguing with you guys about this. :lol 

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...id-trade-war-report?__twitter_impression=true



> President Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker on Wednesday reportedly reached an agreement to avoid a trade war.
> 
> Trump secured concessions from European leaders at the White House, including promises to increase soybean imports and to work on lowering industrial tariffs for markets on both sides of the Atlantic, according to Dow Jones reports that cited a European official.
> 
> Trump and Juncker were set to make a joint statement in the Rose Garden on Wednesday afternoon.
> 
> Markets favorably responded to reports of a deal on Wednesday afternoon.
> 
> Trump earlier this year implemented steep aluminum and steel tariffs on the European Union. The bloc responded with retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods.
> 
> Trump had escalated his rhetoric toward the EU at various times in recent weeks, most notably telling CBS News that he considers the longtime U.S. allies a “foe” because of trade.
> 
> Prior to Juncker’s visit to the White House, he had raised the specter of taxing European cars, further ratcheting up concerns that the president would spark a global trade war.
> 
> The U.S. continues to levy tariffs against Canada, Mexico and China, with each of those nations slapping retaliatory tariffs on American goods.
> 
> Republican and Democrats alike have warned that tariffs ultimately hurt American workers, but Trump has dug in on the policy.


People who think Trump is just being chaotically impulsive are as wrong as you can be. He has a particular negotiating strategy that he's employed time and time again, but people get too caught up in what happens in one news cycle of outrage by clueless pundits who are consistently wrong about everything that they don't see the big picture. 

I look forward to similar deals with Canada, Mexico, and China being announced in the near future.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> Literally while I'm arguing with you guys about this. :lol
> 
> http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...id-trade-war-report?__twitter_impression=true
> 
> People who think Trump is just being chaotically impulsive are as wrong as you can be. He has a particular negotiating strategy that he's employed time and time again, but people get too caught up in what happens in one news cycle of outrage by clueless pundits who are consistently wrong about everything that they don't see the big picture.
> 
> I look forward to similar deals with Canada, Mexico, and China being announced in the near future.


He's just spent $12 billion due to his trade war, what relevance does this have to that?


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> He's just spent $12 billion due to his trade war, what relevance does this have to that?


There's an unmistakable disparity in how liberals and conservatives prioritize short-term gains vs long-term gains. On this matter I guess I'll have to admit to having a more conservative point of view.


----------



## Rozalia

RavishingRickRules said:


> Imagine believing people like Reese-Mogg and Boris Johnson are on the country's side and not just standing to make billions from short-selling the pound. Might want to do some research into how much money those people are standing to make whilst the rest of the country struggles to tread water to see what Brexit's REALLY about. :wink2:


And Remainers who want the EU gravy train to continue are? I'll take local bastards over ones aligned with foreigners or are foreigners themselves (EU bureaucrats). Also by the way your comment makes no sense, it's like the Donald Trump ran to get richer thing. If they wanted to make money then siding with the EU would be it. Going against it as they have risks their current positions and could then damage all those rewards that politicians get later where the government puts them in charge of some meaningless quango and stuff like that.

Also Mogg had his 1800s nobleman gimmick since at least 12 years old. It's a long con if he is just putting on a show to simply make money.



draykorinee said:


> He's just spent $12 billion due to his trade war, what relevance does this have to that?


France and many other countries do that. There are a number of good reasons why you would and it ain't necessarily a bad thing. This may be shocking for people who don't understand how these things work, but when you put in protectionist measures and they counter, you lose money, however, they also lose money. To put it simply:

- A has a bad deal. B is making a fortune.
- A uses protectionism to hurt B's income. B counters with protectionism to hurt them back.
- Both A and B are now losing money.
- A says that the protectionism can end, but they can't go back to the old deal, has to be a better one for B.
- B can now continue to be losing out on all this money, or get the new deal which will allow them to make loads of money, just not as much as previously.

Going through with it shows that you're serous and willing to take the hit if you have to. As long as you don't show that you're serious they know they can keep taking you for a ride.


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> He's just spent $12 billion due to his trade war, what relevance does this have to that?


What relevance does that have to Juncker conveying the message of the Masters of Europe that they will bend the knee to :trump on trade? 

And then there's the new Mexican government saying that they expect a new trade deal with the US to be swiftly and successfully negotiated.

Canada is begging that it and Mexico negotiate jointly with the US, because Trudeau knows that if the US and Mexico sign their own agreement Canada will be left out in the cold in a much weaker negotiating position.

The only place even trying to show some balls is China. We'll see how long that lasts. (It won't be long.)

You foolishly misinterpreted and underestimated :trump again, tariffs tariffs tariffs, whatever, tariffs were a means to the end of new trade agreements, those new agreements will be better for the United States and its trading partners both. 

It boggles the mind that anyone seriously thought there was going to be a lengthy trade war with escalating tariffs being on the books for years. The lifespan of most of the :trump tariffs won't even be a year. They will continue to accomplish their purpose of new trade deals, and be discarded once they achieve that purpose. :trump don't dither, he wants deals quick and he gets them.


----------



## CamillePunk

If people followed Scott Adams more they'd be far less confused and outraged all the time. :draper2 Trump isn't that hard to figure out once he's been explained to you by someone who can actually predict what he does in the future with incredible accuracy, which is what actual credibility looks like. Retrospectively explaining someone's actions through your own political filter is worthless noise.

It's not a matter of supporting him or not supporting him (though I would hope you would want to see your own country's economy do as well as possible, since you and yours presumably live there). Surely you'd want to understand him regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum. People have no one but themselves to blame if they're still grasping at straws this late in the game.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> If people followed Scott Adams more they'd be far less confused and outraged all the time. :draper2 Trump isn't that hard to figure out once he's been explained to you by someone who can actually predict what he does in the future with incredible accuracy, which is what actual credibility looks like. Retrospectively explaining someone's actions through your own political filter is worthless noise.
> 
> It's not a matter of supporting him or not supporting him. Surely you'd want to understand him regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum. People have no one but themselves to blame if they're still grasping at straws this late in the game.


All they'd have to do is actually listen to what :trump says. He's said all along that he wants new trade deals and wants them to be good for both sides and is eager to make said deals, not get in endless pissing matches. Of course people are suffering from TDS so they ignore what he says and scream ":trump IS GETTING US IN A DUMB ENDLESS PISSING MATCH BECAUSE HE'S DUMB!" Okay yeah keep substituting fantasies for reality all the way to his re-election, it'll be most :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> All they'd have to do is actually listen to what :trump says. He's said all along that he wants new trade deals and wants them to be good for both sides and is eager to make said deals, not get in endless pissing matches. Of course people are suffering from TDS so they ignore what he says and scream ":trump IS GETTING US IN A DUMB ENDLESS PISSING MATCH BECAUSE HE'S DUMB!" Okay yeah keep substituting fantasies for reality all the way to his re-election, it'll be most :lol


Ehhh, Trump says a lot. :lol I don't blame people for not knowing what matters and what he means vs what doesn't and what he doesn't mean if they're just going off what he says. Especially if they have confirmation bias working against them due to vastly different political leanings and a heavily left-wing entertainment/"news" sector in the US telling them what to think in the unfortunately persuasive form of snark comedy. 

But Scott Adams has him figured out and has been correctly calling him since the very first primary debate. I've talked about him a ton on here but people just mock me. So yeah, people have no one but themselves to blame if they haven't tuned in by now to the "Trump Whisperer" (who describes himself as left of Bernie Sanders, politically). :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Ehhh, Trump says a lot. :lol I don't blame people for not knowing what matters and what he means vs what doesn't and what he doesn't mean if they're just going off what he says. Especially if they have confirmation bias working against them due to vastly different political leanings and a heavily left-wing entertainment/"news" sector in the US telling them what to think in the unfortunately persuasive form of snark comedy.
> 
> But Scott Adams has him figured out and has been correctly calling him since the very first primary debate. I've talked about him a ton on here but people just mock me. So yeah, people have no one but themselves to blame if they haven't tuned in by now to the "Trump Whisperer" (who describes himself as left of Bernie Sanders, politically). :lol


I've always found it rather easy to discern what :trump means. The issue is more that people decide there's no way :trump can get what he wants so it's gonna be a disaster!

It's wishcasting. They don't want :trump to get what he wants, because that would mean :trump succeeding, which is emotionally unacceptable to them, so in their minds their wishes for :trump failure are what is going to happen period. 

And then :trump gets what he wants, there is no disaster, and we move on to the next "disaster" that isn't. :draper2


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> What relevance does that have to Juncker conveying the message of the Masters of Europe that they will bend the knee to :trump on trade?
> 
> And then there's the new Mexican government saying that they expect a new trade deal with the US to be swiftly and successfully negotiated.
> 
> Canada is begging that it and Mexico negotiate jointly with the US, because Trudeau knows that if the US and Mexico sign their own agreement Canada will be left out in the cold in a much weaker negotiating position.
> 
> The only place even trying to show some balls is China. We'll see how long that lasts. (It won't be long.)
> 
> You foolishly misinterpreted and underestimated :trump again, tariffs tariffs tariffs, whatever, tariffs were a means to the end of new trade agreements, those new agreements will be better for the United States and its trading partners both.
> 
> It boggles the mind that anyone seriously thought there was going to be a lengthy trade war with escalating tariffs being on the books for years. The lifespan of most of the :trump tariffs won't even be a year. They will continue to accomplish their purpose of new trade deals, and be discarded once they achieve that purpose. :trump don't dither, he wants deals quick and he gets them.


I'll wait and see the finished product first before making a judgement about who is winning, at present they've just made a few cursory agreements.


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> I'll wait and see the finished product first before making a judgement about who is winning, at present they've just made a few cursory agreements.


Both sides are winning. That's the point. That's, if you will excuse me, "the art of the deal." Mutually beneficial.

Well not the anti-:trump side. They're not winning. 

But the anti-:trump side is not an actual party to the issue. 

Handing that crude vulgar boor :trump a loss is not on the European trade agenda. Owning the Euroweenies is not on :trump's trade agenda. 

Signing a deal that ends major disputes and increases trade is on the agenda of both parties.


----------



## CamillePunk

Most of capitalism is win-win, cooperative rather than competitive. Most businesses are not in competition with one another and in fact need to make mutually beneficial deals with each other in order to compete with the small subset of companies they do compete with. The business-customer arrangement is inherently win-win as well. The business provides a service or sells a product for a profit, and the customer sees that service or product as providing more value to their life than the amount they're willing to pay for it. Win-win.

Right, I had a point in making this post.

These are the kind of deals Trump has made his whole life. The prospect of political people, or journalists, who by and large have no competency or experience in this field (yet laughably regard the president as unqualified or inexperienced) - and in the case of the left often have strong anti-capitalist leanings - evaluating Trump's performance when it comes to making deals is quite laughable. I imagine this is why they tend to think in terms of news cycle headlines rather than stepping back and looking where we were at in the beginning and where we ended up, and recognizing the steps along the way were a part of a whole rather than standing on their own to be judged in a vacuum.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Most of capitalism is win-win, cooperative rather than competitive. Most businesses are not in competition with one another and in fact need to make mutually beneficial deals with each other in order to compete with the small subset of companies they do compete with. The business-customer arrangement is inherently win-win as well. The business provides a service or sells a product for a profit, and the customer sees that service or product as providing more value to their life than the amount they're willing to pay for it. Win-win.


Nah man BernieOld told me capitalism is a zero-sum game where when 1 person wins 10,000 other people lose. 

That's why capitalist countries are shitholes where deprivation and misery are the norm and socialist countries are the pinnacle of human civilization.

Oh wait. It's the other way around.


----------



## CamillePunk

deepelemblues said:


> Nah man BernieOld told me capitalism is a zero-sum game where when 1 person wins 10,000 other people lose.
> 
> That's why capitalist countries are shitholes where deprivation and misery are the norm and socialist countries are the pinnacle of human civilization.
> 
> Oh wait. It's the other way around.


I forgot to include the part that will really make some folks on here rage, which is that the business-worker relationship is win-win as well. The business sees more value to be gained by paying a worker a certain salary/wage than it does by holding on to that money, and the worker sees more value in the money they're earning than the time and energy they're giving up to make that money. Again, win-win.

I'm sorry, I mean...EXPLOITATION!!! :lol


----------



## DesolationRow

Smooth maneuvering by Donald Trump and it is good to see the Europeans be so amenable, which is not surprising.


----------



## Reaper

Lol.


----------



## Rozalia

draykorinee said:


> I'll wait and see the finished product first before making a judgement about who is winning, at present they've just made a few cursory agreements.


Really guy? The tariffs making them come to the table and give Trump what he wanted hasn't shown you that this stuff works?

Truth is Trump has won yet again and the media, the so called experts, and the other guys are left looking like the fools they are. America is a very powerful state with a lot of power to change things, yet if you believed them you'd think Mexico could beat America, heck going by their words there isn't a nation that wouldn't beat America. Sadly for them reality doesn't work that way and as Trump wins their credibility on all such matters wilters to nothing. They claim Trump knows nothing, yet they are the ones who are constantly wrong in their deranged statements.


----------



## deepelemblues

Reap said:


> Lol.


Poor George and poor Reap, this is the best they got.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> Poor George and poor Reap, this is the best they got.


This reminds me of when BM used to take jokes seriously. 

I guess the people in the center were right after all.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Reap said:


> This reminds me of when BM used to take jokes seriously.
> 
> I guess the people in the center were right after all.


Now you know why I basically just don't post in this thread at all anymore, and I wasn't a huge poster on this thread to begin with. :lol


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> Nah man BernieOld told me capitalism is a zero-sum game where when 1 person wins 10,000 other people lose.
> 
> That's why capitalist countries are shitholes where deprivation and misery are the norm and socialist countries are the pinnacle of human civilization.
> 
> Oh wait. It's the other way around.


Captialist countries are perfectly fine. To criticize someone's shit economic policies is not automatically "capitalism is evil hur Durr" though. 

That's just picking on low hanging fruit. 



Dr. Middy said:


> Now you know why I basically just don't post in this thread at all anymore, and I wasn't a huge poster on this thread to begin with.


Well once I finally broke out of the far right echo chamber I actually discovered pro-capitalist / pro-reason leftists. You know the group that supposedly doesn't even exist for some of these people in here.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

As a European right in the heart of Europe - Germany - let me just tell you: THANK YOU AMERICA for Donald Trump!

The man is leading a worlwide hope for preserving sovereign countries and local governments caring for their folk first.
And THANK YOU for getting on a more friendly basis with Russia, and therefore basically withdrawing support for the EU's and NATO's aggressive East expansion policy that would inevitably end in war.
Thank you for countering Brussels' god-like almight-fantasies, something more and more European countries desparately try to fight.

I don't want America having to free us again of a totalitarian system.
Brussels just in May has enabled themselves to take money (that all of us tax payers in sovereign countries have earned), to sponsor any and every Organisation of their choosing, in ANY European country, for "political education". And there is nothing any government can do against it. So, if a government should decide, we have enough of this Brussels crap, Brussels can directly sponsor EU-friendly opposition in that country, to "educate" people how nationalistic and dangerous that is.
Brussels-sponsored regime changes in sovereign European countries.

Donald Trump has understood one thing, and has done it very cleverly: presidents and leaders usually threaten countries they want to change with militaristic interventions or any violence.
But Trump probably understood that the leaders of ANY country simply do not give a shit about human lives.
They do, however, care about Money and economy.
So, it's only logical that one of his main weapons is trade and business with the US.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Reap said:


> Well once I finally broke out of the far right echo chamber I actually discovered pro-capitalist / pro-reason leftists. You know the group that supposedly doesn't even exist for some of these people in here.


What is sometimes forgotten is that the vast majority of voters are slightly on the right or left and have their own legitimate reasons for whatever they choose to believe in. Like with capitalism, yes it has its faults. 

But I'm sitting here writing this post on a laptop that I shopped around to get a good deal on, a pair of Sony earbuds in my ear as I listen to music, and a sprite zero on the table next to me. I don't think that would really be a thing without capitalism no?


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> What is sometimes forgotten is that the vast majority of voters are slightly on the right or left and have their own legitimate reasons for whatever they choose to believe in. Like with capitalism, yes it has its faults.
> 
> But I'm sitting here writing this post on a laptop that I shopped around to get a good deal on, a pair of Sony earbuds in my ear as I listen to music, and a sprite zero on the table next to me. I don't think that would really be a thing without capitalism no?


The problem isn't with capitalism itself. All countries are squarely capitalist. Almost all leftists are pro-capitalist. Their fear is that if income inequality gets too great then the lowest class suffers the most. Which they then go on to say might get a little choppy choppy. That's really about it. Like you, leftists also love their luxuries. They're just critiques of extreme profiteering, crony capitalism, bought and paid for politicians and lobbying ... Oh wait. So is the right. They're literally bitching about the same shit. They just forget what they agree on when they're met head on with each other and start fighting. 

I haven't come across many anti-capitalist leftists in my recent foray into that group tbh. Most of them are sick of the extremists on the left as much as everyone else is. They just don't believe that that's all the left is unlike the far right has led itself to believe.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

deepelemblues said:


> Poor George and poor Reap, this is the best they got.


125k for Trump is like 10 bucks for Reap.
If Reap could fuck Stormy Daniels for 10 bucks, you would have to drag him off Stormy in order for him to stop.
That's the difference to Trump, Trump is man enough to end it even with a porn star when she doesn't cut it anymore.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> I don't think I've ever mentioned or speculated about those people or their motivations and beliefs in my entire life


Those are the Brexiters in chief. It's quite clear at this point that if people were "fighting for the country" they'd be doing their damnedest to stop Brexit at all costs. Brexit = country in a much worse state than it is now no matter how it's negotiated, anybody who believes different is actually clueless. Even worse are the people who think we can just do a "no deal Brexit" without realising the facts of the matter that to do that would be to seriously mess up any potential at a semi-decent future for the UK. When the government is already starting to stockpile food because they know how fucked the whole thing is it's a pretty good indicator of what to expect.


----------



## CamillePunk

RavishingRickRules said:


> Those are the Brexiters in chief. It's quite clear at this point that if people were "fighting for the country" they'd be doing their damnedest to stop Brexit at all costs. Brexit = country in a much worse state than it is now no matter how it's negotiated, anybody who believes different is actually clueless. Even worse are the people who think we can just do a "no deal Brexit" without realising the facts of the matter that to do that would be to seriously mess up any potential at a semi-decent future for the UK. When the government is already starting to stockpile food because they know how fucked the whole thing is it's a pretty good indicator of what to expect.


I'm sure all that you've said is completely true but I'm not interested in the politics of a minor country sorry


----------



## deepelemblues

Reap said:


> This reminds me of when BM used to take jokes seriously.
> 
> I guess the people in the center were right after all.


I didn't know Jon Stewart posted here.

Clown nose: On. 

Clown nose will come off when convenient, and go back on when convenient.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> I didn't know Jon Stewart posted here.
> 
> Clown nose: On.
> 
> Clown nose will come off when convenient, and go back on when convenient.


:mj4 

I've always posted jokes. :draper2



Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> 125k for Trump is like 10 bucks for Reap.
> If Reap could fuck Stormy Daniels for 10 bucks, you would have to drag him off Stormy in order for him to stop.
> That's the difference to Trump, Trump is man enough to end it even with a porn star when she doesn't cut it anymore.


Is this really how bad I used to sound?


----------



## deepelemblues

Reap said:


> :mj4
> 
> I've always posted jokes. :draper2


Clown nose: Off

Most of them were funny and didn't originate from people consumed by pathological hatred and contempt tho :draper2



> Is this really how bad I used to sound?


No, you're worse now.

Clown nose on or off? You figure it out :cena5


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> If people followed Scott Adams more they'd be far less confused and outraged all the time. :draper2 Trump isn't that hard to figure out once he's been explained to you by someone who can actually predict what he does in the future with incredible accuracy, which is what actual credibility looks like. Retrospectively explaining someone's actions through your own political filter is worthless noise.
> 
> It's not a matter of supporting him or not supporting him (though I would hope you would want to see your own country's economy do as well as possible, since you and yours presumably live there). Surely you'd want to understand him regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum. People have no one but themselves to blame if they're still grasping at straws this late in the game.


Serious question, did Scott predict the Trump Helsinki message supporting Sir Putin in the meeting, then turning around and communicating the opposite the next day while offering the weakest cuck excuse in the world? Which, btw, would've had the right's heads exploding had Obama done it?

Quite honestly I would be interested to know Trump's strategy behind that. :draper2

If the basic answer is simply 'he misspoke', then even God himself could not say with a straight face this man is anywhere near some sort of top negotiator.


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> Serious question, did Scott predict the Trump Helsinki message supporting Sir Putin in the meeting, then turning around and communicating the opposite the next day while offering the weakest cuck excuse in the world? Which, btw, would've had the right's heads exploding had Obama done it?
> 
> Quite honestly I would be interested to know Trump's strategy behind that. :draper2
> 
> If the basic answer is simply 'he misspoke', then even God himself could not say with a straight face this man is anywhere near some sort of top negotiator.


I'm not sure how misspeaking on occasion, or even frequently, precludes one from being anywhere near some sort of top negotatior

Perhaps you could elucidate

It's not like :trump didn't mangle his words on the reg for decades before running for president, it somehow didn't stop him from negotiating deals that greatly enriched him, his enterprises, and raised his profile during that time tho :draper2

Obama wouldn't have said he misspoke btw, he would have said those wascally Republicans deliberately misunderstood him then burned a 200-foot strawman to the ground or tossed out a stray voltage non sequitir


----------



## Rozalia

RavishingRickRules said:


> Those are the Brexiters in chief. It's quite clear at this point that if people were "fighting for the country" they'd be doing their damnedest to stop Brexit at all costs. Brexit = country in a much worse state than it is now no matter how it's negotiated, anybody who believes different is actually clueless. Even worse are the people who think we can just do a "no deal Brexit" without realising the facts of the matter that to do that would be to seriously mess up any potential at a semi-decent future for the UK. When the government is already starting to stockpile food because they know how fucked the whole thing is it's a pretty good indicator of what to expect.


Bloody hell. The EU's goal is absorption of it's member states to create the United States of Europe. There is no British state in that scenario. If you actually care for the country and aren't some globalist sellout then out is the only option. 

Also you can't be on the side that rightly says May is clueless and then think her stockpiling food is some grand statement. May was a remainer who thought the country would instantly crash. She knows as much as you on this, nothing.



deepelemblues said:


> Obama wouldn't have said he misspoke btw, he would have said those wascally Republicans deliberately misunderstood him then burned a 200-foot strawman to the ground or tossed out a stray voltage non sequitir


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M

Obama: My Muslim faith

Imagine it on the other foot. Some can misspeak and others cannot apparently.


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> I'm not sure how misspeaking on occasion, or even frequently, precludes one from being anywhere near some sort of top negotatior
> 
> Perhaps you could elucidate
> 
> It's not like :trump didn't mangle his words on the reg for decades before running for president, it somehow didn't stop him from negotiating deals that greatly enriched him, his enterprises, and raised his profile during that time tho :draper2
> 
> Obama wouldn't have said he misspoke btw, he would have said those wascally Republicans deliberately misunderstood him then burned a 200-foot strawman to the ground or tossed out a stray voltage non sequitir


Yeah nah with all due respect not interested in your opinion - I know it won't be anything but Pro-Trump, which is fine it's your position.

IMO, misspeaking means stumbling over words or mispronouncing - it doesn't mean saying would one day - then wouldn't the next. 

Was more wanting to know from CP if Adams' had explained why this was a strategy of some sort so I'll wait to hear from them thanks 

:trump :trump2

Edit: I do appreciate your fancy words though - are you a former leftie english professor? Come on fess up, you used to be part of The Rebellion before submitting to the darkside.... :heston


----------



## Reaper

I'm still waiting for just one good deal Trump has made so far. He's been in office more than a year and a half now. Where are these deals? Where's the plan to dismantle the lobbyists? Haven't seen an update on it since the campaign. 

Has he? I mean, has he made any amazing, great, super great, so great, amazingly great deals? 

I mean, the only thing I've seen him claim to have accomplished is that North Korea is dismantling their Nuclear Plant ... You know, the one that news have claimed since before the summit was already demolished in an accident. Or did they have yet another one? How many did they have? If they didn't have just one, and are closing a second, then how do we know they don't have a third? Fourth? 

Where's the funding stoppage for PP? Where's the healthcare bill? Tax Cuts? Would have passed with the Republican Majority anyways, right? Ok, let's give him credit for a constitutionalist in the supreme court. But what else? 

Sounds like a bunch of distracting fanfare to me.


----------



## Miss Sally

One thing I'll say about agriculture is we need more of it. The South and Mid West are very, very fertile and great for farming. 

With proper growing and farming methods it's very sustainable, no Oklahoma Dust Bowl nonsense!

The Government should invest in agriculture, it's win/win all around. More jobs, cheaper food, exporting instead of importing as much. 

The US has the climate to grow just about any crop since our Nation has various climate zones.. Take advantage of such a thing!


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> One thing I'll say about agriculture is we need more of it. The South and Mid West are very, very fertile and great for farming.
> 
> With proper growing and farming methods it's very sustainable, no Oklahoma Dust Bowl nonsense!
> 
> The Government should invest in agriculture, it's win/win all around. More jobs, cheaper food, exporting instead of importing as much.
> 
> The US has the climate to grow just about any crop since our Nation has various climate zones.. Take advantage of such a thing!


Except that this money can go into something more useful than protectionism. Food prices are some of the lowest they've been and they're not rising because we have established economies of scale. The tarrifs are going to raise the food prices in an established, efficient supply/demand economy. So you've disrupted supply, raised prices and are hoping that by throwing money at local farmers, they not only will be able to immediately raise production to meet shortfall, but also achieve economies of scale ... This is not going to happen. The disruption will hike agricultural product prices, and they will establish a new equilibrium at those higher prices. 

The delusion is that somehow investing in agriculture would not only overcome the growing pains, but immediately provide results that are at peak efficiency without disrupting it. This kind of shit is exactly what has led many industries in America into sharp declines. We've already experimented with this with Obama's auto-bail out and it was a failure then, and it's going to be a failure now.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> I'm an anarcho-capitalist.





CamillePunk said:


> These are the kind of deals Trump has made his whole life. The prospect of political people, or journalists, who by and large have no competency or experience in this field (yet laughably regard the president as unqualified or inexperienced) - and in the case of the left often have strong anti-capitalist leanings - evaluating Trump's performance when it comes to making deals is quite laughable.


You claim to be an anarcho-capitalist, yet regularly praise fascists. Also, as you have admitted yourself, are no expert in economics, yet you praise authoritarian right wing economics when you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. Most laughably of all, you glorify a man as a great deal maker when he has bankrupted 6 businesses and fucked over workers by not paying them for services rendered.

This is why no one respects your opinion. Any real anarcho-capitalist would consider you a sad joke. I would respect you even in disagreement if you actually stuck to your guns on principled beliefs but your willingness to bow down to a charismatic authoritarian is pathetic.

There's gonna be a lot of changing of tunes when the economy collapses thanks to the great and glorious deal maker. I will take no enjoyment from the suffering of the common man when this happens but I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't be laughing my ass off at the dumbass MSM "experts" who constantly proclaim that the economy is absolutely wonderful right now. They were saying the same thing a decade ago too.


----------



## DesolationRow

Do not wish to speak for @CamillePunk; precisely but perhaps he is drawn toward being something of a "Marxist anti-Marxist." After all, few economists have championed anarcho-capitalism with such virulent conviction as Marx; he fundamentally built ideas off of Locke. Have discussed this phenomenon with *Camille* before but one of the critical reasons I am not a liberal in the classical sense is because for all of the somewhat largely frivolous talk of "horseshoe theories" in politics, there does exist what we may call the liberal-Marxist horseshoe. The cynical among us would propose that Lockeanism was taken seriously and promulgated chiefly by those supportive of the 1688 "Glorious Revolution" and a fair share of Whigs in general. Almost humorously Edmund Burke's commendable eloquence in defending the Revolution 1688 as the primary foundation of the British constitution while also repudiating the oft-stated argument that the "Glorious Revolution" had established the throne by the criteria of consent. 

Marx's affinity for what we may call extreme _laissez-faire_ or at least something resembling "anarcho-capitalism" stems from Marxism's entire doctrine of accelerationism, after the fact. Marx repeatedly wrote with a sort of flair that bordered on the concupiscent in favor of unregulated capitalism. As Frederick Engels clarifies in the 1888 "On the Question of Free Trade" pamphlet documenting what Marx stated at the 1847 Democratic Association in Brussels, Belgium once the Free Trade Congress in Brussels closed before his name came up on the lists for speaking slots. Engels translated Marx's speech to English forty-one years later. Being one of the vice-presidents of the Democratic Associations of Brussels Marx was able to speak there rather liberally. Engels translates the speech well.



> "The system of protection," says Marx, "was an artificial means of manufacturing manufacturers, of expropriating independent laborers, of capitalizing the national means of production and subsistence, and of forcibly abbreviating the transition from the medieval to the modern mode of production."
> 
> Such was protection at its origin in the 17th century, such it remained well into the 19th century. It was then held to be the normal policy of every civilized stated in western Europe. The only exceptions were the smaller states of Germany and Switzerland--not from dislike of the system, but from the impossibility of applying it to such small territories.
> 
> It was under the fostering wing of protection that the system of modern industry--production by steam-moved machinery--was hatched and developed in England during the last third of the 18th century. And, as if tariff protection was not sufficient, the wars against the French Revolution helped to secure to England the monopoly of the new industrial methods. For more than 20 years, English men-of-war [fighting ships] cut off the industrial rivals of England from their respective colonial markets, while they forcibly opened these markets to English commerce.


As Marx noted to the assembly,


> ...[T]he Protective system is nothing but a means of establishing manufacture upon a large scale in any given country, that is to say, of making it dependent upon the market of the world: and from the moment that dependence upon the market of the world is established, there is more or less dependence upon Free Trade too. Besides this, the Protective system helps to develop free competition within a nation. Hence we see that in countries where the bourgeoisie is beginning to make itself felt as a class, in Germany for example, it makes great efforts to obtain Protective duties. They serve the bourgeoisie as weapons against feudalism and absolute monarchy, as a means of the concentration of its own powers for the realization of Free Trade within the country.
> 
> But, generally speaking, the Protective system in these days is conservative, while the Free Trade system works destructively. It breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point. In a word, the Free Trade system hastens the Social Revolution. In this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of Free Trade.


Richard Cobden, David Ricardo, Frédéric Bastiat, these and other free traders and classical liberals were deeply influential. Classical liberals dominated much of the eighteenth century in popular thought in Great Britain and numerous policy prescriptions were followed such as the mid-1840s repeal of the mercantilist Corn Laws proves. Engels wrote extensively about how the shifting toward free trade in Britain would assist socialists and liberals alike in turning tenant farmers away from their Tory landlords and churches, dedicating a lengthy article to how the population would grow more invested in tangible, or perhaps better termed, materialistic accoutrements, while also writing for Robert Owen's _New Moral World_. In truth Marx was of course neither a protectionist nor a free trader but he recognized free trade to be the exponentially more compatible international system with broadening industrial capitalism, a stage of economic development necessary to continue the advancement toward "Social Revolution" than the nationalistic mercantilist stances of nations such as Great Britain with their thirty-year "Corn Laws." 

Engels wrote of the "withering away of the state" once the goals of socialism were met beyond Francis Fukuyama's "...end of history," not entirely unlike *Camille*'s wish to see the state obviated. Marx argued on behalf of free trade as battering ram against a potent and rigid mercantilist system. In that sense it fits to some extent that those who consider themselves "anarcho-capitalists" in 2018 would want to see injections of protectionism or threats of same utilized to create a more genuinely reciprocal basis in international trade without relying on stale libertarian bromides about "the free market," etc. 

Or perhaps one can just find Donald Trump amusing, ha.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> You claim to be an anarcho-capitalist, yet regularly praise fascists.


no



> Also, as you have admitted yourself, are no expert in economics, yet you praise authoritarian right wing economics


no



> Most laughably of all, you glorify a man as a great deal maker when he has bankrupted 6 businesses and fucked over workers by not paying them for services rendered.


6 out of hundreds. What a failure. 



> This is why no one respects your opinion.


Oh. :sad: 



> There's gonna be a lot of changing of tunes when the economy collapses thanks to the great and glorious deal maker. I will take no enjoyment from the suffering of the common man when this happens but I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't be laughing my ass off at the dumbass MSM "experts" who constantly proclaim that the economy is absolutely wonderful right now. They were saying the same thing a decade ago too.


The economy will collapse due to forces that began much longer ago than when Trump became president, and there's nothing any electable president could've done to stop it. That's thanks to the democracy you love so much. :lol


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1022148223618695170

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1022149169715322880

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1022177740974419968


----------



## dele

Rozalia said:


> You seem to think you can confirm a lot of things. You can't so they logically default to no, not yes. According to Giuliani Trump funnelled some money to pay Cohen to repay the amount of money used which is all perfectly legal.


I worked in Anti Money Laundering for several years. I can, in fact, confirm that funneling money through shell corporations, obfuscating the source of the funds, in order to circumvent campaign finance laws is illegal. I've worked with the FBI on these types of cases before.



Rozalia said:


> Second, in no way could his campaign be characterised as him trying to enrich himself or his family. He has had something like a billion wiped off his wealth at this point. Politics are divisive, divisiveness, even if you were to be correct, is bad for business. This is why businessmen buy politicians instead of ruling directly.


I disagree. You could characterize not only his campaign, but his entire presidency, as a big cash grab for himself and his family. Why was the secret service forced to pay rent in Trump tower? Why does he always take vacations (payed for by taxpayers), at his resorts? Why did he tweet bad things at Nordstrom after they discontinued his wife's daughter's lines at their store? Why are visiting diplomats encouraged to stay at Trump hotels? 



Rozalia said:


> Thirdly, you have no grasp of such actual dynamics if you think it means that you have to punch everyone you meet in the face, "to appear strong". As Trump has shown, he treats everyone nicely when he meets with them. He'll have some convo, they'll trade saying they're both the best, and all good. The likes of Putin, having a brain leaves it there. Guys like Justin Castro will the moment they're out of the room start talking that Trump is a bad bad man who needs to be opposed. A man respects another man, a man does not respect little punks who will kiss your arse in fear when you're around and then later when you are gone badmouth you.


Let me unpack this, because there's a lot in it that isn't very well written:


*It's not that he was nice to Putin, it's that he completely kowtowed to Putin*
"he treats everyone nicely when he meets them" - Tell that to Merkel, the Queen of England, the G7, and NATO. Eventually, what he says online or in interviews has to matter.
Justin Castro - Who is this? I assume you're making a snarky comment about Trudeau? Are you able to have a political conversation without sounding like my Great Aunt on Facebook?
"A man respects another man, a man does not respect little punks who will kiss your arse" You're not American (as evidenced by your use of arse), what are you doing defending the American president to an American? As your boy would like to say: "OUT!":trumpout



Rozalia said:


> Finally. The piss tape? Just absurd. The "dossier" as known is nonsense put together, no evidence but apparently if a spy puts something down in a paper we have to believe it's true, such people wouldn't just make stuff up... of course not. Not that Trump hasn't pissed over something of Obama's of course, his legacy, you got that if that counts. Obama shouldn't have insulted Trump that one time at that dinner.


If you don't think there's kompromat on Trump at this point, I don't know what to tell you. It's not like he spent his entire career before the presidency working with unsavory people all around the world. Again, drawing on my AML knowledge, Deutsche bank is notorious for laundering money for the Russians. Deutsche bank also lended Trump money when no one else would. Wonder why that is...




Rozalia said:


> Never question the spy bureaucrats. Remember Iraq and it's WMDS and other nonsense? Never. Question.


I'd like to remind you that Bush was a Republican, just like Trump.



Rozalia said:


> They are made of humans. Humans have the capacity to be corrupt. Many of these top officials from those agencies we have seen have shown an obvious bias and hatred of Donald Trump. That is why if he doesn't trust them that he doesn't, not that he is some secret agent the Soviet Union put together way back when, but that he knows a lot of the bastards in there are actively working against him. Would you trust someone working against you and would love to hurt you by getting you into some messy war? If you say yes to that then just forget the above and just pledge allegiance to the Spy bureaucrats as clearly you think they should be the masters of the country.


Good thing that tinfoil will keep the radio waves from penetrating your brain. Just a reminder that the Mueller investigation is run by a Republican (Rosenstein). Mueller himself is a registered republican. The investigation was triggered when Trump fired James Comey, a registered Republican who reopened an investigation into Clinton less than a month before the election.



CamillePunk said:


> could've had all this if we could've just gotten past her damn e-mails!
> 
> She's gonna run in 2020 and it's gonna be hilarious.


:ambrose4mega


----------



## Rozalia

you need to try harder. Real weak stuff.



dele said:


> I worked in Anti Money Laundering for several years. I can, in fact, confirm that funneling money through shell corporations, obfuscating the source of the funds, in order to circumvent campaign finance laws is illegal. I've worked with the FBI on these types of cases before.


... Bloody hell. Talk about desperate. Let me repeat, they funnelled the money, but get this, it wasn't money to do with the campaign. So your talk there is utterly irrelevant. There is a reason Giuliani openly talked about it, nothing to fear.



dele said:


> I disagree. You could characterize not only his campaign, but his entire presidency, as a big cash grab for himself and his family. Why was the secret service forced to pay rent in Trump tower? Why does he always take vacations (payed for by taxpayers), at his resorts? Why did he tweet bad things at Nordstrom after they discontinued his wife's daughter's lines at their store? Why are visiting diplomats encouraged to stay at Trump hotels?


??? You just ignored what I said so I'm simply going to repeat.

In no way could his campaign be characterised as him trying to enrich himself or his family. He has had something like a billion wiped off his wealth at this point. Politics are divisive, divisiveness, even if you were to be correct, is bad for business. This is why businessmen buy politicians instead of ruling directly.

This is a net less for Trump, do you not understand this? You're basically calling him someone who set out to make millions... while first losing a billion. You think that was Trump's grand plan? I'll lose a fortune so I can make pennies. Think this through. 



dele said:


> Let me unpack this, because there's a lot in it that isn't very well written:
> 
> 
> *It's not that he was nice to Putin, it's that he completely kowtowed to Putin*
> "he treats everyone nicely when he meets them" - Tell that to Merkel, the Queen of England, the G7, and NATO. Eventually, what he says online or in interviews has to matter.
> Justin Castro - Who is this? I assume you're making a snarky comment about Trudeau? Are you able to have a political conversation without sounding like my Great Aunt on Facebook?
> "A man respects another man, a man does not respect little punks who will kiss your arse" You're not American (as evidenced by your use of arse), what are you doing defending the American president to an American? As your boy would like to say: "OUT!":trumpout


He acted with Putin as he does any other leader he meets, with respect. Not that it matters, he could have punched Putin in the face and you'd say he didn't hit him hard enough.

??? He says stuff about Putin too, and here is the real important point, he actually has done things towards Russia.

I don't care to remember his last name's spelling, having it be Castro will do. Fits a scumbag like him I'd say. 

Didn't even address my point, instead tries to get away by claiming that me not not being American disqualifies me from speaking, how xenophobic. Sad. Little punk move that. Oh and by the way if I entered America it'd be legally and not illegally like the Democrat's beloved friends, so the Donald would be perfectly fine. Plus isn't he a white supremacist super Nazi? I'm white so I'm sure he'll be cool right?



dele said:


> If you don't think there's kompromat on Trump at this point, I don't know what to tell you. It's not like he spent his entire career before the presidency working with unsavory people all around the world. Again, drawing on my AML knowledge, Deutsche bank is notorious for laundering money for the Russians. Deutsche bank also lended Trump money when no one else would. Wonder why that is...


Well nah. Trump worked in real estate in New York. There will be all manners of corruption that exists. The problem you have is simply ordinary corruption, and that isn't enough. Remember that Trump's support went up when he admitted to bribing politicians to get his way. 



dele said:


> I'd like to remind you that Bush was a Republican, just like Trump.


The relevance to what I said? Is this how you operate? Just ignore and shoot off some irrelevance. Go back to what I said and try again.



dele said:


> Good thing that tinfoil will keep the radio waves from penetrating your brain. Just a reminder that the Mueller investigation is run by a Republican (Rosenstein). Mueller himself is a registered republican. The investigation was triggered when Trump fired James Comey, a registered Republican who reopened an investigation into Clinton less than a month before the election.


... Ah yes, the conspiracy defence. Wonderful. What is rolled out every time America was backing whatever headchoppers they could find too. Comey, the registered Republican right, who lately has been telling people to vote Democrat. Rosenstein, the guy who is soon to go bye bye for his behaviour. Mueller who has made it his mission to bring down Trump. You seem unaware so let me inform you. Trump created a new wing, a populist wing in the Republican party, and the establishment Republicans aren't too happy with that. So yes, as slime like John McCain has shown, you can be a republican and still suffer from TDS.

Oh and are you implying that those guys with their Rs are naturally biased towards them, so them being against Trump means even more? Some integrity they have then huh.


----------



## Headliner

dele said:


> I worked in Anti Money Laundering for several years. I can, in fact, confirm that funneling money through shell corporations, obfuscating the source of the funds, in order to circumvent campaign finance laws is illegal. I've worked with the FBI on these types of cases before.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. You could characterize not only his campaign, but his entire presidency, as a big cash grab for himself and his family. Why was the secret service forced to pay rent in Trump tower? Why does he always take vacations (payed for by taxpayers), at his resorts? Why did he tweet bad things at Nordstrom after they discontinued his wife's daughter's lines at their store? Why are visiting diplomats encouraged to stay at Trump hotels?
> 
> 
> 
> Let me unpack this, because there's a lot in it that isn't very well written:
> 
> 
> *It's not that he was nice to Putin, it's that he completely kowtowed to Putin*
> "he treats everyone nicely when he meets them" - Tell that to Merkel, the Queen of England, the G7, and NATO. Eventually, what he says online or in interviews has to matter.
> Justin Castro - Who is this? I assume you're making a snarky comment about Trudeau? Are you able to have a political conversation without sounding like my Great Aunt on Facebook?
> "A man respects another man, a man does not respect little punks who will kiss your arse" You're not American (as evidenced by your use of arse), what are you doing defending the American president to an American? As your boy would like to say: "OUT!":trumpout
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't think there's kompromat on Trump at this point, I don't know what to tell you. It's not like he spent his entire career before the presidency working with unsavory people all around the world. Again, drawing on my AML knowledge, Deutsche bank is notorious for laundering money for the Russians. Deutsche bank also lended Trump money when no one else would. Wonder why that is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to remind you that Bush was a Republican, just like Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing that tinfoil will keep the radio waves from penetrating your brain. Just a reminder that the Mueller investigation is run by a Republican (Rosenstein). Mueller himself is a registered republican. The investigation was triggered when Trump fired James Comey, a registered Republican who reopened an investigation into Clinton less than a month before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> :ambrose4mega


When I heard the Cohen/Trump tape the first time, I thought it was a 'nothing burger' as Trump supporters like to say. But when I heard it the second time, alarm bells and sirens went off in my head when Cohen discussed creating a shell company for the payment. Shell companies are the key component for money laundering and bank fraud. And if you listen to Cohen when he's discussing it, he sounded so comfortable that it makes you wonder how many shell companies has he created on behalf of the Trump Organization?

The Washington Post said Cohen is under investigation for bank and wire fraud. So it makes you wonder if he lied to the bank to get the money for the shell company. 

This isn't good at all.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> The economy will collapse due to forces that began much longer ago than when Trump became president, and there's nothing any electable president could've done to stop it. That's thanks to the democracy you love so much. :lol


Well, you're half right. The inevitable economic collapse is not going to be entirely Trump's fault. That blame goes on the entire government going back decades. Trump is basically a useful idiot at this point because he is speeding up the epic collapse that his predecessors began. The proof that he is a complete fucking moron is his taking so much credit for the "booming" economy that is full of massive bubbles that are getting ready to pop.

Where you're 100% wrong is your belief that the USA has anything even remotely resembling a democracy. You're also wrong that no president could do anything to prevent it. If you had any kind of competence of history, you'd know that FDR had to fight the sellout Democrats in his time. The bully pulpit is a powerful tool if used properly. Yet, your glorious leader has no interest in actually creating a stable economy. He is going right along with the fascist rulers of the USA who want to rob us all blind. And because of his massive ego that doesn't let him not proclaim credit, he's going to take a lot more of the blame than he actually deserves.

That's what the Establishment is counting on and he is a fucking dupe for getting played so easily by them. When the economy collapses, they are going to lay the entire blame at his feet in their desperate attempt to retain the status quo.

If you were the principled anarcho-capitalist that you claim to be, you'd see this coming a mile away. Sadly, you are not.


----------



## CamillePunk

Didn't know being principled came with oracle powers. Pretty upset right now. :sad: 

I don't know, sitting back and being detached from everything and just wagging my finger at people over how smart and principled I am just doesn't appeal to me. If it works for you and Bruiser that's great, but I'd rather get in the muck and try to push the needle forward even if it means getting dirty and supporting people I don't agree with most of the time because they're less awful than their opponents. Less immigration from authoritarian third-world countries, a less regulated economy, supreme court justices who generally support limiting the federal government, and a less hostile foreign policy all seem like things worth fighting for to me, even if I can't get them in the exact, principled, An-Cap way I'd like them in. Something's better than nothing. Except when it comes to the size of government that is! :nerd:

Oh well, not gonna be bullied into giving up the political fight by people who weave personal attacks into every other sentence and want me to believe they care about my maintaining some ideological purity when the transparently obvious truth is that they just want to shut me up. :lol Good luck on that one. Smarter, more cunning, more persuasive individuals have tried and failed on that front.


----------



## Rozalia

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/07/tom-arnold-donald-trump-tape-viceland-1201988320/



> “I’m going to do this until [Trump] resigns,” Arnold said. “He’s a crazy person and putting the country on the precipice of a war right now… There are things going on right now that affect our world that are scary, and for some reason I am in a position to do something. It is working.”


What a hero this man is... in his own mind.



> And Arnold thinks he’s blown the lid off another lie: That Trump isn’t really a germaphobe. “How many germaphobes rawdog that many porn stars?” he asked.


Uh... are you sure you can say that pal? So Pornstars who are women who have a lot of sex are "dirty"? Many on the right will agree I'm sure but... you're supposed to be with the left on this...



> Arnold doesn’t necessarily think the 40 percent of the country that supports Trump will be swayed by the series, but “I don’t give a shit about the 40 percent,” he said.


It's stuff like this that tells you it's a gimmick. He sees a chance to make money off the fools who'll believe any old garbage said about Trump.


----------



## DOPA

Watching the drama between Trump and the EU unfold whilst certainly has made me critical of Trump's approach when it comes to trade policy, has also made me realize an attribute that the president has which our prime minster Theresa May severally lacks and has been a key reason why thus far the Brexit negotiations have turned out to be a complete and utter disaster.

The hostilities of President Trump towards the European Union essentially boils down to a couple of reasons: firstly the trade deficit the US has with the EU, particularly with Germany which Trump feels is particularly unfair and badly drawn out and the second being the tariffs the EU has drawn up against American businesses which again Trump feels are unfair regardless of how small those tariffs really are. This obviously has lead to some very protectionist policies which I feel on the whole have been unnecessary and have hurt the US economy. Particularly when it comes to steel and aluminium, the price of goods and services associated with those materials have sharply risen and has ended up costing thousands of jobs.

But whilst I clearly think the methods were bad, I cannot deny that it hasn't helped bring the European Union to the negotiating table and hasn't been critical to bringing forward this new agreement which if implemented will be beneficial to both parties. Of course there is work to be done and it could still fall apart but whilst I don't agree with the methods, I can't say it hasn't worked so far. Trump's hard nosed and hardball approach has paid off not only here but it also worked with North Korea with some key help with South Korea as well. Trump may seem like someone who is unhinged and to be fair, I think he can be very impulsive at times but there is a method to his madness believe it or not.

We can agree that there are things we can accuse Trump of but if there is one thing that we undoubtedly cannot say, it's that he has been weak and spineless when it comes to his dealings with the European Union. The same cannot be said with the Neville Chamberlin incarnate known as Theresa May.

Whilst she talked a tough game at the beginning of the Brexit period, Theresa May has essentially appeased and caved in to pretty every single demand that the EU could want the UK to concede. The white paper as it's called did make mention to a special custom's relationship and a move to halt freedom of movement but I think the majority of people, both Remain and Brexit camp can see that in reality that those clauses are unlikely to happen. One of the main concerns of the Leave camp with us leaving with a soft Brexit is that we would end up under the same laws, rules and regulations as the rest of the EU, leaving us no opportunity to explore other avenues for trade in particular whilst having no say at the table when it comes to trade with the EU. The white paper essentially would deliver that and leave the UK as essentially a quango state of the European Union, a vassal with no real power to try and make change within the system yet not the freedom to pursue other opportunities outside the rules in which the EU makes. It is essentially the worst of both worlds and in my opinion the worst possible outcome should Brexit go ahead.

It has weirdly united both Leavers and some Remainers against the proposal. The white paper is so bad that even prominent Remainers such as Nick Clegg essentially sided with the Brexiteers stating that Leavers had every right to be upset and oppose the deal. That should give you an idea of how bad it's gotten and it shows every bit of May's weakness compared to Trump's strength when it comes to political negotiation.

There are a couple of other things I feel need to be mentioned when it comes to Brexit which are important. Firstly, no matter if you are for or against leaving, one thing for certain is incredibly clear when it comes to this process, that being that the ultimate goal of the European Union in these Brexit negotiations is to preserve their dream of a supranational United States of Europe where the idea of the nation state in Europe is eradicated, instead replaced by what is currently known as the European Commission who as it stands have the power to create legislation and law which effects all 27 member states but in which the citizens of those countries have no recourse to hold the commission accountable: they cannot vote for them, they cannot vote them out and the MEP's which are voted for in the European Parliament can only vote on legislation proposed by the Commission, they cannot draw up legislation themselves.

One thing that is uniquely British, which believe it or not revealed itself on both sides of the campaign is the absolute demand of the citizenry for accountability of their legislators. You obviously saw that with Leavers but even in Remain there were a significant proportion of those who ultimately decided to vote in that realized the European Union wasn't perfect and the institution itself needed to be reformed and "democratized". This is ultimately fruitless as people inside the European Parliament have tried to undertake this very task and have been outright rejected by both the Commission and the most brazen of Europhiles.....not to mention that I am actually against the idea based on principle but it does show a couple of things. Firstly not all remainers were huge Europhiles in favour of the project, meaning they realized it's inherent problems and two without wanting to outright admit it, they knew the EU itself is an inherently anti-democratic body. This is a position which for example Owen Jones, a prominent left wing journalist has taken and expressed multiple times. I rarely agree with him on anything but I applaud him for at least being honest about how the European Union is set up even if we disagree on how to deal with it.

Because of this political reality, that the EU at least wants to appear that they are punishing the UK for voting to leave, it is absolutely clear we need someone who believes in Brexit, who has a vision on what he or she feels is the best relationship going forward and is willing to fight for the interests of the UK. That ultimately is in the best interests of everybody going forward, remainer, brexiteer or still undecided. It has become clear Theresa May is not that person.

The second thing that needs to be mentioned and which annoys me that it is not mentioned as much as should be is that the European Union as a project politically speaking is in real turmoil right now. The European Migrant crisis has become a huge issue over the last few years and has reached a fever pitch as Angela Merkel who once supported opening up the German borders is now facing a huge backlash, particularly in her coalition government where there are demands for solutions to the growing problem of both integrating the new migrants into German society and containing the volume of immigration which Germany has undertaken with threats of not cooperating with her should no changes be made. This has led to Angela Merkel essentially having to demand that more countries, particularly on the southern border take their fair share of migrants. The problem is the likes of Italy, Greece and the Eastern Bloc do not what to take these migrants because they fear they do not have the infrastructure nor the capital to realistically take these people in. And in the case of Poland and Hungary this is particularly true. They are poorer countries which don't have the capital and resources the likes of France and Germany have. So understandably, they are rejecting the proposition and it has led to emergency summits being called to address the issue. The latest news is that it is said an agreement has been made but there is still a lot of work to do. The situation is still in a precarious position and has a lot of political consequences.

Not only that but the situation between Italy and the EU has been extremely tense recently, not only over migration but also the incompatibility of the Euro in Italy's economy, particularly with a fracturing banking system. This is something I've been aware of for over 2 years due to having a fruitful relationship with some Italian people I've met through wrestling and @DesolationRow's ever knowledgeable insight on the matter. That is still largely unresolved. 

Only just recently has there been a breakthrough on the situation with Greece which has lasted for years and how long that holds up remains to be seen.

Finally, only about a month ago it was announced that Poland is going to be the 2nd country that is going to have a referendum on leaving the European Union. Whilst of course, the consequences of that wouldn't be as huge as the UK voting to leave, if it were to happen and there is a pretty good chance there is, it will speak to the problems of social cohesion in the EU currently, particularly with the north of Europe and the south/Eastern Bloc. The EU has a lot of difficult challenges facing it going forward and it is in no way a sure guarantee they will make it unscathed.

The ultimate point to make is from a political standpoint we actually have more leverage than what a lot of people believe and it is not being capitalized on by the current Tory government. The EU is essentially stuck in a catch 22 situation: they don't want to appear to be giving the UK a good deal as to not encourage other nations to demand a similar package which in turn would loosen their grip on European integration but at the same time with a lot of turmoil happening with the project they realistically don't want to risk losing allies to help them keep everything to together and the UK is a key partner. This is particularly true because the UK itself is the 2nd largest contributor to the EU's budget meaning that in the long term, they are going to have to restructure the contributions the 27 members make which is not going to be an easy challenge for them to solve. They would particularly like it if the UK remains as integrated to the project as possible. If there is any doubt that this is all true, look at their reaction to the turmoil Theresa May is facing. Whilst they of course outright rejected the deal.....and it is in their best interests to do so because if May is willing to give away so many concessions from the get go in the false hope that the EU will somehow be reciprocal, why wouldn't they push for further concessions? They actually have come out and stated that they still believe Theresa May is the right person to represent the UK in these negotiations despite all of the chaos that is happening at the moment.

This is essentially shows that they are happy with how everything is proceeding right now and are using this opportunity to push for further integration and concessions. Otherwise, they would outright call for someone else to replace her. And why wouldn't they be happy? She's practically given them everything they could want barring a couple of weak amendments which they can easily swipe away. Which they have done emphatically.

It also shows two other key takeaways: 1) We definitely could have prepared a lot better and came out with a strong proposal which puts forward something a lot more positive for the future and potentially worked towards a compromise which is good enough for both sides and 2) The potential for a no deal Brexit is entirely on the fault of the current Tory government and actually has nothing to do with the EU. They've played their hands as predicted and really haven't had to try hard to get what they want. If we get no deal it is entirely on the shoulders of Theresa May and the Tories.

I suspect remainers will agree with the 2nd point but not the 1st.

In any event, at this particular juncture as much as it's going to upset some British users for me to say this, I would rather have someone like Trump leading the Brexit negotiations than a spineless coward like May. In reality, it may not be a smooth sailing ride but at least we could guarantee the white flag wouldn't have been raised at the first true hurdle.


----------



## samizayn

CamillePunk said:


> Something's better than nothing. Except when it comes to the size of government that is! :nerd:.


So democracy is in fact important!


Rozalia said:


> Uh... are you sure you can say that pal? So Pornstars who are women who have a lot of sex are "dirty"? Many on the right will agree I'm sure but... you're supposed to be with the left on this...


You should have paid attention in school.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Didn't know being principled came with oracle powers. Pretty upset right now. :sad:
> 
> I don't know, sitting back and being detached from everything and just wagging my finger at people over how smart and principled I am just doesn't appeal to me. If it works for you and Bruiser that's great, but I'd rather get in the muck and try to push the needle forward even if it means getting dirty and supporting people I don't agree with most of the time because they're less awful than their opponents. Less immigration from authoritarian third-world countries, a less regulated economy, supreme court justices who generally support limiting the federal government, and a less hostile foreign policy all seem like things worth fighting for to me, even if I can't get them in the exact, principled, An-Cap way I'd like them in. Something's better than nothing. Except when it comes to the size of government that is! :nerd:
> 
> Oh well, not gonna be bullied into giving up the political fight by people who weave personal attacks into every other sentence and want me to believe they care about my maintaining some ideological purity when the transparently obvious truth is that they just want to shut me up. :lol Good luck on that one. Smarter, more cunning, more persuasive individuals have tried and failed on that front.


Oh, I have no desire whatsoever to shut you up. You've done far more to expose yourself as a fraud than I ever could. You're perfectly fine with authoritarianism as long as it gets you what you want and that is precisely why your claims of being an ancap are so laughably pathetic. So, please, keep talking and never shut up. Let the world see you for who you truly are. Maybe someday you'll even admit it to yourself.


----------



## Vic Capri

> “I’m going to do this until [Trump] resigns,” Arnold said. “He’s a crazy person and putting the country on the precipice of a war right now… There are things going on right now that affect our world that are scary, and for some reason I am in a position to do something. It is working.”












- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> Oh, I have no desire whatsoever to shut you up. You've done far more to expose yourself as a fraud than I ever could. You're perfectly fine with authoritarianism as long as it gets you what you want and that is precisely why your claims of being an ancap are so laughably pathetic. So, please, keep talking and never shut up. Let the world see you for who you truly are. Maybe someday you'll even admit it to yourself.


breh you are at an 11 right now :lmao

this shit ain't that serious.


----------



## DaRealNugget

*Stormy Daniels' attorney, Michael Avenatti, says 3 other women claim they were paid by AMI, Donald Trump, Michael Cohen*



> WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. - Michael Avenatti, the attorney who represents porn star Stormy Daniels, said Thursday that he is representing three other women who claim they were paid by Donald Trump, AMI and Michael Cohen to keep quiet.
> 
> Avenatti was doing a panel in West Hollywood that included Mayor John Duran, former federal prosecutor Steve Madison and Mariana Magana Gamero, who is part of the Coalition for Human Immigration Rights of Los Angeles.
> 
> During the panel, Avenatti stood up and announced the information to the audience. He said the women claim they were paid by AMI Entertainment, Trump and his attorney Michael Cohen to stay quiet. He did not reveal what they were paid to stay quiet about.
> 
> He added that *one of the women claimed to be pregnant at the time*, and that he is in the process of getting clearance from his clients to release more details relating to the payments.
> 
> Avenatti gained national attention for representing Stormy Daniels, who filed a lawsuit against Trump. Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, said she had sex with Trump in 2006, when he was married, but Trump denies it.
> 
> Days before the 2016 election, she was paid $130,000 to stay silent in a deal handled by Cohen. She filed the lawsuit to invalidate the nondisclosure agreement, stating Trump never signed it.


https://abc7.com/amp/politics/stormy-daniels-attorney-says-3-other-women-were-paid-to-stay-quite-by-trump-cohen/3830894/

:banderas

Can't wait to see how all the evangelicals react once we find out Trump paid for an abortion. It's going to be glorious.


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


Is that all you have is lame ass memes?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

https://www.theroot.com/donald-trump-is-americas-greatest-president-1827901237

Saw this doing the rounds on my left-wing friends' social media. It's an interesting take I guess. :lol


----------



## RavishingRickRules

DOPA said:


> 1) We definitely could have prepared a lot better and came out with a strong proposal which puts forward something a lot more positive for the future and potentially worked towards a compromise which is good enough for both sides and 2) The potential for a no deal Brexit is entirely on the fault of the current Tory government and actually has nothing to do with the EU. They've played their hands as predicted and really haven't had to try hard to get what they want. If we get no deal it is entirely on the shoulders of Theresa May and the Tories.


1. We literally couldn't though, that's kinda the biggest problem that Brexiters don't seem capable of understanding. The EU actually can't negotiate with us in a way that would give us anything resembling membership benefits (like the many things we'd need to cherry pick in order to even maintain the society we have now, never mind improve it) because of the way the organisation is designed. The entire Leave campaign failed to understand that very simple point and their followers share their lack of understanding. Similarly they can't negotiate the kind of trade agreements we need to have with them to maintain our economy without it potentially messing up all of the existing ones they have. There is no proposal for a positive Brexit, because a positive Brexit is a daydream/myth dreamt up by numpties who didn't actually have a clue what they were talking about. The experts told you all, they've been vindicated a hundred times over whilst the Leave campaign have proven false at every single turn.
2. Agreed. And yet some retarded Brexiters actually think a "no deal" option is something we should aim for and be proud of. SO glad to be moving away from this collective of utter dumbasses.


----------



## Draykorinee

RavishingRickRules said:


> 1. We literally couldn't though, that's kinda the biggest problem that Brexiters don't seem capable of understanding. The EU actually can't negotiate with us in a way that would give us anything resembling membership benefits (like the many things we'd need to cherry pick in order to even maintain the society we have now, never mind improve it) because of the way the organisation is designed. The entire Leave campaign failed to understand that very simple point and their followers share their lack of understanding. Similarly they can't negotiate the kind of trade agreements we need to have with them to maintain our economy without it potentially messing up all of the existing ones they have. There is no proposal for a positive Brexit, because a positive Brexit is a daydream/myth dreamt up by numpties who didn't actually have a clue what they were talking about. The experts told you all, they've been vindicated a hundred times over whilst the Leave campaign have proven false at every single turn.
> 2. Agreed. And yet some retarded Brexiters actually think a "no deal" option is something we should aim for and be proud of. SO glad to be moving away from this collective of utter dumbasses.


Think Teresa needs to go all caps lock on the EU and threaten them with sanctions. 

:heston


----------



## Rozalia

DOPA is on the money.










I'd like to use this image, the headline, to note something for those big anti-Trumpers here. You're all getting worked. Forget the secret talks, you seen how Trump spoke in the 80s and such? Ever notice how there is more detail generally and he wins over people? Yet now he is different. Why? Because he plays the heel getting heat for you and you marks fall for it every single time. His enemies can't ever focus on any winners, these things such as Russia (no one cares), rich man having sex with pornstars and models (no one cares), are all losers. If somehow they ever stumble on something he can just fire a quick promo on twitter and you marks just eat it up. Narrative changed.

Do none of you stop and think how under constant 24/7 attack Trump has still kept going up? He can only go up if you focusing on bloody pornstars. Every man and woman in the street know that many rich men screw these women. White, black, asian, man, women, whatever. They all know this. You're telling me Trump, the man who had several divorces and cheated on his wife has sex with models and such? Oh so shocking. Next you might imply that maybe Melania may have been attracted to him being rich. Oh my. That billionaire class is so known for their puritanical ways. 



RavishingRickRules said:


> 1. We literally couldn't though, that's kinda the biggest problem that Brexiters don't seem capable of understanding. The EU actually can't negotiate with us in a way that would give us anything resembling membership benefits (like the many things we'd need to cherry pick in order to even maintain the society we have now, never mind improve it) because of the way the organisation is designed. The entire Leave campaign failed to understand that very simple point and their followers share their lack of understanding. Similarly they can't negotiate the kind of trade agreements we need to have with them to maintain our economy without it potentially messing up all of the existing ones they have. There is no proposal for a positive Brexit, because a positive Brexit is a daydream/myth dreamt up by numpties who didn't actually have a clue what they were talking about. The experts told you all, they've been vindicated a hundred times over whilst the Leave campaign have proven false at every single turn.
> 2. Agreed. And yet some retarded Brexiters actually think a "no deal" option is something we should aim for and be proud of. SO glad to be moving away from this collective of utter dumbasses.


Foolishness. Trump went in with threats and they buckled immediately.

It's true, they can't be nice as that promotes others leaving... but they also can't go to war with Britain as they would be the ultimate losers. What does Britain lose in that? People poorer? And? The ruling class would come out fine too. Now the EU? They have problems on top of problems and are keeping it going on duct tape. Their dream, which is a nightmare for all the peoples of Europe is at risk.

All Britain ever needed to do was lay that out. You want to punch us in the face to not look weak, but you can't. You can't afford to lose while we can. So give us everything we want and we'll see about giving you something you can sell as giving us a smack.



samizayn said:


> You should have paid attention in school.


But... respect women and their life choices? They say she is a hero but suddenly she is a nasty woman?



DaRealNugget said:


> *Stormy Daniels' attorney, Michael Avenatti, says 3 other women claim they were paid by AMI, Donald Trump, Michael Cohen*
> 
> 
> 
> https://abc7.com/amp/politics/stormy-daniels-attorney-says-3-other-women-were-paid-to-stay-quite-by-trump-cohen/3830894/
> 
> :banderas
> 
> Can't wait to see how all the evangelicals react once we find out Trump paid for an abortion. It's going to be glorious.


He gave them the judges they wanted. They know he is an unpious man already guy. He gives them what they want and they will vote for him, all very simple.



RavishingRickRules said:


> https://www.theroot.com/donald-trump-is-americas-greatest-president-1827901237
> 
> Saw this doing the rounds on my left-wing friends' social media. It's an interesting take I guess. :lol


HAHAHAHAHAHA, bloody lol. Posting an article from the root fully serious. The root is the black/left version of the Daily Stormer. Racist garbage that is so absurd that it comes off as a parody site. It is what a far-righter wanting to make blacks and left wingers look bad would write.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> breh you are at an 11 right now :lmao
> 
> this shit ain't that serious.


:shrug I'll continue to do what I've always done. I'll give you credit when you stick to your claimed principled beliefs and I'll call you on your bullshit when you don't. Believe it or not, I respect you when you are consistent with your ancap beliefs. I respect that in the same way I respect Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams, even when I don't agree with them all of the time. 

I especially enjoy it when Daniel calls out fake libertarians for their bullshit, which is something he does all the time. He's one of my favorite Twitter reads.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1020819900045160448
And just for fun, here's a clip of Jimmy Dore giving praise to your boy Tucker Carlson. I disagree with Tucker on just about everything but somehow miraculously he is about the only one on MSM who tells people the truth about foreign policy and rips the Russia-gate dumbasses to shreds.






Tucker might be a jackass on most issues but he is spot on with this coverage. I'm amazed that FOX lets him do these segments.

I'm a lot of things but a partisan hack I am not. I'll give credit to anyone from anywhere on the political spectrum when they take a logical and principled view on a topic. The reason I give you so much shit is because I think you would be a better person if you stuck to your proclaimed principles all the time instead of only when they are convenient to you.


----------



## Reaper

DaRealNugget said:


> *Stormy Daniels' attorney, Michael Avenatti, says 3 other women claim they were paid by AMI, Donald Trump, Michael Cohen*
> 
> 
> 
> https://abc7.com/amp/politics/stormy-daniels-attorney-says-3-other-women-were-paid-to-stay-quite-by-trump-cohen/3830894/
> 
> :banderas
> 
> Can't wait to see how all the evangelicals react once we find out Trump paid for an abortion. It's going to be glorious.


They won't. They'll ignore it.


----------



## Headliner

DaRealNugget said:


> *Stormy Daniels' attorney, Michael Avenatti, says 3 other women claim they were paid by AMI, Donald Trump, Michael Cohen*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. - Michael Avenatti, the attorney who represents porn star Stormy Daniels, said Thursday that he is representing three other women who claim they were paid by Donald Trump, AMI and Michael Cohen to keep quiet.
> 
> Avenatti was doing a panel in West Hollywood that included Mayor John Duran, former federal prosecutor Steve Madison and Mariana Magana Gamero, who is part of the Coalition for Human Immigration Rights of Los Angeles.
> 
> During the panel, Avenatti stood up and announced the information to the audience. He said the women claim they were paid by AMI Entertainment, Trump and his attorney Michael Cohen to stay quiet. He did not reveal what they were paid to stay quiet about.
> 
> He added that *one of the women claimed to be pregnant at the time*, and that he is in the process of getting clearance from his clients to release more details relating to the payments.
> 
> Avenatti gained national attention for representing Stormy Daniels, who filed a lawsuit against Trump. Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, said she had sex with Trump in 2006, when he was married, but Trump denies it.
> 
> Days before the 2016 election, she was paid $130,000 to stay silent in a deal handled by Cohen. She filed the lawsuit to invalidate the nondisclosure agreement, stating Trump never signed it.
> 
> 
> 
> https://abc7.com/amp/politics/storm...re-paid-to-stay-quite-by-trump-cohen/3830894/
> 
> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/BYFVNd7.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Banderas" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> Can't wait to see how all the evangelicals react once we find out Trump paid for an abortion. It's going to be glorious.
Click to expand...

"That was when Trump was a Democrat. The real story is Obama getting Susan Rice pregnant and forcing the white house doctor to do a live abortion in the oval office."


----------



## Reaper

Trump already created the distraction for the evangelicals with his Turkey sanction bait. 

I love how anti-capitalist that is considering that US exporters send 9 billion dollars worth of goods to Turkey on an annual basis. But I don't expect people who know nothing about economics to actually understand what I'm talking about here. Seems to be a common trend in this thread. When you're sanctioning someone else, you're actually sanctioning your own producers because now they have to find new markets and also shrinking the overall pie. 

It's not rocket science. 

But yeah, that's really not worth anything just so you can win a few christian brownie points.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/going-alone-economic-sanctions-hurts-us-more-foes



> *Going Alone on Economic Sanctions Hurts U.S. More than Foes*
> 
> Using trade as a weapon of foreign policy has harmed America’s economic interests in the world without significantly advancing national security.
> 
> The proliferation of trade sanctions in the last decade has been accompanied by their declining effectiveness. From Cuba to Iran to Burma, sanctions have failed to achieve the goal of changing the behavior or the nature of target regimes. Sanctions have, however, deprived American companies of international business opportunities, punished domestic consumers, and hurt the poor and most vulnerable in the target countries.
> 
> According to the president’s Export Council, the United States has imposed more than 40 trade sanctions against about three-dozen countries since 1993.
> 
> The council estimates that those sanctions have cost American exporters $15 billion to $19 billion in lost annual sales overseas and caused long-term damage to U.S. companies—lost market share and reputations abroad as unreliable suppliers.
> 
> Economic sanctions are especially damaging when applied to “duel use” technology. U.S. companies face a web of controls that inhibit exporting high-speed computers and other high-tech goods that, while civilian in nature, could conceivably be used by a hostile regime for military purposes.
> 
> Export controls on high-tech goods suffer from two fatal flaws: The first is that similar technology can often be obtained off the shelf from foreign competitors. Export controls succeed only in cutting U.S. firms out of fast-growing foreign markets without enhancing national security one bit.
> 
> The second flaw is that whatever controls are written into law are quickly outdated by Moore’s law of technological advancement. Today’s “supercomputer” inevitably becomes tomorrow’s high-end PC.
> 
> As well as inflicting economic damage, trade sanctions have been a foreign policy flop. A comprehensive study by the Institute for International Economics found that sanctions have achieved their objectives in fewer than 20 percent of cases. For example, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 failed to deter India and Pakistan from testing nuclear weapons in May 1998.
> 
> Trade sanctions seldom work because of the competitive global marketplace and the nature of regimes most likely to arouse America’s ire. Although the United States is by far the world’s largest economy, its global economic leverage is limited. The United States accounts for only 13 percent of the world’s merchandise exports and 16 percent of its imports. If Washington seeks to punish another country by unilaterally withholding exports, such as farm products, computers, or oil-drilling services, other global suppliers stand ready to fill the gap.
> 
> Even if sanctions inflict some pain on the target country, they typically fail because of the nature of regimes most likely to become targets of sanctions. Human rights abuses tend to vary inversely with economic development. Governments that systematically deprive citizens of basic human rights typically intervene in daily economic life, resulting in underdeveloped and relatively closed economies. Such nations are the least sensitive to economic pressure. The autocratic nature of their governments also means that they are relatively insulated from any domestic discontent caused by sanctions. If anything, sanctions tend to concentrate economic power in the hands of the target government and reduce that of citizens.
> 
> America’s ongoing embargo against Cuba illustrates the failure of sanctions. When the United States first imposed a comprehensive trade embargo in 1961, Cuba was conducting most of its trade with the United States. Since then, sanctions have utterly failed to influence the government of Fidel Castro, which has used the embargo to excuse its own policy failures and gain international sympathy. Although the embargo once enjoyed a measure of international support, today no other nation stands behind it. The reason is obvious: nearly 40 years after its imposition, the embargo has only hurt American companies and the Cuban people, while leaving the Castro regime firmly entrenched with little prospect of change. The manifest failure of U.S. policy prompted Pope John Paul II during his historic visit to Cuba in January 1998 to declare that sanctions are “always deplorable, because they hurt the most needy.”
> 
> Defenders of sanctions often cite South Africa as a success, but sanctions were not the only reason apartheid fell; the fall of the Soviet Union contributed to the climate of reform. Moreover, sanctions against South Africa differed from most U.S. sanctions today in two key respects. One, they were multilateral, while the large majority of sanctions imposed by the United States since 1993 have been unilateral. Second, the apartheid government in South Africa was answerable to a limited but still sizable electorate of about 5 million whites, which made the government more sensitive to outside pressure. Given that multilateral sanctions against a semi-democratic government were not sufficient to force change, it is virtually guaranteed that unilateral sanctions against a dictatorship will fail.
> 
> U.S. influence around the world is strengthened by the presence of American multinational companies. Foreign direct investment is not only profitable for American shareholders; it also helps foster greater economic growth in less-developed nations. American companies introduce new technologies and production methods, while raising wages and labor standards. That creation of wealth helps to advance social, political, and economic institutions that are independent of the ruling authorities. Companies engaged in long-term investments in Burma and elsewhere also help to build schools, hospitals, and roads.
> 
> China offers a good example of how economic engagement can help to slowly but steadily change a country for the better. Over the past two decades, China has become America’s fourth largest trading partner and the world’s second largest recipient of foreign direct investment behind only the United States, and China will soon be a member of the World Trade Organization.
> 
> China’s internal market reforms and increasing openness have fostered rapid growth that has led to rising living standards and greater autonomy for citizens. The share of industry controlled directly by the government has fallen from almost 100 percent two decades ago to less than 50 percent today. Private ownership of homes and businesses is rising dramatically.
> 
> Continued economic engagement has also helped open the door to China for a growing number of organizations whose mission is to promote religious and political freedom. For example, East Gates Ministries International, headed by evangelist Ned Graham, has been able to distribute millions of Bibles to Chinese believers. More than a decade after the outrage of Tiananmen Square, the communist government has begun to release political prisoners and allow a small measure of internal criticism. As was the case in Taiwan and South Korea, China’s economic liberalization is creating a foundation for a more vigorous civil society independent of government control.


For all its claims about being pro-capitalism and democratic and all that bull, America in action is actually a full-fledged Oligarchy with a few sprinkles of ineffective and half-assed social welfare statism. We're a Keynesian economy, not a capitalist one. And Trump has no intention of righting the ship because he doesn't know how to. 

We're not what we claim to be. It's a nice illusion/fantasy though.

@Dopa - Name a deal that Mr. Trump has successfully made in a year and a half in office - because if you can't, then your confidence in him is misplaced and based on Trump selling himself rather than having anything concrete to show for it. He's all bark, and no action. 

There has to be something other than Trump selling himself that should inspire such high confidence in him shouldn't it?


----------



## Vic Capri

The GDP hit 4.1

Thanks, Donald!

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> :shrug I'll continue to do what I've always done. I'll give you credit when you stick to your claimed principled beliefs and I'll call you on your bullshit when you don't. Believe it or not, I respect you when you are consistent with your ancap beliefs. I respect that in the same way I respect Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams, even when I don't agree with them all of the time.





Tater said:


> You've done far more to expose yourself as a fraud than I ever could. You're perfectly fine with authoritarianism as long as it gets you what you want and that is precisely why your claims of being an ancap are so laughably pathetic. So, please, keep talking and never shut up. Let the world see you for who you truly are. Maybe someday you'll even admit it to yourself.


:hmm


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> The GDP hit 4.1
> 
> Thanks, Donald!
> 
> - Vic


Is Trump paying you or something?


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1022935786826678272
Hooray! The GDP is up!

You won't see it in the MSM but there are a lot of Americans out there who are feeling the pain of Trump's economic policies. Even some of the die hard kool-aid drinkers will eventually figure out why their wallets are getting thinner.


----------



## Rozalia

...

I can never understand how the side who is utterly obsessed with social change can turn around and then pretend that economics is all that ever matters. This while you got idiots like Jay Z on that side saying when asked about Trump and blacks being more employed that "respect" matters more than jobs or money. Oh wait I totally know, dishonesty.

The truth is people do care about the state of their country and that goes beyond economics. For example, years ago during Brexit there was a war across the net. I was involved, saw others involved, and a common instance was someone made a comment about the EU being bad, say that it is undemocratic or something (it is), and then someone would chime in with "but GPD" if they weren't drooling morons and went straight to "you racist". My response to these things? The Euro. So much for those predictions. However I would then add that lets say it was a 100% spot on fact that we would lose 3% GDP or whatever... and? To me stopping the European project in my country and globalism as a whole was the most important thing. Nothing else matters.

Likewise, take the religious in America you guys are talking about and love to attack. They want those judges for their own reasons. That is all that matters. Being poorer or whatever is irrelevant. If your country is economically hit you can recover. If it is socially wrecked it is much much harder. For example the Democrats successfully getting their dream in the "browning of America", and then forget the whole illegals voting illegally thing, just straight up making it law they can vote. Currently they say there are like 12 million, add the many more from even more open borders, and those who oppose such things are screwed. They can't vote it out, sheer numbers render it impossible which then means a rebellion is the only option, but then the enemy will have the military. It's called being unselfish. You guys would do well to pick up on what that is.


----------



## Vic Capri

- Vic


----------



## Rozalia

Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


To them mean words (to them, they're justified to say what they like however crude) is worse than having sex with kids. 

It's all so futile. It just means that they have to pay for Donald Trump to always have the newest star on the walk, and that there will be one less voter to vote against Trump and his party.

Though it should be remembered that idiots destroying it ain't even the worse that has happened at that star. The pathetic crowd of people who attacked and made fun of that old black lady tramp because she supported Trump for being for America first rather than for illegals was worse.

https://youtu.be/0uRLiTBaL34

Of course we know well that whoever it may be, homeless, black, Muslim, whatever. Once they get out of "their lane" then the so called "good guys" show their true colours.


----------



## skypod

Rozalia said:


> ...
> 
> I can never understand how the side who is utterly obsessed with social change can turn around and then pretend that economics is all that ever matters.



Pretty sure this argument is used when discussing any type of socialised healthcare (even though there's arguments that people being covered with healthcare actually saves money, not costs). The Right is all "facts don't care about your feelings" like we should walk around like robots and put ourselves in order of who's most valuable to society based on income and social status. 

Regardless, you'll find it's the centrists who are talking about Trumps failed economic experiments more than the left. It's the people who didn't want to vote for either candidate that's seeing how horrible things are shaping up to be.


----------



## Rozalia

skypod said:


> Pretty sure this argument is used when discussing any type of socialised healthcare (even though there's arguments that people being covered with healthcare actually saves money, not costs). The Right is all "facts don't care about your feelings" like we should walk around like robots and put ourselves in order of who's most valuable to society based on income and social status.
> 
> Regardless, you'll find it's the centrists who are talking about Trumps failed economic experiments more than the left. It's the people who didn't want to vote for either candidate that's seeing how horrible things are shaping up to be.


I support socialised health care buddy. Anyway, the reason you won't get that are a good few, but if this was tackled that would be a start.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...are-for-undocumented-immigrants/#59036c9b12c4

No Socialist system can function effectively as long as such people are allowed to take advantage of it. Crack down and obliterate that massive amount of waste in the current system first and then push for the health care you want for Americans, strictly Americans. Hit whoever now disagrees as not being for Americans. Tie it to Nationalism and you'll get it through. Of course, the guys who want such healthcare are not Nationalists and despise it. Oh well, no such healthcare for you.

??? I don't see that. The video posted from that youtuber is very left wing, Sanders guy, though even he has wavered a bit due to Sanders' sheer weakness. TYT are talking on it, rabid left, big time race hustlers, except you know, when they go all in for Clinton. They are the left and they love to talk on it. If you mean the false left wing talking heads or something... well they laughed at Trump and said he wouldn't get 3% and Trump just made wrecked them so likely best to not say too much for a time.

Anyway, this won't cut the mustard here lad. This whole "regret" thing is a popular tactic from losers who thought they had it all wrapped up, perhaps you've fallen for it, I hope as otherwise you're trying to spread it. It works by making people think there are a lot of people regretting their choice, and via that make others also think perhaps it indeed wasn't worth it. The answer of course is it was. Trump to most of his voters immediately was worth it the moment he denied Hillary Clinton.


----------



## Reaper

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1022935786826678272
> Hooray! The GDP is up!
> 
> You won't see it in the MSM but there are a lot of Americans out there who are feeling the pain of Trump's economic policies. Even some of the die hard kool-aid drinkers will eventually figure out why their wallets are getting thinner.


People overestimate the worth of GDP growth and you can tell how illiterate they are with regards to what constitutes a healthy economy when they do so. 

Most (if not all) economists take the GDP _growth_ indicator with a grain of salt because of many factors that don't indicate the overall health of an economy. It says nothing about wage growth, income distribution, standards of living etc. 

For example there is another indicator called Standard of Living which has actually been declining for US citizens.

Myanmar for example has a growth rate of 8.6%. No one in their right mind would say that it's a strong economy and that life there is good. No American Citizen is creaming themselves for a chance to live in Myanmar.

People need to look at the Human Development Index as well as Inequality-adjusted HDI ... Both indicators where the US is much lower than other OECD countries and losing rank consistently ... but yay GDP GROWTH :woo


----------



## Tater

Reap said:


> People overestimate the worth of GDP growth and you can tell how illiterate they are with regards to what constitutes a healthy economy when they do so.
> 
> Most (if not all) economists take the GDP _growth_ indicator with a grain of salt because of many factors that don't indicate the overall health of an economy. It says nothing about wage growth, income distribution, standards of living etc.
> 
> For example there is another indicator called Standard of Living which has actually been declining for US citizens.
> 
> Myanmar for example has a growth rate of 8.6%. No one in their right mind would say that it's a strong economy and that life there is good. No American Citizen is creaming themselves for a chance to live in Myanmar.
> 
> People need to look at the Human Development Index as well as Inequality-adjusted HDI ... Both indicators where the US is much lower than other OECD countries and losing rank consistently ... but yay GDP GROWTH :woo


Where was this Reaper a year ago? Dude, it's like you're getting smarter by the day. :clap


----------



## Reaper

Tater said:


> Where was this Reaper a year ago? Dude, it's like you're getting smarter by the day. :clap


I was going through a phase. Really was.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> I was going through a phase. Really was.


It happens. Just be thankful you snapped out of it and started looking at things rationally again - many are still stuck hard in that phase. It's ironic, when I hear people talk about "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or whatever I always think to myself "yeah it exists, but far more with his supporters than it ever did with his opponents." I genuinely used to straight up laugh when y'all would tell me I needed to be "red pilled" like I was the irrational one. :lol


----------



## RavishingRickRules

:lol


----------



## DesolationRow

@Reap; is correct about the standard of living dropping for the majority of Americans. As a matter of fact this has been occurring for roughly fifty years now, and is certainly rather measurable since 1971, at which point the middle class was still quite robust in the U.S. By the end of 1971 80.0 million Americans were in the "middle class" tier, and 51.6 million were spread across the lower class, which featured about 35 million Americans and the upper class and above, of whom there were approximately 16 or 17 million. By spring 2015 with the dramatically increased population, 120.8 million Americans were firmly representative of the "middle class" while the two other brackets had grown considerably, 121.3 million between them, and split roughly in half, with about 60 million in the lower class and 60 million in the upper class and above. More troubling than that, however, is the percentage share of aggregate household income with the middle class almost free-falling from 62% in the spring of 1970 all the way down to 43% by mid-2015 (and it's lower today). Meanwhile, for the upper class they have seen their percentage of aggregate household income leap from 29% in mid-1970 all the way up to 49% in the spring of 2015. For the lower class it dipped ever-so-slightly from 10% to 9%. 

So what we see from the beginning of the 1970s to the middle of the 2010s is the share of the upper-income tier growing considerably more, representing genuine economic progress for those either at or near the top of the pyramid. All well and good, but over the same exact period of time the U.S.'s overarching aggregate household income moved in sizable fashion from what was once the largest income bracket by a great distance retaining the Aristotelian envisioning of society which left significant autonomy for property-owning middle class families. With a society that has three components to governance--a monarchical force, an aristocracy and republican collecting of votes of aforementioned non-aristocratic landowners or heads of households who are invested in the future of the polity--keeping a middle class large and the lower class small ensures that tyrants do not rise up in the predictable ways, chiefly by appealing to the downtrodden, the weak, the parasitical, women, etc., as Aristotle writes in his _Politics_. With an expanding upper class and a swelling lower class and a stagnant middle class, as the U.S. economic landscape has seen for half of a century now, demagoguery becomes the political order of the day. This has been wedded to the greater falling behind of middle-income Americans since 1999. By 2014 the median income of middle income American households was 4.3% lower than it had been in 1999, and over 5% lower than in 1998. Since the housing market crisis and hemorrhaging recession of approximately a decade ago the median wealth of middle income American families as measured by assets subtracted from debts fell by 30.1% from the spring of 2001 to the spring of 2014. Even when the middle class enjoyed spurts of revitalization as in the 1980s this was primarily bought off through the historically sweeping expansion of consumer credit and correspondingly consumer debt. That which is called "nonmortgage debt"--an umbrella including credit card debt, auto loans, student loans, et. al.--has been steadily rising, and mortgage debt has moved upward in all manner of ways since the housing bubble popped a decade ago. 

The lower-income tier of Americans is now at 22% when it was 16% in 1971. Middle-income Americans are now approximately 49% of the U.S. population, after having represented 61.4% of the U.S. population in 1971. 

Unfortunately I must run. Just played a baseball game (we won!) and am headed to the Brewers vs. Giants game tonight, a few blocks away at AT&T Park. :lol


----------



## Rozalia

So I venture over to the pit known as the Young Turks now and then as it's good to see what crap progressives have been chowing down on. Some real funny recent ones

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um6g7cEcCoo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3HD79avHV8

Just utter hilarity.

First off you got the famous, Trump finished meme. Why? Some approval poll
When they've been shown to be largely worthless. However, this one had numbers on white males. Read the comments and see what they call them, you could sense the hosts hatred for them too. Anyway the reason apparently was Russia... Which means you can guarantee the only issue on the table was that... So they asked people if they approve of Trump's handling of Russia or something, likely rigging the question in some manner, and it came out bad for Trump. Amount of people, not just white but as a whole who see Russia as an important issue? Not even 1%.

In addition, trying to proclaim some end of polls now that have Trump behind random garbo idiots is utterly pointless. There is a reason campaigns happen, they have effects on how people will vote. Trump being Trump can't degrade so Democratic campaigns are worthless offensively, they only try to hide how crap their guy is, which won't work. 

Over here May, the fool, called an election off these type of polls. That she had a 21, yes, 21 point lead over Comrade Corbyn. After about a week of campaigning starting he was basically level. Ironically this had the effect of stopping Corbyn losing his position as his opponents in the party cited those polls on why he needed to go, that they would get slaughtered. Then he won seats and eradicated the so called massive deficit he had showing that once again, such polls were worthless.

Then we have the second video, poses a question regarding progressives, doesn't put progressives in the thumbnail. Why? Well the answer apparently is no, they do not play progressive politics. The amount of candidates they are fielding just so happen to be 52% women, which by coincidence roughly matches the women to men pop. This was not manufactured at all, now the establishment Democrats? Oh yes they play such things... It's like... what? Don't get me wrong, they totally do, but really now? Especially as their argument is they pick people with the right policy, and then say that the Establishment Democrats go find some native American banker with the right policy... so you both pick on policy then you idiots going by that logic.

To sum it up folks. It's easy to be a winner when all your opponents are losers. Be it Corporate Democrat or Progressive, none of those losers can withstand The Donald's bombasts. 



RavishingRickRules said:


> It happens. Just be thankful you snapped out of it and started looking at things rationally again - many are still stuck hard in that phase. It's ironic, when I hear people talk about "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or whatever I always think to myself "yeah it exists, but far more with his supporters than it ever did with his opponents." I genuinely used to straight up laugh when y'all would tell me I needed to be "red pilled" like I was the irrational one. :lol


No. It is a defined term that by definition would not apply to the "Cult of Trump". It comes from irrationality. You think you're being rational while out of your mind. Sad.


----------



## Draykorinee

I sometimes watch infowars to see what regressive trumptons are saying, I dont come here and chat about it. Its basically Venezuela, Venezuela!


----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> I sometimes watch infowars to see what regressive trumptons are saying!


That's actually been a reason I come on WF if I'm being honest, it's usually good for a laugh. :lol


----------



## Tater

Reap said:


> I was going through a phase. Really was.


I was born n raised in uber conservative far right bible belt Alabama. Now I'm atheist and far to the libertarian left. People can change. You know what's funny though? When I talk to mother about policy specifics, she usually ends up agreeing with me. Well, except for the religion stuff. We'll _never_ agree on that. :lol



DesolationRow said:


> @Reap; is correct about the standard of living dropping for the majority of Americans. As a matter of fact this has been occurring for roughly fifty years now, and is certainly rather measurable since 1971, at which point the middle class was still quite robust in the U.S. By the end of 1971 80.0 million Americans were in the "middle class" tier, and 51.6 million were spread across the lower class, which featured about 35 million Americans and the upper class and above, of whom there were approximately 16 or 17 million. By spring 2015 with the dramatically increased population, 120.8 million Americans were firmly representative of the "middle class" while the two other brackets had grown considerably, 121.3 million between them, and split roughly in half, with about 60 million in the lower class and 60 million in the upper class and above. More troubling than that, however, is the percentage share of aggregate household income with the middle class almost free-falling from 62% in the spring of 1970 all the way down to 43% by mid-2015 (and it's lower today). Meanwhile, for the upper class they have seen their percentage of aggregate household income leap from 29% in mid-1970 all the way up to 49% in the spring of 2015. For the lower class it dipped ever-so-slightly from 10% to 9%.
> 
> So what we see from the beginning of the 1970s to the middle of the 2010s is the share of the upper-income tier growing considerably more, representing genuine economic progress for those either at or near the top of the pyramid. All well and good, but over the same exact period of time the U.S.'s overarching aggregate household income moved in sizable fashion from what was once the largest income bracket by a great distance retaining the Aristotelian envisioning of society which left significant autonomy for property-owning middle class families. With a society that has three components to governance--a monarchical force, an aristocracy and republican collecting of votes of aforementioned non-aristocratic landowners or heads of households who are invested in the future of the polity--keeping a middle class large and the lower class small ensures that tyrants do not rise up in the predictable ways, chiefly by appealing to the downtrodden, the weak, the parasitical, women, etc., as Aristotle writes in his _Politics_. With an expanding upper class and a swelling lower class and a stagnant middle class, as the U.S. economic landscape has seen for half of a century now, demagoguery becomes the political order of the day. This has been wedded to the greater falling behind of middle-income Americans since 1999. By 2014 the median income of middle income American households was 4.3% lower than it had been in 1999, and over 5% lower than in 1998. Since the housing market crisis and hemorrhaging recession of approximately a decade ago the median wealth of middle income American families as measured by assets subtracted from debts fell by 30.1% from the spring of 2001 to the spring of 2014. Even when the middle class enjoyed spurts of revitalization as in the 1980s this was primarily bought off through the historically sweeping expansion of consumer credit and correspondingly consumer debt. That which is called "nonmortgage debt"--an umbrella including credit card debt, auto loans, student loans, et. al.--has been steadily rising, and mortgage debt has moved upward in all manner of ways since the housing bubble popped a decade ago.
> 
> The lower-income tier of Americans is now at 22% when it was 16% in 1971. Middle-income Americans are now approximately 49% of the U.S. population, after having represented 61.4% of the U.S. population in 1971.
> 
> Unfortunately I must run. Just played a baseball game (we won!) and am headed to the Brewers vs. Giants game tonight, a few blocks away at AT&T Park. :lol


You know all of this, yet you are still pro-capitalist. Post Great Depression, during the height of the New Deal years, the USA built up the strongest middle class the world has ever seen. The mistake FDR made was keeping capitalism in place and heavily taxing it to build said middle class. He left the same elite in control at the top and they were mad as hell. Subsequently, they have been spending the past half century chipping away and eroding every gain the common man had gotten. Basically, by leaving capitalism in place after the Great Depression, it has led us back to the roaring 20s again.

This is why I consider Bernie Sanders to be such a weak "revolutionary". He wants to do the same things that failed the last time around. Sure, they worked for awhile, but as long as you leave that much power and control in the hands of an elite few, they will always continue taking more and more for themselves until the economy collapses again.

Those who do not learn from the past will repeat the mistakes of history.



Rozalia said:


> So I venture over to the pit known as the Young Turks now and then as it's good to see what crap progressives have been chowing down on.


TYT is fucking pathetic. Watch The Jimmy Dore show every once in awhile and see if you can tell the difference between his show and TYT. One example: Jimmy has brought on Bill Binney and has completely debunked the Russiagate narrative, while TYT still believes Trump is a Putin puppet. The difference between the two shows is stark.



RavishingRickRules said:


> That's actually been a reason I come on WF if I'm being honest, it's usually good for a laugh. :lol


Yeah, this place can be good for a laugh at times, but in defense of WF and specifically this thread, what makes this place great is how it is moderated. There is no censorship whatsoever of language or opinion but they have a firm policy of attack the post, not the poster, which makes this a lot better place to discuss politics than most. Plus, you can find opinions from just about everywhere on the political spectrum, so it's not an echo chamber. That and the always excellent entertainment section are why I still post at WF, even though I quit watching wrestling nearly 2 years ago.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> You know all of this, yet you are still pro-capitalist. Post Great Depression, during the height of the New Deal years, the USA built up the strongest middle class the world has ever seen. The mistake FDR made was keeping capitalism in place and heavily taxing it to build said middle class. He left the same elite in control at the top and they were mad as hell. Subsequently, they have been spending the past half century chipping away and eroding every gain the common man had gotten. Basically, by leaving capitalism in place after the Great Depression, it has led us back to the roaring 20s again.


How should FDR have dismantled capitalism?


----------



## Reaper

I agree, WF's Trump thread is definitely one of the better Trump threads on the internet.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> How should FDR have dismantled capitalism?


I could go into a long and detailed explanation of how our economy should have been restructured after it's collapse but you aren't really interested in a genuine reply, so I'm not going to bother wasting my time.


----------



## Rozalia

draykorinee said:


> I sometimes watch infowars to see what regressive trumptons are saying, I dont come here and chat about it. Its basically Venezuela, Venezuela!


Your mistake is trying to define me as someone who would actually care about such a statement. My most read news source is The Guardian, and who I in part credit for "radicalising" me. It wasn't Infowars, it wasn't Breitbart, it wasn't Fox News, it wasn't some WN site like Daily Stormer, not even something like The Root whose hate of me comes off like a parody so can I be mad at them for providing entertainment. It was The Guardian. I was one happy guy when they did the Trump treatment on an actual leftwinger in Comrade Corbyn and then so many more started seeing what I'd known for many years.

The Young Turks (conspiracy loving rabid left wingers) is the left's Infowars (conspiracy loving rabid right wingers) so at least we agree there it seems. Like how The Root (far left racists) is the left's Daily Stormer (far right racists).



RavishingRickRules said:


> That's actually been a reason I come on WF if I'm being honest, it's usually good for a laugh. :lol


Aren't you the big guy. Reminder that for the "have a laugh" talk, he had to block me after a couple of posts as I was demolishing him and his "you racist" attacks were having no effect. So yeah, no one believes your attempt at looking above us tough guy.



Tater said:


> TYT is fucking pathetic. Watch The Jimmy Dore show every once in awhile and see if you can tell the difference between his show and TYT. One example: Jimmy has brought on Bill Binney and has completely debunked the Russiagate narrative, while TYT still believes Trump is a Putin puppet. The difference between the two shows is stark.
> 
> Yeah, this place can be good for a laugh at times, but in defense of WF and specifically this thread, what makes this place great is how it is moderated. There is no censorship whatsoever of language or opinion but they have a firm policy of attack the post, not the poster, which makes this a lot better place to discuss politics than most. Plus, you can find opinions from just about everywhere on the political spectrum, so it's not an echo chamber. That and the always excellent entertainment section are why I still post at WF, even though I quit watching wrestling nearly 2 years ago.


I know mate don't worry. Was honestly surprised when after the election I started watching his show and he was hitting it out of the park and unlike most on the left, progressive or otherwise, he wasn't buying into the conspiracies. He can also see why people voted for Trump beyond, "they are all dirty racists" which is good. Not always going to agree with what he says, he is a progressive after all, but I can respect him talking far more than the other progressives. Secular Talk is the other one that comes off pretty good.

I've had stuff locked and removed from threads which admittedly I didn't like, as you wouldn't, but even with that this place tends to be way ahead yes as so many places on the internet are so draconian. The most famous case of this was back in the old Neogaf (before the sex offence thing where all the progressives and their corrupt mods exiled themselves) where they were possessed to the point it was just Trump related thread after Trump thread, and in the Mega thread it just amounted to people calling Trump and his supporters racists and whatever else, and if someone broke from that then they'd get banned for it as clearly it's a racist or a troll. No normal person could support Trump apparently.


----------



## Tater

Rozalia said:


> I know mate don't worry. Was honestly surprised when after the election I started watching his show and he was hitting it out of the park and unlike most on the left, progressive or otherwise, he wasn't buying into the conspiracies. He can also see why people voted for Trump beyond, "they are all dirty racists" which is good. Not always going to agree with what he says, he is a progressive after all, but I can respect him talking far more than the other progressives. Secular Talk is the other one that comes off pretty good.


There was a clear split between Jimmy Dore and most of the rest of the TYT crew after the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie. Most of them immediately switched to supporting Hillary but Jimmy refused (and I don't blame him). Even though I have my own issues with Bernie, I probably would have voted for him in the general. Never in a million fucking years would I have voted for Hillary. I don't care how bad Trump is, I still maintain that we dodged a huge bullet when she was denied her coronation to the WH.

Kyle Kulinski is also much better than TYT but still not as good as Jimmy. I'll listen to his daily show at night when I'm working. One of the mistakes Kyle makes and admittedly sometimes Jimmy does it too, is placing blame on the right for things they don't like when it's not a left vs right issue. Some issues have nothing to do with left vs right and everything to do with authoritarian vs libertarian. Their most common mistake is criticizing neocon Dems when they whine about Trump not being hawkish enough on Russia by claiming they are attacking Trump "from the right". No, actually, they are attacking Trump for not being more authoritarian. Matters of war and peace are not a left vs right issue, they are an authoritarian vs libertarian issue. Two of the loudest voices against the MIC are Daniel McAdams and Ron Paul and they are both about as far right as you can get. The libertarian right, that is. Which is why even though I disagree with the libertarian right on economic issues, I strongly ally myself with them in opposing our neocon authoritarian government.



Rozalia said:


> I've had stuff locked and removed from threads which admittedly I didn't like, as you wouldn't, but even with that this place tends to be way ahead yes as so many places on the internet are so draconian. The most famous case of this was back in the old Neogaf (before the sex offence thing where all the progressives and their corrupt mods exiled themselves) where they were possessed to the point it was just Trump related thread after Trump thread, and in the Mega thread it just amounted to people calling Trump and his supporters racists and whatever else, and if someone broke from that then they'd get banned for it as clearly it's a racist or a troll. *No normal person could support Trump apparently.*


In my experience, the people who call all Trump supporters deplorables are people who don't give a shit about all Americans. They only care about those who strictly agree with their ideology. They don't want to acknowledge the fact that 8 years under Obama didn't improve the lives of most Americans. They want to pretend that Hillary was telling the truth when she said America was already great. Well, it ain't great for all of us, and that's why Democrats are wiped out nationally right now. They were given their chance and they blew it. Now when the Republicans make life even worse for everyone, if the trends continue, it'll be the Democrats' turn to fuck us all over again. And around and around the toilet bowl we go.

Jimmy Dore is right about one thing. Big Money is never going to relinquish control of the DNC and progressives who are fighting to take over the party are wasting their time. Those running the DNC will burn down the house before ever letting someone else take control of it.


----------



## Draykorinee

Rozalia said:


> Your mistake is trying to define me as someone who would actually care about such a statement.


You replied. You cared.

Not that that was my intent, it was a message to everyone, if I wanted it aimed at you specifically, I would have quoted you, like I always do if I want someones attention.


----------



## BruiserKC

Once again, Trump is threatening to shut down the government if he doesn’t get his funding for the wall and immigration priorities. Mr. President, you threatened this twice before and both times you folded like a cheap suit. Why should we believe you this time will be any different?


----------



## virus21

Reap said:


> I agree, WF's Trump thread is definitely one of the better Trump threads on the internet.


Thats because we are capable of actually discussing shit without getting into hysterics.


----------



## Reaper

On a sort of unrelated, but related note, Perennial Pakistani Playboy turned born-again Mullahcrat Imran Khan looks like is going to be forming the majority government. He became a religious hardliner to the point where many of us Pakistani liberals started refering to him as Taliban Khan. 

Imran Khan is the same politician who made a majority government with one of Pakistan's most hardline religious political parties in the most Terror-riddled province for 5 years ... and now looks to be forming the majority government - meaning he now has complete control over the fight against Terrorism. 

Imran Khan is also fairly anti-west intervention (which is good), but unfortunately, in 2015 he wanted to negotiate with the Taliban which led to a ceasefire which resulted in a huge uptick in terrorism for the duration where the government listened to his suggestion. Imran is a conservative mullah-type. A lot of women left his party after realizing that underneath the veil of egalitarianism, his party has a lot in common with social conservatism and social conservatism in Pakistan is much, much worse. 


> *Pakistan watchers in US doubt fairness of general elections, say Imran Khan unlikely to act decisively against jihadis*
> 
> Washington: Pakistan watchers in the US on Wednesday doubted the fairness of the general election for which Imran Khan's party received the army's backing while the PML-N and the PPP ran their campaigns "under constraints". The Trump administration said it was closely monitoring the situation in Pakistan but refused to declare the polls "free and fair". The State Department too refused to confirm that. Its mission in Pakistan did not deploy election observers primarily because of security concerns.
> 
> "We continue to monitor developments and have consistently emphasised our support for free, fair, transparent and accountable elections in Pakistan, as we do around the world," a State Department spokesperson told the Press Trust of India. Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistan ambassador to the US, said that the result of the election was "foretold". "PML-N and PPP were running under constraints and PTI was operating with complete freedom and establishment backing."
> 
> Haqqani, who is with the Hudson Institute think-tank, said the result was unlikely to change anything in Pakistan, unless the military-led establishment decides to shutdown its "jihad business" and recognises it as the source of the country's isolation and economic difficulties.
> 
> "It is unlikely that a prime minister Imran Khan will act decisively against jihadis, given his sympathy for their cause but miracles can happen," Haqqani said. The comments came as political parties in Pakistan, including the incumbent Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, too raised allegations that the election was manipulated and rigged in PTI chief Khan's favour.
> 
> At a midnight press conference when the vote count was underway, PML-N president Shahbaz Sharif said the election was a "blatant violation" of the mandate of the people. Pakistan Peoples Party chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari too raised doubts over the slow pace of vote count and other procedural irregularities.
> 
> "There are serious allegations of tampering and interference for virtually all parties except the PTI. So the Election Commission of Pakistan will have to respond — but it is unclear how," former state department official Alyssa Ayres, who is now with the Council on Foreign Relations, said. In an early-morning press conference, the Election Commission rejected the charges, saying it did "our job right."
> 
> "In the meantime, the prospect of an Imran Khan-led government will in my view introduce further rockiness into US-Pakistan ties. He is on the record saying things like 'America is destroying Pakistan' and will likely seek to reduce Pakistan-US cooperation, already troubled to begin with. So count me concerned," Ayres said. Imran Khan, Pakistan experts widely believe, has the backing of the Pakistani army.
> 
> Jeff M Smith — from the Heritage Foundation — said it was important to acknowledge that a peaceful transition of power via a democratic election is still a rare commodity in Pakistan and thus would be a positive step forward. Though, even that has been put in doubt by "some very troubling accounts" of electoral tampering and manipulation, he said. "The bigger problem, by far, is that the results of the election carry only limited meaning so long as the Pakistani military remains the principal power broker and puppet master governing from behind the scenes," Smith said.
> 
> It ensures that regardless of who wins the election, there is unlikely to be any great deviation from the military's policies and priorities in domestic and foreign affairs, he said. "Past history suggests those daring enough to try and chart a more independent course or assert some degree of civilian control over the military are quickly discarded and emasculated by Rawalpindi, which inevitably finds a new political host to co-opt," Smith said.
> 
> Khan's position on the US is far more hawkish than former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, noted Moeed Yusuf, from US Institute of Peace. "On India, even though Khan is likely to take a more balanced approach, he will certainly not be as forward-leaning as Sharif," he said. Appearing at the Atlantic Council, a US think-tank, Ikram ul Majeed Sehgal chairman of the Pathfinder Group said the Pakistani army always had a major say in elections.
> 
> This time it made it publicly known that it favoured Khan in general elections but did not interfere in the elections itself, he said in response to a question.


More on Taliban Khan:

https://www.news18.com/news/world/h...liban-khan-in-pakistans-politics-1823667.html



> *Here's Why Imran Khan Has Earned the Moniker 'Taliban Khan' in Pakistan's Politics*
> 
> New Delhi: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairperson Imran Khan, who is being touted by many as the next Prime Minister of that country, has gained international repute as a cricket legend.
> 
> However, over the past five years, he has cultivated another image — one which is not so flattering. His political opponents in Pakistan have dubbed the 1992 Cricket World Cup winner ‘Taliban Khan’. While he has fought this image, Khan’s utterances over the years have not painted a picture of someone who wishes to disassociate from the Pakistan Taliban.
> 
> Khan courted controversy for describing top Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) commander Wali-ur-Rehman as ‘pro-peace’ when he was killed by US forces in 2013. “The drone attack that killed pro peace Waliurrehman led to r soldiers being killed/injured in revenge attacks! This is totally unacceptable,” he tweeted.
> 
> Later that year in September, Khan suggested that the Taliban should be allowed to “open an office” somewhere in Pakistan. He argued that if the US could open offices for the Afghan Taliban in Qatar, why couldn’t the Pakistan Taliban do the same?
> 
> In March 2014, senior PTI leader and health minister in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Shaukat Yousafzai said PTI had “always supported the opening of a Taliban office in Peshawar”. Later, yet another minister in the PTI-ruled KPK Province said the Taliban should be allowed to open an office “anywhere in Pakistan”.
> 
> In November 2013, after the US killed Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud in a drone strike, Khan said it was “absolutely deliberate — this was a deliberate targeting of the peace process”.
> 
> The cricketer-turned-politician’s love for the Taliban is not one-sided. In February 2014, the terror outfit nominated him to represent them in mediation talks. While Khan eventually refused, the incident showed the faith the Taliban has in him.
> 
> In March that year, Khan said the Pakistan Taliban’s only demand was that it wanted to disassociate the country from the US’s war, which is something even PTI has been demanding.
> 
> Khan’s utterances in support of the Taliban continued well into 2018 as he defended the group’s system of justice in an interview to BBC HARDtalk. Pakistan People’s Party chairperson Bilawal Bhutto Zardari had lashed out at Khan after his comments.
> 
> In January this year, the PTI gave a grant worth PKR 550 million to madrasas of Sami-ul-Haq, who is also known as the ‘Father of Taliban’. Ahead of the polls, PTI joined hands with Maulana Fazlur Rehman Khalil, who is on the US terror watch list.
> 
> While Khan has claimed repeatedly that his criticism has been fuelled by “Indian and American propaganda”, he will have to answer some tough questions in front of the world.


----------



## BruiserKC

virus21 said:


> Thats because we are capable of actually discussing shit without getting into hysterics.


Very true. I may not agree with people here but for the most part they have reasoned arguments. Other sites I frequent have deteriorated to “Trump rules, you drool!”

Who says wrestling fans aren’t intelligent? 



Reap said:


> On a sort of unrelated, but related note, Perennial Pakistani Playboy turned born-again Mullahcrat Imran Khan looks like is going to be forming the majority government. He became a religious hardliner to the point where many of us Pakistani liberals started refering to him as Taliban Khan.
> 
> Imran Khan is the same politician who made a majority government with one of Pakistan's most hardline religious political parties in the most Terror-riddled province for 5 years ... and now looks to be forming the majority government - meaning he now has complete control over the fight against Terrorism.
> 
> Imran Khan is also fairly anti-west intervention (which is good), but unfortunately, in 2015 he wanted to negotiate with the Taliban which led to a ceasefire which resulted in a huge uptick in terrorism for the duration where the government listened to his suggestion. Imran is a conservative mullah-type. A lot of women left his party after realizing that underneath the veil of egalitarianism, his party has a lot in common with social conservatism and social conservatism in Pakistan is much, much worse.
> 
> 
> More on Taliban Khan:
> 
> https://www.news18.com/news/world/h...liban-khan-in-pakistans-politics-1823667.html


Khan is another example of when we try to back too far away from international matters. We don’t have to be fully involved but engaged in what happens around the world. Pakistanais feel we don’t care about them, plus he is not beholden to the two major parties in that country either.


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> Khan is another example of when we try to back too far away from international matters. We don’t have to be fully involved but engaged in what happens around the world. Pakistanais feel we don’t care about them, plus he is not beholden to the two major parties in that country either.


Khan has hoodwinked the majority of the liberals in Pakistan because he's incredibly handsome, a sweet talker. He's not really Taliban Khan, but he toes the line between sympathizer and outright hardliner. 

He's done a lot of good for the country. There's no doubt about that. 

But his sympathies lie with Islam and therefore he always sides with the hardliners over the secularists. 

He's had two divorces with liberal women already. His sons live in England with their mother and are only allowed to stay in Pakistan on vacations and Jemimah has stated in very subtle and muted words that Imran's foray into Islam and becoming increasingly socially conservative was one of the reasons why she ended the marriage. Can't be anything else.


----------



## Rozalia

Tater said:


> There was a clear split between Jimmy Dore and most of the rest of the TYT crew after the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie. Most of them immediately switched to supporting Hillary but Jimmy refused (and I don't blame him). Even though I have my own issues with Bernie, I probably would have voted for him in the general. Never in a million fucking years would I have voted for Hillary. I don't care how bad Trump is, I still maintain that we dodged a huge bullet when she was denied her coronation to the WH.
> 
> Kyle Kulinski is also much better than TYT but still not as good as Jimmy. I'll listen to his daily show at night when I'm working. One of the mistakes Kyle makes and admittedly sometimes Jimmy does it too, is placing blame on the right for things they don't like when it's not a left vs right issue. Some issues have nothing to do with left vs right and everything to do with authoritarian vs libertarian. Their most common mistake is criticizing neocon Dems when they whine about Trump not being hawkish enough on Russia by claiming they are attacking Trump "from the right". No, actually, they are attacking Trump for not being more authoritarian. Matters of war and peace are not a left vs right issue, they are an authoritarian vs libertarian issue. Two of the loudest voices against the MIC are Daniel McAdams and Ron Paul and they are both about as far right as you can get. The libertarian right, that is. Which is why even though I disagree with the libertarian right on economic issues, I strongly ally myself with them in opposing our neocon authoritarian government.
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience, the people who call all Trump supporters deplorables are people who don't give a shit about all Americans. They only care about those who strictly agree with their ideology. They don't want to acknowledge the fact that 8 years under Obama didn't improve the lives of most Americans. They want to pretend that Hillary was telling the truth when she said America was already great. Well, it ain't great for all of us, and that's why Democrats are wiped out nationally right now. They were given their chance and they blew it. Now when the Republicans make life even worse for everyone, if the trends continue, it'll be the Democrats' turn to fuck us all over again. And around and around the toilet bowl we go.
> 
> Jimmy Dore is right about one thing. Big Money is never going to relinquish control of the DNC and progressives who are fighting to take over the party are wasting their time. Those running the DNC will burn down the house before ever letting someone else take control of it.


On the money mate. The issue of money in politics is a big one and an odd one too. In other countries what happens in America is looked upon as simply corruption. You don't get billions in cash and no favours being expected with it.



draykorinee said:


> You replied. You cared.
> 
> Not that that was my intent, it was a message to everyone, if I wanted it aimed at you specifically, I would have quoted you, like I always do if I want someones attention.


You misunderstand. I don't mean don't care in "I don't care what you say", I mean I don't care if you attack infowars. It is like, and I hope you haven't taken any sledgehammers to the brain, I was to attack The Root in an effort to attack you. You could then say you don't care, you know the Root is a joke. 



Reap said:


> On a sort of unrelated, but related note, Perennial Pakistani Playboy turned born-again Mullahcrat Imran Khan looks like is going to be forming the majority government. He became a religious hardliner to the point where many of us Pakistani liberals started refering to him as Taliban Khan.
> 
> Imran Khan is the same politician who made a majority government with one of Pakistan's most hardline religious political parties in the most Terror-riddled province for 5 years ... and now looks to be forming the majority government - meaning he now has complete control over the fight against Terrorism.
> 
> Imran Khan is also fairly anti-west intervention (which is good), but unfortunately, in 2015 he wanted to negotiate with the Taliban which led to a ceasefire which resulted in a huge uptick in terrorism for the duration where the government listened to his suggestion. Imran is a conservative mullah-type. A lot of women left his party after realizing that underneath the veil of egalitarianism, his party has a lot in common with social conservatism and social conservatism in Pakistan is much, much worse.
> 
> 
> More on Taliban Khan:
> 
> https://www.news18.com/news/world/h...liban-khan-in-pakistans-politics-1823667.html


https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/28/asia/imran-khan-pakistans-trump-intl/index.html

CNN is making him sound good. I like how if anyone is the least bit Nationalistic they are just like Trump apparently.

When you think about it Taliban would be the stand ins for the KKK/White Nationalists... Man... they are idiots for pushing that Drumpf business, the guys down in Pakistan are smarter than the ones in America. Imagine something like Donald of the Trump Klan. Look how easy that was. You can every time you refer to him connect him to the KKK, while not endlessly droning on about it.


----------



## Reaper

Imran is the only person I know that's probably capable of telling Trump to fuck off to his face. They're both Type A personalities. Both extremely competitive and sure of themselves. 
He has the same anti-establishment line as Trump as well. In fact, that's what he used to continue to rise to power. The comparisons are fair. But don't compare KKK with Taliban ... Being soft on the KKK is really not the same thing because being soft on the Taliban means 10's of thousands of deaths annually. Yes, the KKK are horrible people as well, but they don't rack up the kill count in the modern era. 

However, I lived in Pakistan between 2002 and 2013 so I'm very well versed in Imran's very conservative Islamist thought. He's one of those misguided people who sincerely believes that shariah and state governance are compatible. He's from the old school Pakistanis who separated from India in the 40's and seems to be channeling their version of separatist Islam ... But at the same time, he digs deep into paranoia and fear mongering in order to appeal to the masses. He is more likely to consider the USA an enemy of Pakistan before he will admit that Taliban are enemies ... Which is a scary thought. 

He is soft on terrorists and extreme religious conservatives --- which in Pakistan are probably 10 times more extremist than the Westboro and God's Army types put together. Most, if not all Islamist parties in Pakistan have unofficial militant wings which undermine secularism through actual violence and targeted killings. I lived through that. Seen it with my own eyes.


----------



## Draykorinee

Rozalia said:


> You misunderstand. I don't mean don't care in "I don't care what you say", I mean I don't care if you attack infowars. It is like, and I hope you haven't taken any sledgehammers to the brain, I was to attack The Root in an effort to attack you. You could then say you don't care, you know the Root is a joke.


I don't think anyone cares if people attack infowars, much like TYT they are places worth mocking.

Thanks for enlightening me to the Root, that was 5 minutes of my life I wished I didn't spend trying to see what it was.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> I could go into a long and detailed explanation of how our economy should have been restructured after it's collapse but you aren't really interested in a genuine reply, so I'm not going to bother wasting my time.


I don't know why you think I'm not being genuine?  I'm not the one who launches personal attacks all the time in this thread. I really want to know what FDR should have done in your view.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Had a thought today about why Trump wants the borer wall so badly. I used to to think it was just him reassuring his base about immigration, but now i think it's more just about ego.

It's his monument. He won't get one like a Washington, Linoln, Jefferson, etc. No modern president will.

This, if completed, is something giant that everyone can see that will stand for a very long time. It will be Trump's Great Wall.

His Trump buildings, with TRUMP in giant letters, can be torn down over time, but a giant American version of the Great Wall would be much harder to get rid of.

He just wants it for his legacy.


----------



## CamillePunk

He already has Space Force. He wants the border wall because he's been talking about it for a very long time, promised to build one, and presumably believes we need one.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> Imran is the only person I know that's probably capable of telling Trump to fuck off to his face. They're both Type A personalities. Both extremely competitive and sure of themselves.
> He has the same anti-establishment line as Trump as well. In fact, that's what he used to continue to rise to power. The comparisons are fair. But don't compare KKK with Taliban ... Being soft on the KKK is really not the same thing because being soft on the Taliban means 10's of thousands of deaths annually. Yes, the KKK are horrible people as well, but they don't rack up the kill count in the modern era.
> 
> However, I lived in Pakistan between 2002 and 2013 so I'm very well versed in Imran's very conservative Islamist thought. He's one of those misguided people who sincerely believes that shariah and state governance are compatible. He's from the old school Pakistanis who separated from India in the 40's and seems to be channeling their version of separatist Islam ... But at the same time, he digs deep into paranoia and fear mongering in order to appeal to the masses. He is more likely to consider the USA an enemy of Pakistan before he will admit that Taliban are enemies ... Which is a scary thought.
> 
> He is soft on terrorists and extreme religious conservatives --- which in Pakistan are probably 10 times more extremist than the Westboro and God's Army types put together. Most, if not all Islamist parties in Pakistan have unofficial militant wings which undermine secularism through actual violence and targeted killings. I lived through that. Seen it with my own eyes.


I actually have a few close friends in Pakistan and one of them has been attacked all week on Facebook by so-called "liberals" for saying much of what you're saying in this thread. It's almost cult-like the devotion some of these people seem to have towards Khan. They've gone as far as telling him that he shouldn't ever question Khan/PTI now because questioning/disagreeing with the government is an evil and wrong thing to do. Pretty shocking to see that torrent of abuse if I'm honest.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> I actually have a few close friends in Pakistan and one of them has been attacked all week on Facebook by so-called "liberals" for saying much of what you're saying in this thread. It's almost cult-like the devotion some of these people seem to have towards Khan. They've gone as far as telling him that he shouldn't ever question Khan/PTI now because questioning/disagreeing with the government is an evil and wrong thing to do. Pretty shocking to see that torrent of abuse if I'm honest.


It's been like this since 2011 at least. And of course you know that a "developing" society like Pakistan is even more drawn to their prophet like heroes. Now that's an actual culture where cultism is a real problem.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Reap said:


> It's been like this since 2011 at least. And of course you know that a "developing" society like Pakistan is even more drawn to their prophet like heroes. Now that's an actual culture where cultism is a real problem.


Yeah, tbh the Trump mania is one thing but the way these guys are over Imran Khan is something entirely different. If they weren't also so fervently Muslim I could imagine them worshipping him as some sort of deity with the way they talk.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Shame Don Jr can't keep his mouth shut and coming up with another blunder concerning the GDP:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/29/17627572/gdp-growth-trump-donald-trump-jr



> Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, took to Twitter to boast about the GDP numbers on Friday. He claimed Obama “never broke” 2 percent GDP growth. That just isn’t true.
> 
> GDP growth hit or surpassed 2 percent on a quarterly basis across more than a dozen quarters under President Barack Obama, and it surpassed 3 percent eight times. As the Washington Post’s Philip Bump points out, quarterly GDP growth has exceeded 5.1 percent in 37 months since Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, including four times under Obama.
> 
> Journalist John Hardwood noted on Twitter that 4.1 growth under Trump in the second quarter of this year would rank as the fifth strongest of the Obama presidency. The best quarter for Obama was in 2014, when in the second three months of the year the economy grew at 5.1 percent.


Not a huge deal and not a surprise but it's another blow to the administration's credibility. Honestly this Buffoon Jr is either completely willfully ignorant, incompetent, a ball-faced liar, or all of them.


----------



## Tater

Rozalia said:


> On the money mate. The issue of money in politics is a big one and an odd one too. In other countries what happens in America is looked upon as simply corruption. You don't get billions in cash and no favours being expected with it.


Most Americans live in a bubble and have no clue how the outside world views them. Things that horrify people in some countries are viewed as normal here. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if one day the citizens of America suddenly woke up to how other countries see them.



CamillePunk said:


> I don't know why you think I'm not being genuine?  I'm not the one who launches personal attacks all the time in this thread. I really want to know what FDR should have done in your view.


Attacking your hypocrisy over your claimed ideology and willingness to support the opposite is not the same thing as a personal attack. It's not my fault you can't tell the difference between the two. You don't even see how you're not being genuine in your so called beliefs, so it's funny that you don't know why people would think you're not being genuine in asking a question. :lmao


----------



## Rozalia

2 Ton 21 said:


> Had a thought today about why Trump wants the borer wall so badly. I used to to think it was just him reassuring his base about immigration, but now i think it's more just about ego.
> 
> It's his monument. He won't get one like a Washington, Linoln, Jefferson, etc. No modern president will.
> 
> This, if completed, is something giant that everyone can see that will stand for a very long time. It will be Trump's Great Wall.
> 
> His Trump buildings, with TRUMP in giant letters, can be torn down over time, but a giant American version of the Great Wall would be much harder to get rid of.
> 
> He just wants it for his legacy.


You're only getting this now? The man who at times talks about himself in the third person, puts his name on everything he can, created his own faction in politics rather than join one, brags about how rich he is (people often say his claims is more than he actually has), and how the Democrats love to call themselves elites which I suppose would make him a super elite... might... want to be able to have something beyond a poxy library no one will care about? You are incorrect in it just being the wall though, he'll want to be down as the founder of America's Space Force also.

I love the Donald but it is extremely obvious that he is like that mate. Lets not forget it is likely he ran because Obama made of fun of him publicly that one time and he decided to hell with supporting losers like McCain and Romney. If you're going to do a job right you got to do it yourself and he was going to defeat Obama's heir and destroy everything he did. That'll show him what happens when you laugh at Trump. Same goes for all the comedy show guys and all the other "haters and losers" as Trump puts it. He showed them all, he made losers out of every single one.

Though it should be said that pride and ego can actually be forces for good too. If he is doing policies so that in future he will be remembered as one of America's greatest presidents then that pride is good. You may laugh at that but first off look at how Democrats now kiss Bush's arse, the sheer hate dies down. In addition if the wall proves successful then people will see him as the president who was tough, wise, and brave to put in place what all others were too scared to do. The sheer amount of hate and attacks sent his way and him surviving will be something people will admire. Lets not forget his underdog status against Clinton and beating her with half the cash.



yeahbaby! said:


> Shame Don Jr can't keep his mouth shut and coming up with another blunder concerning the GDP:
> 
> https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/29/17627572/gdp-growth-trump-donald-trump-jr
> 
> 
> 
> Not a huge deal and not a surprise but it's another blow to the administration's credibility. Honestly this Buffoon Jr is either completely willfully ignorant, incompetent, a ball-faced liar, or all of them.


??? What role does Donald Jr serve in the US government for it to be blow for the administration? I bet Tiffany Trump or Barron might say some stupid stuff too, big blows there, maybe CNN should interview them.



Tater said:


> Most Americans live in a bubble and have no clue how the outside world views them. Things that horrify people in some countries are viewed as normal here. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if one day the citizens of America suddenly woke up to how other countries see them.


Like I've said before with guns, other countries have by the large had a society where it was understood that you couldn't have guns. People don't have that right now but they never did, their parents didn't, their parents didn't so on. In America you are taking away rights and people will always resist that.

As for specifically money... the massive campaign season. That, stop that. What goes on for like a month in other countries lasts like 2 years in America. No wonder they amass so much money. You could in addition make it like many countries where the party simply appoints their candidate. It would have made Trump and Bernie if he won impossible though, meaning someone like them would have form their own party where winning becomes much harder. That will look good to some people, very ugly to others.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> Attacking your hypocrisy over your claimed ideology and willingness to support the opposite is not the same thing as a personal attack. It's not my fault you can't tell the difference between the two. You don't even see how you're not being genuine in your so called beliefs, so it's funny that you don't know why people would think you're not being genuine in asking a question. :lmao


okay guess I don't get to know what non-fascistic, libertarian means (I assume, since these are your values and you're no hypocrite) FDR should have taken to dismantle capitalism, aka the voluntary exchange of goods and services


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> okay guess I don't get to know what non-fascistic, libertarian means (I assume, since these are your values and you're no hypocrite) FDR should have taken to dismantle capitalism, aka the voluntary exchange of goods and services


I've explained my views and philosophies many times over. If you were genuinely interested in understanding them, you would already know by now.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> I've explained my views and philosophies many times over. If you were genuinely interested in understanding them, you would already know by now.


I thought I did have some understanding of your views, which is why I'm puzzled by your statement that FDR shouldn't have left capitalism in place and was wondering what you meant by that and how it fits in with your larger views. 

I'm not sure why you're so hostile toward me when I've never been hostile toward you. I just see us as having some differences of opinion regarding politics whereas you often jump to condescend to me, label me a fraud, and accuse me of deception. I don't do any of those things to you, yet I'm the one treated with suspicion upon asking a simple question. :hmmm


----------



## Goku

Tater said:


> Attacking your hypocrisy over your claimed ideology and willingness to support the opposite is not the same thing as a personal attack.


:carlo

You are attacking his judgment on the basis of your judgment. Seems like a personal attack.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> I'm not sure why you're so hostile toward me when I've never been hostile toward you. I just see us as having some differences of opinion regarding politics whereas you often jump to condescend to me, label me a fraud, and accuse me of deception. I don't do any of those things to you, yet I'm the one treated with suspicion upon asking a simple question. :hmmm


Your innocent and naive act isn't fooling anybody but okay, I'll play nice.



CamillePunk said:


> I thought I did have some understanding of your views, which is why I'm puzzled by your statement that FDR shouldn't have left capitalism in place and was wondering what you meant by that and how it fits in with your larger views.


I'm puzzled that you're puzzled by my criticism of FDR leaving capitalism in place when I've always criticized capitalism and maintained that Big Government is not the answer to our problems. Maybe you truly don't understand the views of a libertarian leftist. :shrug

Like I've been saying for a long time here, I believe people should be working for themselves; not others. There should not be an owner class and a worker class. They should be the same thing. Meaning, the workers themselves should own the businesses they work for. One of the biggest problems with capitalism is that it is designed to funnel money to the top. FDR used Big Government to redistribute wealth and build a strong middle class but the mechanisms of capitalism were still in place, which did not solve the underlying issue of how wealth is distributed in the first place. He created a temporary solution that has eventually led us back to the place that caused it's biggest collapse.

You yourself cry taxation is theft and claim to be anarcho-capitalist. If that's the case, then you need to be intellectually honest with yourself and just admit that you believe the vast majority of people should be left in poverty so that a tiny minority of people can control the wealth and resources of the planet, because that is the end result of your desired system. Of course, that is largely the result we already have now with an authoritarian right wing government but at least under an ancap system, although most of us would be poverty stricken, we'd have more personal freedoms.

Myself, on the other hand, believe in a democratically run society, with people working for themselves and a more equal distribution of wealth in the first place. You wouldn't need the Big Government welfare you hate so much if we had an economy that gave people the opportunity at self-sustainability instead of a need to rely on welfare to support themselves. Think of all the factory jobs that have been shipped overseas. Those decisions were made by capitalists looking to make more money and it fucked over a lot of good workers in the process. Had the workers been in control, they wouldn't have voted democratically to put themselves out of work and you wouldn't have seen the deindustrialization of the USA that has happened over the past half century.

I dunno about you but I fucking hate that so many items we buy say made in China or some third world hell hole. We have the resources and the production power to become a self-sustaining nation but we don't do that, because capitalism demands higher profits for the owner class over the stability of the citizens of the USA. We could have a country full of items made in Iowa or made in Mississippi, with a working class that owns their own businesses and retained the profits they produce through their own work to be able to afford the items produced by their neighbors and fellow countrymen.

Do not mistake my views for communism, because you don't see me calling for the nationalization of industries. Communism would merge the owner class and their puppet government into one entity, which would put us into an even worse situation than we are now because the government would own everything and we would all be working for the government. Concentrated power is the problem, whether it comes from the left or the right.

A good start would simply be to start enforcing the anti-trust laws that we already have on the books. Start breaking up these massive corporations into smaller businesses. Another good first step would be to set up public banking systems that are designed to help worker co-ops get started, then pass strong fair business practice laws to keep larger businesses from crushing the smaller ones. You can't have a free market with fair competition without laws in place to keep that market free. 

We have massive economic problems that cannot be solved all at once but there are steps that would take us in a more positive situation gradually. Revolution and violence is not the answer and anyone retarded enough to think they could overthrow the government and install their own ideology would leave a lot of blood in the streets.

I remember one time years ago you had a video in your sig that talked about how people in the USA are raised to worship the state. I would suggest to you that you turn that line of thinking against the concentrated wealth of capitalism as well. If you eliminate the government, then the corporations essentially become the government, and we aren't much better off than we were before. We still would be left dealing with concentrated wealth and power in the hands of an elite few, which is my biggest criticism of the libertarian right. They claim to hate big government but that's essentially what their ideology would bring us. The only difference is, it'd be called a corporation instead of a government and all pretenses of democracy would be eliminated. It would be a totalitarian way of running society, whether you want to admit that to yourself or not.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> *Your innocent and naive act isn't fooling anybody* but okay, I'll play nice.


Dude what the heck is your problem? :lmao This is so bizarre to me. Let's just have a polite and reasonable discussion. Please? I like discussing fringe politics which is why I like engaging you even though you do weird stuff like this but it's getting to be a lot lately. 



> I'm puzzled that you're puzzled by my criticism of FDR leaving capitalism in place when I've always criticized capitalism and maintained that Big Government is not the answer to our problems. Maybe you truly don't understand the views of a libertarian leftist. :shrug


No I get why you wouldn't want capitalism in place, but you said FDR shouldn't have let it still exist which implies you wanted him to crack down on it with force, which would be tyrannical and completely anti-libertarian. That's what I was confused about. You wrote a lot more though so I'll respond to it even though we're off-topic from my question.



> Like I've been saying for a long time here, I believe people should be working for themselves; not others. There should not be an owner class and a worker class. They should be the same thing. Meaning, the workers themselves should own the businesses they work for.


Okay, I'm trying to think this idea through practically. In this society, I want to start a business. Let's say, a hotel. I want to hire employees to run my hotel. Ordinarily that would make me the owner and the employees my workers. Under your system, everyone who works at the hotel should also own the hotel? How does that process work? How do we go from me having the idea of running a hotel to a bunch of people who didn't have that idea - and didn't put in the time and effort I did into making that idea a reality - also owning my hotel? How much of my hotel is owned by me and how much is owned by the people I hired? Is it equally distributed? Because, if so, I have to tell you, that would give me a lot less incentive to start a business in the first place. I certainly doubt I'd be willing to put in the same amount of care and work as if it was mine. In fact, I know I wouldn't, and I think that's true of most people. We tend to take better care of stuff when it's our own private property than we do when it's shared with others. 



> You yourself cry taxation is theft and claim to be anarcho-capitalist. If that's the case, then you need to be intellectually honest with yourself and just admit that you believe the vast majority of people should be left in poverty so that a tiny minority of people can control the wealth and resources of the planet, because that is the end result of your desired system. Of course, that is largely the result we already have now with an authoritarian right wing government but at least under an ancap system, although most of us would be poverty stricken, we'd have more personal freedoms.


Most people being in poverty in a free capitalist society is merely your prediction, so there's nothing for me to "be honest with myself" about. I wouldn't be so bold as to predict what would happen in a free communist society. Maybe people would make it work. What the hell do I know? I just know I'd prefer to live in the free capitalist society. Hey, let's have both types, all over the place, peacefully coexisting. I'm not opposed. 



> Myself, on the other hand, believe in a democratically run society, with people working for themselves and a more equal distribution of wealth in the first place. You wouldn't need the Big Government welfare you hate so much if we had an economy that gave people the opportunity at self-sustainability instead of a need to rely on welfare to support themselves. Think of all the factory jobs that have been shipped overseas. Those decisions were made by capitalists looking to make more money and it fucked over a lot of good workers in the process. Had the workers been in control, they wouldn't have voted democratically to put themselves out of work and you wouldn't have seen the deindustrialization of the USA that has happened over the past half century.


The government is the reason all those jobs get shipped overseas in the first place though. It's not like companies don't want to hire people locally and have their factories in the same country they live in. It's just more expensive. The answer to me seems to be to just break down the barriers that make it less profitable to have all that stuff here. 



> Do not mistake my views for communism, because you don't see me calling for the nationalization of industries. Communism would merge the owner class and their puppet government into one entity, which would put us into an even worse situation than we are now because the government would own everything and we would all be working for the government. Concentrated power is the problem, whether it comes from the left or the right.


I don't see the difference between what you're proposing and communism. Yeah technically communism wants to first nationalize everything before transitioning to a stateless society, but it seems to me that your system would require the same process. You're not going to peacefully convince everyone to give up private ownership, you're going to need the state for that. Which, again, seems to contradict the whole libertarian thing. Wouldn't you just be doing what you accuse me of doing in that situation? Cheering on a strongman (like FDR) because at least his strongmanning will make society more like the way you want it? 



> A good start would simply be to start enforcing the anti-trust laws that we already have on the books. Start breaking up these massive corporations into smaller businesses. Another good first step would be to set up public banking systems that are designed to help worker co-ops get started, then pass strong fair business practice laws to keep larger businesses from crushing the smaller ones. You can't have a free market with fair competition without laws in place to keep that market free.


Yeah, so you are calling for the use of force. I honestly don't see how that's different than what you accuse me of doing with Trump. You're also saying we should use the state to transition to the society you want. How is this not communism? I don't get it. 



> We have massive economic problems that cannot be solved all at once but there are steps that would take us in a more positive situation gradually. Revolution and violence is not the answer and anyone retarded enough to think they could overthrow the government and install their own ideology would leave a lot of blood in the streets.


You've already advocated for violence though.  What do you want the state to do about the people who don't want to give up their private businesses? Who don't want to follow the anti-trust laws? Everything the state does is through violence or the threat of violence, which is fundamentally the same thing. This isn't libertarian at all, left or right. This is literally just communism, or close enough as to make little difference. 



> I remember one time years ago you had a video in your sig that talked about how people in the USA are raised to worship the state. I would suggest to you that you turn that line of thinking against the concentrated wealth of capitalism as well. If you eliminate the government, then the corporations essentially become the government, and we aren't much better off than we were before. We still would be left dealing with concentrated wealth and power in the hands of an elite few, which is my biggest criticism of the libertarian right. They claim to hate big government but that's essentially what their ideology would bring us. The only difference is, it'd be called a corporation instead of a government and all pretenses of democracy would be eliminated. It would be a totalitarian way of running society, whether you want to admit that to yourself or not.


People aren't raised to believe in the virtue of corporations. People aren't made to pledge allegiances to corporations as a kid. Nobody thinks fighting for a corporation will protect their countrymen. All the mythology and indoctrination that makes people fight and die for the state doesn't exist with corporations. The idea corporations will take the place of the state is just not realistic. Not to mention that the very concept of a corporation is a state construct, which basically creates a legal shield for the people who run a business. If a business starts buying weapons and hiring soldiers for itself (which would be insanely expensive by the way), nobody is going to be like "well this is fine". People are gonna boycott the shit out of them and that company won't be able to sustain its weaponry or armies (if it could even find enough people to join their army in the first place, which I seriously doubt). I really just don't see this idea of corporate armies as at all realistic. It seems more like what you'd find in fiction to me than anything that could ever happen in the real world.


----------



## CamillePunk

People are shocked Trump said he'd meet with the Iranian president with no preconditions, because "just a week ago he threatened them!" :lol This is the same thing he did with Kim Jong Un so I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised. Oh wait, it's because people have completely deluded themselves into thinking Trump was just doing random shit with KJU and then somehow "got played" by him. :lol And now here he is doing more random shit...yet it's the exact same thing he did last time. Hey, maybe it's not so random! :lol Ahhhh, oh well. Two movies on one screen.


----------



## Vic Capri

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/28/us/colorado-capitol-presidential-portrait-trnd/index.html

:lol

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

https://www.rt.com/news/434676-italy-russia-sanctions-trump/



> Italy PM calls for easing Russia sanctions, Trump says they’ll ‘remain’
> 
> Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte is interested in relaxing US and EU sanctions against Russia, but has apparently failed to sway US President Donald Trump despite the friendship they struck up over the immigration issue.
> Conte, who met with Trump in Washington on Monday, said that Italy doesn’t expect sanctions against Russia to be lifted overnight, but that Rome maintains a need for dialog with Russia and doesn’t want the sanctions to harm Russian civil society or its small and medium businesses.
> 
> “Sanctions against Russia are not, and cannot be, an end unto itself,” Conte said.
> 
> READ MORE: Italy’s new prime minister backs easing Russia sanctions
> 
> Italy has been one of Russia’s major trading partners in Europe and Conte’s coalition government has sought a thaw in relations with Moscow.
> 
> Read more
> Donald Trump holds a press conference with Italian Prime Minister Giuseppi Conti © Brian SnyderTrump says he’s ready to meet Iran’s Rouhani ‘any time’ & with ‘no preconditions’
> “The sanctions on Russia will remain as is,” Trump said at the joint press conference with his Italian guest, without elaborating further. The political establishment in Washington has hounded the president with allegations that his victory in 2016 was compromised by Russian meddling and his campaign’s “collusion,” allegations made without evidence.
> 
> Trump did, however, find common ground with Conte on border security, crediting efforts to crack down on illegal immigration for both his own victory in 2016 and the election of Conte’s government.
> 
> If Congress does not deliver on his proposals to fortify the southern border and end chain migration and diversity visa lottery, Trump said he would “have no problem doing a shutdown.” Without a continuing resolution in Congress, the federal government operations will run out of money at the end of September. As Republicans don’t have absolute majority in the Senate, some Democrat votes would be required for such a resolution.
> 
> “It’s time we had proper border security. We’re the laughingstock of the world. We have the worst immigration laws anywhere in the world,” Trump said.
> 
> READ MORE: Drop Russia sanctions immediately, Italy’s M5S & Lega Nord urge in landmark govt pact
> 
> Contradicting reports in the US media, Conte praised Trump’s performance at the G7 summit in Canada and the NATO summit in Brussels, calling the US president a great negotiator and a proper advocate for US interests in the world.
> 
> Trump’s proposals for inviting Russia back into the G8 and having NATO members increase their military spending were “absolutely reasonable positions,” the Italian PM said.


Guess the real Putin puppet is Italy's new PM. :hmmm


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/30/caterpillar-says-tariffs-will-cost-company-up-to-200-million-in-secon.html



> *Tariffs will cost Caterpillar $200 million, so it's going to raise its prices*
> 
> Big exporter Caterpillar gave a figure on how much tariffs will affect its bottom line.
> 
> In its second-quarter earnings statement, the Dow Jones Industrial Average member said Monday it expects recently imposed tariffs to shave off $100 million to $200 million from its bottom line in the second half of the year. The company also raised its full-year earnings forecast despite the increased costs.
> 
> Caterpillar's announcement comes after the U.S. slapped tariffs on $34 billion of Chinese goods earlier this month. The U.S. has also implemented tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Mexico, Canada and the European Union. They have retaliated against those levies with tariffs of their own.
> 
> Despite the higher costs related to tariffs, Caterpillar increased its adjusted earnings per share forecast to a range of $11 to $12 from $10.25 to $11.25. The new guidance represents an adjusted profit range of $6.6 billion to $7.2 billion.
> 
> So the higher tariff costs represent about 3 percent of the company's expected full year profits.
> 
> It also reported record second-quarter earnings per share and revenue that topped analyst expectations and said it repurchased $750 million in shares in the quarter.
> 
> "However, the company intends to largely offset these impacts through announced mid-year price increases and using the Operating & Execution Model to further drive operational excellence and structural cost discipline," Caterpillar added in its statement.


----------



## Kabraxal

2 Ton 21 said:


> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/30/caterpillar-says-tariffs-will-cost-company-up-to-200-million-in-secon.html


....... can’t even take the “hit” and only make 7 billion or so instead of 7.2 billion or so. Wal Mart did the same shit though. Corporate obsession with stockholders has been one if the greatest enemies to everyone. 

The one area I am less libertarian on.... end all corporations and make such set ups illegal. Not perfect, but better than this shit.


----------



## CamillePunk

Ending corporations is actually very libertarian as they are state constructs.


----------



## Sincere

:trump


----------



## Miss Sally

While I'm sure the Tariffs are having some ill effect I get the feeling many companies are using it as an excuse to raise prices and keep them there even if what they're importing/exporting and their supplies goes back to it's original price/value. 

Thought this does shed some light on what would happen with a minimum wage increase and many of Bernie's ideas, the companies would just raise prices.

Whatever you can do, they can do better, they can overcharge you! No, they can't! *Yes.. they can*. :woolcock


----------



## Rozalia

Kabraxal said:


> ....... can’t even take the “hit” and only make 7 billion or so instead of 7.2 billion or so. Wal Mart did the same shit though. Corporate obsession with stockholders has been one if the greatest enemies to everyone.
> 
> The one area I am less libertarian on.... end all corporations and make such set ups illegal. Not perfect, but better than this shit.


If Trump was the evil super Fascist people say he is he could simply price control them so they can't. 



Miss Sally said:


> While I'm sure the Tariffs are having some ill effect I get the feeling many companies are using it as an excuse to raise prices and keep them there even if what they're importing/exporting and their supplies goes back to it's original price/value.
> 
> Thought this does shed some light on what would happen with a minimum wage increase and many of Bernie's ideas, the companies would just raise prices.
> 
> Whatever you can do, they can do better, they can overcharge you! No, they can't! *Yes.. they can*. :woolcock


Companies will look for ways. The government slapping down their tricks is the only actual way to stop it.


----------



## Sincere

Wait... So Manafort was exonerated by Rosenstein 8 years ago for the same financial/tax crimes he's being charged with now?






:hmmm


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1024236805477097472
Shots fired at the Koch brothers. :wow

And of course beltway Libertarian Nick Gillespie and _Reason_ magazine rush to the defense of their masters. :lol 

https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/31/koch-bros-buck-unthinking-political-trib


----------



## Sincere

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1024236805477097472
> Shots fired at the Koch brothers. :wow
> 
> And of course beltway Libertarian Nick Gillespie and _Reason_ magazine rush to the defense of their masters. :lol
> 
> https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/31/koch-bros-buck-unthinking-political-trib


I remember back in the day when Reason was generally respected and well-regarded among libertarians. It didn't take long for it to mostly go to shit, especially when they started peddling their 'thick vs. thin' ideological bullshit from the bleedingheart sjws that they let into the tent.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> People are shocked Trump said he'd meet with the Iranian president with no preconditions, because "just a week ago he threatened them!" :lol This is the same thing he did with Kim Jong Un so I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised. Oh wait, it's because people have completely deluded themselves into thinking Trump was just doing random shit with KJU and then somehow "got played" by him. :lol And now here he is doing more random shit...yet it's the exact same thing he did last time. Hey, maybe it's not so random! :lol Ahhhh, oh well. Two movies on one screen.


Hopefully at this meeting with Iran Trump won't 'misspeak' this time and have to rescind his words the next day. The Iranian Prez may have to triple check with POTUS at the meeting to confirm he means what he says. 

Did Scott Adams ever weigh in on Trump's strategy on misspeaking BTW?


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Dude what the heck is your problem? :lmao This is so bizarre to me. Let's just have a polite and reasonable discussion. Please? I like discussing fringe politics which is why I like engaging you even though you do weird stuff like this but it's getting to be a lot lately.


I'm being nice. :Frankie



CamillePunk said:


> No I get why you wouldn't want capitalism in place, but you said FDR shouldn't have let it still exist which implies you wanted him to crack down on it with force, which would be tyrannical and completely anti-libertarian. That's what I was confused about. You wrote a lot more though so I'll respond to it even though we're off-topic from my question.


Capitalism was already broken. FDR used big government to build it back up, instead of going in a new economic direction. If you studied up on your history more, you'd know that the New Deal was less of bold new plan and more of a compromise to protect capitalists from the masses rising up to completely overthrow them theirselves.

I'm not suggesting that FDR should have cracked down on the capitalists himself either. There are ways to set up fair markets that allow small businesses to compete with larger ones on a level playing field without taking from one to give to another.



CamillePunk said:


> Okay, I'm trying to think this idea through practically. In this society, I want to start a business. Let's say, a hotel. I want to hire employees to run my hotel. Ordinarily that would make me the owner and the employees my workers. Under your system, everyone who works at the hotel should also own the hotel? How does that process work? How do we go from me having the idea of running a hotel to a bunch of people who didn't have that idea - and didn't put in the time and effort I did into making that idea a reality - also owning my hotel? How much of my hotel is owned by me and how much is owned by the people I hired? Is it equally distributed? Because, if so, I have to tell you, that would give me a lot less incentive to start a business in the first place. I certainly doubt I'd be willing to put in the same amount of care and work as if it was mine. In fact, I know I wouldn't, and I think that's true of most people. We tend to take better care of stuff when it's our own private property than we do when it's shared with others.


There's a corporation based in Spain called the Mondragon Corporation that operates as a worker co-op. They are the 10th largest company in Spain in terms of asset turnover and employ over 70k people. It's actually a collection of many different companies operating under one corporate banner. Their wiki page is a good read and hopefully it will open your eyes to a different way of doing business other than the top down totalitarian structure of a capitalist corporation. 

Maybe you think it's okay that a CEO makes 300 times as much as his lowest paid employee who doesn't make enough money to survive and has to rely welfare to survive. I do not. Yes, the people at the top should make more money and they do at Mondragon but not at the insane levels of a capitalist corporation. The corporation is run democratically and there are agreed upon wage ratios, which prevents the funneling of vast wealth to the top while leaving very little for everyone else.

You don't want Big Government welfare programs and neither do I. This is how you achieve that goal without leaving the vast majority of people in poverty. You run businesses democratically and have a more equal distribution of earned income, so that some people aren't buying their 3rd yacht while the people working for them can't feed their kids.



CamillePunk said:


> Most people being in poverty in a free capitalist society is merely your prediction, so there's nothing for me to "be honest with myself" about. I wouldn't be so bold as to predict what would happen in a free communist society. Maybe people would make it work. What the hell do I know? I just know I'd prefer to live in the free capitalist society. Hey, let's have both types, all over the place, peacefully coexisting. I'm not opposed.


Most people being in poverty in a free capitalist society is not a prediction, it's a retelling of history. Ancaps like yourself act like we've never seen a free capitalist society before. We have. It didn't work. Study your history more, my friend; specifically, the late 1800s to early 1900s and what caused the Great Depression.



CamillePunk said:


> *The government is the reason all those jobs get shipped overseas in the first place though.* It's not like companies don't want to hire people locally and have their factories in the same country they live in. It's just more expensive. The answer to me seems to be to just break down the barriers that make it less profitable to have all that stuff here.


This is pure unadulterated bullshit. Capitalists don't ship jobs overseas because of the government. They do it to increase profits. We're talking about people that have no country in real terms. They are not patriots who care about the USA. The only thing they care about is power and the accumulation of wealth. Breaking down the barriers, as you call it, would simply make most Americans as poor as people living in third world hell holes. We can do better.

And in case you forgot, the government works *for* the corporations. We have a puppet government that is owned by special interests. Most of the laws that get passed in this country are written by corporate lobbyists, not the politicians themselves.



CamillePunk said:


> I don't see the difference between what you're proposing and communism. Yeah technically communism wants to first nationalize everything before transitioning to a stateless society, but it seems to me that your system would require the same process. You're not going to peacefully convince everyone to give up private ownership, you're going to need the state for that. Which, again, seems to contradict the whole libertarian thing. Wouldn't you just be doing what you accuse me of doing in that situation? Cheering on a strongman (like FDR) because at least his strongmanning will make society more like the way you want it?


I'm not suggesting we give up private ownership. You'd still privately own your land and your house and your car and your TV and whatever else you buy. You'd still privately own the fruits of your labors.



CamillePunk said:


> Yeah, so you are calling for the use of force. I honestly don't see how that's different than what you accuse me of doing with Trump. You're also saying we should use the state to transition to the society you want. How is this not communism? I don't get it.
> 
> You've already advocated for violence though.  What do you want the state to do about the people who don't want to give up their private businesses? Who don't want to follow the anti-trust laws? Everything the state does is through violence or the threat of violence, which is fundamentally the same thing. This isn't libertarian at all, left or right. This is literally just communism, or close enough as to make little difference.


Is having a law that makes murder illegal the use of force? I mean, you are using the state to force people not to kill others. Or, for a less extreme example, is having a law that makes burglary the use of force? You are using the state to make it illegal to rob someone's home. If you agree that we should have some kind of laws to prevent violence and theft against others, I would contend that a capitalist corporation that makes those at the very top extremely wealthy while leaving the people who did the work to generate that wealth in poverty is a form of economic violence and a form of theft of the wealth of the working class.

There's a pretty big difference between allowing a country to democratically decide what laws govern their society and advocating for the state to take things by force. You don't seem to realize it but you are arguing in favor of allowing billionaires and corporations to use force. You don't want any laws getting in the way of them the using the power of their wealth to continue accumulating power and wealth at the detriment of everyone else in society.

All you're doing is arguing against one powerful entity using force to allow another powerful entity to use their force. Concentrated power is concentrated power, regardless of what form it takes. This is why I call you out on the hypocritical nature of your beliefs.



CamillePunk said:


> People aren't raised to believe in the virtue of corporations. People aren't made to pledge allegiances to corporations as a kid. Nobody thinks fighting for a corporation will protect their countrymen. All the mythology and indoctrination that makes people fight and die for the state doesn't exist with corporations. The idea corporations will take the place of the state is just not realistic. Not to mention that the very concept of a corporation is a state construct, which basically creates a legal shield for the people who run a business. If a business starts buying weapons and hiring soldiers for itself (which would be insanely expensive by the way), nobody is going to be like "well this is fine". People are gonna boycott the shit out of them and that company won't be able to sustain its weaponry or armies (if it could even find enough people to join their army in the first place, which I seriously doubt). I really just don't see this idea of corporate armies as at all realistic. It seems more like what you'd find in fiction to me than anything that could ever happen in the real world.


You're lying to yourself if you believe kids in the USA aren't indoctrinated from birth to worship capitalism. It's the American way. Take off the rose colored glasses, man. What do you think we're fighting all these wars overseas for? Humanitarian reasons? No, it's because corporations want power and control over resources and countries on a global scale. Right now, they are using the government to tax people to pay for the military but you are out of your fucking mind if you believe they wouldn't use private armies if the mechanism of the state wasn't available to them. There already are some private armies in existence. Or have you never heard of Blackwater?

I base my conclusions on a study of history and a belief that we can have a society that doesn't leave most in poverty so a small handful of people can hoard the wealth. Your beliefs are based mostly on a fact-free ideology and no understanding of history. I'm not trying to be mean with this statement but you clearly don't have an understanding of human history and what the consequences of your proposed society would be. As long as concentrated power exists, it will use that power against others. It's a story as old as human history. One cannot abuse power it does not have. The only way to prevent abuses of power is for people to stand together and break up those powerful institutions. You want to break the power of the state. I want to break the power of both the state and of private entities. You're perfectly fine with totalitarianism and the use of force, as long as it's called a private institution and not government. I believe in a democratically run society.


----------



## Vic Capri

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-employment-costs-rose-in-the-second-quarter-1533040473

Of course, the mainstream media is split on how they're reporting this good news. 

- Vic


----------



## Rozalia

Vic Capri said:


> https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-employment-costs-rose-in-the-second-quarter-1533040473
> 
> Of course, the mainstream media is split on how they're reporting this good news.
> 
> - Vic


I've seen three angles. First that they are taking into account the 1% and any raise is because they are getting paid more. Second that inflation is so large that it actually puts those increases in the negative. It certainly is true inflation will reduce the amount. Third is that the WSJ has been taken over by Trump because everyone else, the real trustworthy fellas like CNN are saying different.


----------



## Stephen90

See @Arkham258 this is the place where we discuss politics


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Stephen90 said:


> See @Arkham258 this is the place where we discuss politics


No this is the place where Trump supporters wish everything they hate was eliminated like a snap from Thanos people included.


----------



## Stephen90

The Hardcore Show said:


> No this is the place where Trump supporters wish everything they hate was eliminated like a snap from Thanos people included.


Then he'll fit in great.


----------



## Rozalia

The Hardcore Show said:


> No this is the place where Trump supporters wish everything they hate was eliminated like a snap from Thanos people included.


Well Trump is now pushing Voter ID so half of the Democrats voters will be eliminated at a snap.

Joke... or is it?


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Rozalia said:


> Well Trump is now pushing Voter ID so half of the Democrats voters will be eliminated at a snap.
> 
> Joke... or is it?


No really when the GOP is trying to have a air tight majority so no matter who controls congress or who the president is their beliefs and rules are the ones people will have to follow. 

A lot of GOP congresspeople put up with Trump because their voters stick with him no matter what because they want a complete deconstruction of the United States and the other reason is they want as many supreme court justices as possible.


----------



## Stinger Fan

The Hardcore Show said:


> No this is the place where Trump supporters wish everything they hate was eliminated like a snap from Thanos people included.


Why are people like you so upset that there are others who have different opinions ? Like...who cares? You see people whine about the politics thread outside of here calling it a "circle jerk", even though most people talking aren't even Trump supporters lol . But I suppose if you don't moan and complain about every little thing Trump does like, complain that he gets 2 scoops of ice cream while everyone gets 1, then that must mean you wear MAGA hats . Some how thats how it works


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Not a massive fan of the Independent but found this pretty interesting. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1533103828


----------



## yeahbaby!

Vic Capri said:


> https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-employment-costs-rose-in-the-second-quarter-1533040473
> 
> Of course, the mainstream media is split on how they're reporting this good news.
> 
> - Vic


But isn't the WSJ fairly mainstream?

Also isn't Fox reporting it who are more than mainstream with their top ratings?

Maybe take some time off the victim soapbox.


----------



## yeahbaby!

RavishingRickRules said:


> Not a massive fan of the Independent but found this pretty interesting.
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1533103828





> But Mr Trump regularly makes inaccurate or misleading statements himself. Just two days before the CBS survey was published, *the president tweeted that his poll numbers were the highest in the “history of the Republican party”, including President Abe Lincoln. The first national presidential poll was conducted in 1936 – three decades after Lincoln died*.


The joke is on both Trump and the article here - Lincoln died in 1865 apparently, a little more than 3 decades before 1936 lol.

Part of this is Trump IMO but the other part of the blame goes to news orgs themselves. In the current 24hr internet climate they feel they have to report low-brow clickbaity stuff everyone else is doing or they will fade away. Ofcourse this leads to lower faith in 'news'. A sad state of affairs.

But yeah, I can't imagine admitting that I believe my country's leader over friends and family.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

yeahbaby! said:


> The joke is on both Trump and the article here - Lincoln died in 1865 apparently, a little more than 3 decades before 1936 lol.
> 
> Part of this is Trump IMO but the other part of the blame goes to news orgs themselves. In the current 24hr internet climate they feel they have to report low-brow clickbaity stuff everyone else is doing or they will fade away. Ofcourse this leads to lower faith in 'news'. A sad state of affairs.
> 
> But yeah, I can't imagine admitting that I believe my country's leader over friends and family.


To be fair the article says exactly what you just said about Lincoln so I'm not sure the joke's on them that much.


----------



## CamillePunk

RavishingRickRules said:


> Not a massive fan of the Independent but found this pretty interesting.
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1533103828





> At the same time, recent studies show Americans struggle to tell the difference between fact and opinion in news coverage. A recent Pew Research Centre study presented more than 5,000 US adults with a mix of five facts and five opinions and asked them to distinguish between the two. Only 26 per cent of respondents could accurately identify all five facts, and only 35 per cent could identify the opinions.
> 
> According to the study, both Republicans and Democrats were more likely to think news statements were factual when they appealed to their side – even if they were opinions.


Everything should be ran democratically though! :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Everything should be ran democratically though! :lol


Doesn't surprise me. 

We're in the era of clickbait, false flags, overly opinionated media and putting out articles only to retract later after damage has been done.

We live in a time of mass dishonesty and dimwitted voters gobbling up what amounts to reality TV level facts.

We're so fucked. :frown2:


----------



## Nolo King

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but here is Trump connecting to the chocolate community in such an endearing way. Shared this with my family who are anti-Trump and even they couldn't deny that this was a fabulous development. Looking forward to see if mainstream news will focus on 4:23 claiming that Trump "violently" swatted the man! 

Shame to Lebron, Meek Mill and those goofs in the NFL for refusing to accept the invitation and come up with solutions because it isn't politically beneficial to them. 

It's very nice to see a lot of people waking up and hopping aboard the winning team!


----------



## CamillePunk

Pretty spot-on parody of most mainstream media. :lol 

Meanwhile Donald Trump is now a UFC champion. :mark: 

https://www.mmafighting.com/2018/8/...e-visit-president-donald-trump-at-white-house



> Hate it or or love it, Colby Covington is a man of his word.
> 
> Ahead of his interim welterweight championship bout with Rafael dos Anjos at UFC 225 in June, Covington boasted that he would win the title and make a trip to Washington, D.C. to hand it to President Donald Trump.
> 
> Covington went on to defeat dos Anjos by unanimous decision and he has now made good on that promise as he posted a photo to his Twitter on Thursday of a recent trip to the White House where he’s standing alongside Trump with a UFC belt slung over the president’s shoulder.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1025064933736759298


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

RavishingRickRules said:


> Not a massive fan of the Independent but found this pretty interesting.
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1533103828


I'm going to try to take solace in the fact that "only" 40% of my nation has joined this cult.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> Everything should be ran democratically though! :lol


Yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm 100% for democratically electing our leaders but I'm not remotely in the camp of "all businesses should be run democratically" in the slightest. I'm a manager, I see ALL the time exactly how stupid my subordinates can be and they're all highly educated people (though obviously don't have the experience or training to be decision makers.) It just sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. You can't put all of the decisions you make to a vote, shit would never work. Imagine if every decision made in a country or business was put to a democratic vote every time? For a start nobody would ever get any work done because they'd be in a god damn voting booth 24 hours a day. I might make 20 or more decisions daily, I work in a company with nearly 25,000 people and you want me to put those 20 decisions to a vote every day? I'm only one manager too, if you take all of the managers and all of the executives and made all of those operational decisions a democratic vote then the majority of the UK no longer has power because there's nobody actually doing any work. :lol Just a completely ridiculous notion to me in all honesty.


----------



## Rozalia

The Hardcore Show said:


> No really when the GOP is trying to have a air tight majority so no matter who controls congress or who the president is their beliefs and rules are the ones people will have to follow.
> 
> A lot of GOP congresspeople put up with Trump because their voters stick with him no matter what because they want a complete deconstruction of the United States and the other reason is they want as many supreme court justices as possible.


And the Democrats aren't trying the same? At least their majority will have come as a result of Americans. Democrats want illegals voting and if they can get it, just straight up give them voting rights because who are they going to vote for but Democrat?



RavishingRickRules said:


> Not a massive fan of the Independent but found this pretty interesting.
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1533103828





Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> I'm going to try to take solace in the fact that "only" 40% of my nation has joined this cult.


I love when you guys start with this business, just look at the comments there to see what the guys here think. 

Humanity is not this grand super advanced being that is above it all. People gravitate towards leaders who get across that they care about them. Just because establishment politicians have failed in this by their selling out of the people, does not mean that is the natural state for the people to feel. They want a leader, a father figure who tells them that it will be alright, he will punish the villains. It is simple, but that is humanity. Accept it.

Now you could attack those people as vile racists and the rest true... or you could start... caring? Addressing the jobs issue? Putting Americans above non-Americans and especially illegals? Of course you won't because one worlders are all traitors who have no care for their brothers and sisters in the nation. All they want is for you and your side to care about them and put them first. Why don't you? Why do you hate them? Are you surprised they grow to resent you?



yeahbaby! said:


> But isn't the WSJ fairly mainstream?
> 
> Also isn't Fox reporting it who are more than mainstream with their top ratings?
> 
> Maybe take some time off the victim soapbox.


WSJ most of the time is not like that. Fox which is supposed to be super right wing are half the time against him. Everyone else is against him all day everyday. It'd be like you saying that the media is neutral on Nazis by picking out the Daily Stormer which is pro Nazi. Wow you found one example so it must be true. It's stupid, stop making stupid arguments. The MSM is against Trump, fact. There is no argument here.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

A-MA-ZING!


----------



## yeahbaby!

RavishingRickRules said:


> To be fair the article says exactly what you just said about Lincoln so I'm not sure the joke's on them that much.


Oops - I'm still learning to read.


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> *Yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm 100% for democratically electing our leaders but I'm not remotely in the camp of "all businesses should be run democratically" in the slightest.* I'm a manager, I see ALL the time exactly how stupid my subordinates can be and they're all highly educated people (though obviously don't have the experience or training to be decision makers.) It just sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. You can't put all of the decisions you make to a vote, shit would never work. Imagine if every decision made in a country or business was put to a democratic vote every time? For a start nobody would ever get any work done because they'd be in a god damn voting booth 24 hours a day. I might make 20 or more decisions daily, I work in a company with nearly 25,000 people and you want me to put those 20 decisions to a vote every day? I'm only one manager too, if you take all of the managers and all of the executives and made all of those operational decisions a democratic vote then the majority of the UK no longer has power because there's nobody actually doing any work. :lol Just a completely ridiculous notion to me in all honesty.


Do you not see the contradiction in your opening statement? You start by saying you're 100% for electing leaders democratically, followed directly by saying businesses should not be ran democratically. Well, which is it? Should the leaders be democratically elected or not? Why is electing politicians democratically any different than electing business management democratically? One is a leader in a government position and the other is a leader in a business position but they are both leaders who make decisions that affect the people under them. It's the same basic concept.

As for the rest of your comment, of course not every management decision should be put up to a vote. You're correct that nothing would ever get done because managers have to make many decisions on a daily basis. It would be asinine to suggest that every time a manager needs to make a decision, it should be put up to a vote for everyone working at that company.

In a worker cooperative, everyone gets a vote on who management is but they don't vote on every decision management makes once they are in that role. Managers are put in a role of management to manage. They don't have to let the workers vote on every single decision. After a period of 6 months or a year or whatever, if the workers are not happy with the decisions that management has been making, they vote them out of that management role. That's how democracy works.

Of course, that's for the day to day decisions of management. If the decision is something major like shutting down a factory and shipping the jobs overseas, absofuckinglutely the workers should get a vote on something like that.

Why do you believe that citizens should be able to democratically elect their leaders in government but a corporation should be a top down totalitarian institution where the employees have no vote whatsoever on who their leaders are?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

:


----------



## Draykorinee

RavishingRickRules said:


> :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> A-MA-ZING!


Sheesh, you dug that one out of the historical records mate ><



Nolo King said:


> Not sure if this has been posted yet, but here is Trump connecting to the _chocolate_ community in such an endearing way.


:bunk


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> Do you not see the contradiction in your opening statement? You start by saying you're 100% for electing leaders democratically, followed directly by saying businesses should not be ran democratically. Well, which is it? Should the leaders be democratically elected or not? Why is electing politicians democratically any different than electing business management democratically? One is a leader in a government position and the other is a leader in a business position but they are both leaders who make decisions that affect the people under them. It's the same basic concept.
> 
> As for the rest of your comment, of course not every management decision should be put up to a vote. You're correct that nothing would ever get done because managers have to make many decisions on a daily basis. It would be asinine to suggest that every time a manager needs to make a decision, it should be put up to a vote for everyone working at that company.
> 
> In a worker cooperative, everyone gets a vote on who management is but they don't vote on every decision management makes once they are in that role. Managers are put in a role of management to manage. They don't have to let the workers vote on every single decision. After a period of 6 months or a year or whatever, if the workers are not happy with the decisions that management has been making, they vote them out of that management role. That's how democracy works.
> 
> Of course, that's for the day to day decisions of management. If the decision is something major like shutting down a factory and shipping the jobs overseas, absofuckinglutely the workers should get a vote on something like that.
> 
> Why do you believe that citizens should be able to democratically elect their leaders in government but a corporation should be a top down totalitarian institution where the employees have no vote whatsoever on who their leaders are?


I disagree entirely. If you put it to a vote no workers are ever going to vote to close a factory, even if the costs of running that factory are too much for the business to handle. So the business collapses under itself and everybody loses their jobs instead of just the workers in the factory that cost too much for the company to sustain. This is the problem with your ideal: In most companies the people at the bottom don't have the slightest clue of the ins and outs of how the company works. The people in management are there because they're the people with the capabilities to actually perform the job, and you want to change that with a popularity contest every 6 months to spare the workers feelings? Nope, that's a recipe for disaster. 

In government there is a COMPLETELY different system in place, for a start there is an entire section of the government who can challenge the decisions made by those in power - we call them the opposition. That doesn't exist in business. If a total idiot gets voted into power in a government (using the UK as an example because that's where I'm from) that idiot trying to change things has to get past the opposition and other parties in Parliament, then they have to get past the upper chamber too. In business Mr Dumbass can do whatever the fuck he likes and there's nobody there to moderate his decisions. It's an idiotic comparison because they're not remotely run in the same way at all. If the executive over all of our departments makes a decision we all have to abide by the decision, there are no opposition managers or upper chamber looking to temper those decisions at all. I'm assuming you've never worked in a corporation? If you had you'd realise how stupid your position is if you want to have a successful business.


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> I disagree entirely. If you put it to a vote no workers are ever going to vote to close a factory, even if the costs of running that factory are too much for the business to handle. So the business collapses under itself and everybody loses their jobs instead of just the workers in the factory that cost too much for the company to sustain. This is the problem with your ideal: In most companies the people at the bottom don't have the slightest clue of the ins and outs of how the company works. The people in management are there because they're the people with the capabilities to actually perform the job, and you want to change that with a popularity contest every 6 months to spare the workers feelings? Nope, that's a recipe for disaster.
> 
> In government there is a COMPLETELY different system in place, for a start there is an entire section of the government who can challenge the decisions made by those in power - we call them the opposition. That doesn't exist in business. If a total idiot gets voted into power in a government (using the UK as an example because that's where I'm from) that idiot trying to change things has to get past the opposition and other parties in Parliament, then they have to get past the upper chamber too. In business Mr Dumbass can do whatever the fuck he likes and there's nobody there to moderate his decisions. It's an idiotic comparison because they're not remotely run in the same way at all. If the executive over all of our departments makes a decision we all have to abide by the decision, there are no opposition managers or upper chamber looking to temper those decisions at all. I'm assuming you've never worked in a corporation? If you had you'd realise how stupid your position is if you want to have a successful business.


Well, you're wrong, but I respect your reply.


----------



## Draykorinee

America increase Military spending by 100 billion dollars. The Russians don't even spend that in a year.

Tax cuts and increased government spending on things you dont need. Great idea. Can't have more healthcare spending though right?

Worst of all is the democrats backed this. Gutless, useless morons.


----------



## Rozalia

https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1025071229835927554

You can't argue with success. Trump says he has gotten them more jobs and they are doing better than ever. MSM says that such things may be true, but he says mean words. Numbers keep going up even though they are attacking him 24/7.

It is good to see these numbers climb, and we got to thank those who stuck their neck out to be called uncle Toms, race traitors, and the rest for it. As the climb happens more black people will feel able to speak out against the racist Democrat party who cares about illegals above all else. The party who says they are too stupid or lazy to get free ID (real reason, it's to defend their illegals), the side that is for globalism and for less jobs for the people (but plenty for illegals), and the party who has for decades said voting for them will improve your plight and yet it has yet to manifest with each Democrat ran city with significant black pop ran to hell.



draykorinee said:


> America increase Military spending by 100 billion dollars. The Russians don't even spend that in a year.
> 
> Tax cuts and increased government spending on things you dont need. Great idea. Can't have more healthcare spending though right?
> 
> Worst of all is the democrats backed this. Gutless, useless morons.


That was quite a while ago unless this is yet another. Democrats love Trump when he is increasing military or lobbing missiles somewhere. If he ordered the US military to squash Assad the news would be 24/7 love Trump.

Oh and it isn't because they are gutless/useless. They are pro war so they support large increases in military. Does this really shock you? At the rate Trump is going he may well not start a single war, while man of peace Obama ballooned where the US military was engaged and made Bush look like an amateur.


----------



## Tater

Rozalia said:


> the racist Democrat party who cares about illegals above all else.


Racist? Yes, but that's both parties.

Cares about illegals above all else? :lmao

No... they are also just the same as the GOP in that regard as well. They care about their donors above all else.

All the "differences" between the two parties are just window dressing. In reality, they are separate branches of the same party, which serves the interests of Big Money above all else.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> Well, you're wrong, but I respect your reply.


That's where we disagree I guess, I don't believe working for a company should give you a say in decisions you don't have the knowledge to make. If somebody wants a say they either earn it by progressing in their career to the point they're a decision maker or buying shares in said company and earning a say that way. Mr Factory Worker did fuck all to earn a say in the company.


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> That's where we disagree I guess, I don't believe working for a company should give you a say in decisions you don't have the knowledge to make. If somebody wants a say they either earn it by progressing in their career to the point they're a decision maker or buying shares in said company and earning a say that way. Mr Factory Worker did fuck all to earn a say in the company.


I respect your reply but I would ask, citizens born in the USA did fuck all to earn their vote, so why should people get a vote on politician leaders but not business leaders? I mean, you know how stupid the average voter is, yet you believe they should have a vote on the government leaders. Why should it be any different for business leaders?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> I respect your reply but I would ask, citizens born in the USA did fuck all to earn their vote, so why should people get a vote on politician leaders but not business leaders? I mean, you know how stupid the average voter is, yet you believe they should have a vote on the government leaders. Why should it be any different for business leaders?


I think I covered that in my previous post about the difference between the way a business and a government are run? For a start it's incredibly inefficient to have to run leadership elections in a business. Take the company I work for, do you really think the majority of those 25,000 employees have a clue what the directors or even senior managers are like in terms of their experience or capabilities? Those people are in those positions because they earned them and they're the right people for the job, but you'd rather run 6 month elections so people who know fuck all about that level of the business get to choose their favourite? It's bad management. So we're going to waste upper management time having them run campaigns (where would they even run them, facebook?) and visit all the different sites, the off-site workers and everybody else just so the workers can even know a thing about them? Waste of time AND money. We're going to give a bunch of people who work in call centres and power plants or out in vans fitting meters decide who dictates the direction of a company when they have no idea what any of those decisions or actions even entail? Do we shut down work for a day every 6 months to hold elections and have them correctly moderated, then counted and collated and nothing gets done? It's ridiculous.


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> I think I covered that in my previous post about the difference between the way a business and a government are run? For a start it's incredibly inefficient to have to run leadership elections in a business. Take the company I work for, do you really think the majority of those 25,000 employees have a clue what the directors or even senior managers are like in terms of their experience or capabilities? Those people are in those positions because they earned them and they're the right people for the job, but you'd rather run 6 month elections so people who know fuck all about that level of the business get to choose their favourite? It's bad management. So we're going to waste upper management time having them run campaigns (where would they even run them, facebook?) and visit all the different sites, the off-site workers and everybody else just so the workers can even know a thing about them? Waste of time AND money. We're going to give a bunch of people who work in call centres and power plants or out in vans fitting meters decide who dictates the direction of a company when they have no idea what any of those decisions or actions even entail? Do we shut down work for a day every 6 months to hold elections and have them correctly moderated, then counted and collated and nothing gets done? It's ridiculous.


And like I said before, I am not suggesting that every decision management makes should be put up for a vote. My idea is to let the workers democratically elect their business leaders. If said business leaders do a good job, then there is no reason for the workers to vote them out.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> And like I said before, I am not suggesting that every decision management makes should be put up for a vote. My idea is to let the workers democratically elect their business leaders. If said business leaders do a good job, then there is no reason for the workers to vote them out.


How though? When in the working week do we have the luxury to shut up shop to hold these elections? When do the upper management run their campaigns? Not every business in the world can just stop working to hold elections that risk putting the wrong person in the job because some workers didn't like the direction the person best qualified for the job took. The biggest problem I have with your ideal is the assumption that the unhappy workers are RIGHT when they're unhappy with management decisions. Hell, I'd be incredibly shocked if the majority of people in our company understood why those decisions were made in the first place, they're so far removed from them. Sometimes decisions have to be made that're going to upset workers, it's the nature of business. If a site is haemorrhaging money to the point where keeping it open could put the entire company at risk, that site needs to close, regardless of what the general workforce would prefer to happen. So, we close a site, the staff are unhappy and vote out the person who is actually a phenomenal executive? Now we have somebody who's worse in the job, potentially risking everybody else's job when they fuck up and the company goes bust because they ran a better campaign in the popularity contest? No thanks, I'd rather have the people who worked to attain that position than those who were voted in because they promised the workers half days on a Friday and no more site closures.


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> How though? When in the working week do we have the luxury to shut up shop to hold these elections? When do the upper management run their campaigns? Not every business in the world can just stop working to hold elections that risk putting the wrong person in the job because some workers didn't like the direction the person best qualified for the job took. The biggest problem I have with your ideal is the assumption that the unhappy workers are RIGHT when they're unhappy with management decisions. Hell, I'd be incredibly shocked if the majority of people in our company understood why those decisions were made in the first place, they're so far removed from them. Sometimes decisions have to be made that're going to upset workers, it's the nature of business. If a site is haemorrhaging money to the point where keeping it open could put the entire company at risk, that site needs to close, regardless of what the general workforce would prefer to happen. So, we close a site, the staff are unhappy and vote out the person who is actually a phenomenal executive? Now we have somebody who's worse in the job, potentially risking everybody else's job when they fuck up and the company goes bust because they ran a better campaign in the popularity contest? No thanks, I'd rather have the people who worked to attain that position than those who were voted in because they promised the workers half days on a Friday and no more site closures.


If that's your position, fine, but you have to admit that you believe in a totalitarian business structure. This form of capitalism in a "free society" only offers you a choice of slave master but it does not give you any say over the output of your work.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> If that's your position, fine, but you have to admit that you believe in a totalitarian business structure. This form of capitalism in a "free society" only offers you a choice of slave master but it does not give you any say over the output of your work.


Am I supposed to feel bad because you used the term "totalitarian" or something? I believe in a business structure where the people who know what the fuck they're doing make the decisions rather than the people who don't have a clue about how or why those decisions are made. Unless you can offer an explanation as to how unskilled, uneducated workers have even 1/100th of the knowledge about the upper workings of the industry and would make the right decisions then unfortunately I'm never going to view your perspective as anything more than having your head in a cloud of unrealistic ideals tbh. I should point out I'm neither an anarchist nor a socialist so you'd have a pretty uphill battle convincing me otherwise.


----------



## DesolationRow

Tater said:


> You know all of this, yet you are still pro-capitalist. Post Great Depression, during the height of the New Deal years, the USA built up the strongest middle class the world has ever seen. The mistake FDR made was keeping capitalism in place and heavily taxing it to build said middle class. He left the same elite in control at the top and they were mad as hell. Subsequently, they have been spending the past half century chipping away and eroding every gain the common man had gotten. Basically, by leaving capitalism in place after the Great Depression, it has led us back to the roaring 20s again.
> 
> This is why I consider Bernie Sanders to be such a weak "revolutionary". He wants to do the same things that failed the last time around. Sure, they worked for awhile, but as long as you leave that much power and control in the hands of an elite few, they will always continue taking more and more for themselves until the economy collapses again.
> 
> Those who do not learn from the past will repeat the mistakes of history.


"Pro-capitalist" is a curious charge, though, for capitalism itself is simply the terminology birthed by Marx and Engels, and by this signpost in time tends to get thrown around for any number of substantively variegated and different permutations of an exchange of goods or services in a market. Defending entrepreneurship and the profession of merchants revolving about private ownership inasmuch as Aristotle's argument on behalf of private property wedded to Democritus's stand pertaining to a reasonably free market whose foundation as a society was indeed private property as a necessity. It is also true that "collectivist" has become altogether abused as terminology by people we may view as "marketists," after a sort, for whom capitalism or the free market or what have you merits an almost religious devotion no less zealous than the avowed Marxist in the Marxist's desire to see classes "leveled" to use common eighteenth century Enlightenment-spawned vernacular. As you put it well in another post, the nineteenth century was to a large extent something approximating a classical liberal hour and the reduced roles of the aristocracy vis-a-vis assistance, or _noblesse oblige_, and the church's importance being dramatically reduced, it only took a couple of short generations before many Western men became adherents to socialism. In an earlier post I noted how Marx advocated on behalf of free trade to fundamentally alter the economic order and drive greater separation between the classes, with the upper class all but divorced from those beneath them with greater liberalization of trade. And indeed reiterating an earlier point from this thread Marxism may be best understood as an almost weaponized version of Lockeanism. 

Your point about the concentration of power is accurate, and it should be considered as we view the Great Depression and how the private Federal Reserve played the uppermost critical role in the 1929 Wall Street crash occurring. Just as so many other terms are abused, so too has "_laissez-faire_" grown to become a boogeyman, not so much in its actual meaning but in its historical connotations. The first thing to recall is that the Republican Part was never a _laissez-faire_ party. From its rise all the way through the largely Republican dominion over the White House in the latter half of the nineteen century all the way through to this very day, the Republican Party has indeed been corporatist in nature. In the last fifty or so years it finally became a "free trade" party whereas pre-World War II it had been explicitly protectionist, at least comparably so against its Democratic Party counterpart. 

The Republican Party was once the "big government party"--which, more than anything else, speaks to how radically the Democratic Party has shifted in the last approximately 100 years--seeking a lasting partnership between big business and government as Democrats argued passionately against the reflexively Republican instituting of tariffs as the exercising of the "mother of trusts," and wanted the U.S. monetary supply to remain linked to gold until William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson began to sharply deviate with general Democratic orthodoxy. 

What the Republicans of the '20s had truly created was a capitalism of a sort. The protective tariff, for instance, was never higher than in the 1920s, and immense pork-barrel spending, railroad industry subsidies and gargantuan land grants were becoming commonplace. As considerable as these elements of state-capitalism were, the most deleterious would be found only in the realm of banking and monetary policy. While all of the major and powerful European nations had adopted central banks throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it took the United States until 1913 to have its very own Federal Reserve, in spite of several flirtations with a central bank far earlier in its history. European powers were, consequently, able to inflate currency and spark heated cycles of credit in a way that eluded the powerful within the United States until this point in time. With the defiant Andrew Jackson effectively vetoing a national bank in the 1830s, the U.S. had experienced perhaps the single most freely competitive banking system in the history of the world, all the way until the Civil War, which allowed the Republicans to secure much of their economic and financial agenda including land grants and subsidies to certain corporate interests and most frequently the railroads as well as a high tariff. 

The Federal Reserve System, born in 1913, represented the virtual centralization and nationalization of the American banking system. Not surprisingly the big banks were supportive of the measure, as they along with their Wall Street colleagues had long pined for a central banking system for generations. Before long, the predictable consequences came to fruition: a cartelization of major banking, under federal auspices, complete with the central government looming as protector extraordinaire for banks, with the means and motive to bail out all banks which hit the rocky reefs of financial peril, as well as fully armed with the power to inflate the money supply as well as credit so as to ensure maximum profit and comfort for the connected banks. 

Perhaps the single most critical individual to study from this time period to learn of the U.S. monetary policies of the 1910s and 1920s is the enigmatic protagonist Benjamin Strong, who was the nearly dictatorial commander of the Federal Reserve System from 1914 until his death in 1928. Strong, a powerful New York banker who was initially named governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, was an economic interventionist of the first order. He reflexively utilized his clout and position in order to spur on drastic inflationary "booms" of money and bank credit. It was considered practical from a purely greedy perspective: prices rose considerably and the real-estate and stock markets saw some of the most artificially robust "booms" in American history. In the summer of 1927 Strong told France's chief central banker that he would stop at nothing to provide "a little coup de whiskey to the stock market," preparing, as he did, to once again inflate money and credit. 

Strong's efforts were reckless. The same self-fulfilling prophecies of inflationary practices for all countries were deployed. Put another way, short-term glee was given a higher value than the long-term harmful effect. Strong's subsidization of export firms and domestic industry was wedded to the 1920s Republicans ensuring that the protective tariff that their party-founders had argued for remained. The problem was that foreigners were largely closed off from enjoying the American markets, and therefore, with their goods at least partly blocked from entering the American markets, the attempts to sell U.S. exports to them would quite likely be unsuccessful. The solution? Stimulating U.S. loans to foreigners, enabling them to purchase U.S. products. 

Strong's inflationary policy resulted in repeated spurts of cheap credit, cheap credit which sparked on foreign lending, and consequently subsidized U.S. investment banks which made foreign loans. U.S. farm products were among the most lavished with artificial stimulation via cheap credit. U.S. agriculture had been too greatly stimulated by the outstanding demands of the European nations warring with one another during the Great War, and as a result, was one of the most overextended and sectors of the U.S. economy for most of the 1920s. As Republican administrations sought to distribute land grants and agricultural subsidies, American farmers were furious with how far they had fallen after the end of the Great War, and wanted to have their part of the economy artificially stimulated to where they had been at the height of the war. 

Executives of the Moline Plow Company, General Hugh S. Johnson and George N. Peek, these figures among myriad others who constituted what came to be referred to as the "farm bloc," agitated for the U.S. government to intervene. Herbert Hoover's very first act was to create the Federal Farm Board, which would "fix" prices by raising them dramatically. 

Strong was deeply Anglophilic, and sought to use his role as administrator of the American monetary supply to assist the betterment of the British. So long as the British held to unsound monetary policies, so too, Strong rationalized to colleagues, did the U.S. have to. 

With the gold standard being the reality for all major powers before the outbreak of hostilities in the summer of 1914, with every manner of currency tied to and redeemable in fixed weights of gold, whether it be the franc, mark, pound or dollar, these regimes had to live much more closely within their immediate means. Even when spending money to finance certain programs or military expenditures, inflation was consistently avoided throughout the nineteenth century. In that brutal conflagration, however, the non-U.S. major powers saw their gold standards as cumbersome barriers to enacting what they believed they needed through governmental intervention. Inflationary policies were the order of the day, and they crippled each nation dramatically. The countries most directly consumed by the war went off of the gold standard, relying on mere paper currencies. 

The British had been the financial center of the globe for a little over a century before that war. The British pound and the U.S. dollar had been fixed throughout most of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth in relation to gold, ensuring that the British pound would remain right where it was in value, at $4.86. The pound had been far more damaged by the war than the U.S. dollar, as the U.S. had only been in the war, directly, for nineteen months. Losing considerable value, the pound had declined to approximately $3.45-$3.55 on the exchange market. The British government was determined to return to the pound, and not to the post-World War I-reality of perhaps $3.50 but to the prewar station of $4.86.

English bankers were insistent, and so, Great Britain went back to gold at $4.86 in one of the twentieth century's most obstinate exercises in monetary policy. Most directly impacted right away were British exports, artificially costly, while imports from the U.S. were considerably cheaper. The quickly-relayed, deeply-felt depression that wracked the British export industries sent Great Britain into an economic tailspin, as the nation had leaned so heavily on exports of textiles and coal, while being considerably more dependent on imports in the realm of food than the average major nation. 

Since the increasingly powerful unions of Britain demanded no deflation, and with the unemployment-insurance system having been established after the war, wages were stuck and could not go down, so the entire domestic economy ground to a veritable halt as well. For the British banking interests the only way out of the quagmire was--yes, if you have been paying attention, you already guessed it--massive inflation. This would allow the British government to avoid the messy confrontation with the unions that had inordinate political power and gift them with a route by which they could outflank the problematic insistence of the union wage rates. Since the British had already declared that they wanted the pound to be once again fixed to gold at the prewar par of $4.86, they could have simply deflated their way out and gone through the brief but admittedly painful economic experience in order to allow the entire economy to "reset" as it were. Unfortunately, British banking interests were intent on inflation, cheap credit and all of the pernicious ills of excessive speculation as partly directed, if not largely so, by government handling. The only way for it to work in the realm of foreign-exchange would be for other nations to follow the example. If, for instance, the one country which had not left the gold standard throughout the entire conflict and aftermath of same, the U.S., would simply go along with the inflationary practices, to keep the "playing field level," as it were. 

The British, meanwhile, bribed, bullied, cajoled and threatened one nation after another. These other countries were told that they had to, for the sake of keeping the world order together, return to gold at an overvalued rate, sacrificing their own exports, while twisting so many arms so as to be incalculable so that they would all adopt the new version of the "gold exchange standard," so that the reserves for each nation would not be in actual gold but in London's sterling balances. 

These measures ensured that the British government could continue their profligate spending and inflationary practices. Pounds were suddenly redeemed not in gold but were merely utilized around the world as reserves, reserves that would serve as the table on which to stack their own respective inflationary practice. 

The U.S. was in the single strongest position to defy the British call to prop up their irresponsible inflationary policies, but while the British could threaten, say, Italy or Germany (particularly so considering its postwar state), all it needed in the case of the Americans was a continuation of what has been termed by historians as "The Great Rapprochement," which began following the last time the U.S. and Great Britain collided internationally, with the 1895 Venezuelan Crisis, and arguably culminated in the U.S. siding with the British over the Germans in the two conflagrations that engulfed Europe in the first half of the twentieth century. Strong was celebrated in Great Britain as one of the friendliest Americans the British had ever encountered. To know how sparkling this editorializing was, one must consider the ensemble television drama-sized cast of Anglophiles who made up the Wilson administration in the 1910s as well as Anglophiles in the U.S. Congress. Strong was a major friend of the British indeed, and was a personal friend to British financial chieftain Montagu Norman, who served as the puppet master of the Bank of England. Strong's relationship with Norman has called into question all sorts of downright scandalous considerations by many historians, but the point is that Strong sought what Norman sought, and Strong's role in the American financial world was largely determined by his existence in the orbit of the Morgan banking empire. Well before he was the head of the Federal Reserve Strong had been emperor of the Bankers Trust Company, the Morgan bank's most prestigious, and powerful, institution that sought to protect all Morgan banking interests. Dwight Morrow and Henry P. Davison were agitators on Strong's behalf among the financial players near the seats of power in Washington, D.C.--and both were partners of J.P. Morgan & Co. 

Nothing was so delicious for Morgan banking as the fruits that had grown from the tree of the Federal Reserve System, which was a necessity to finance the American involvement in World War I. Of course the Morgans were one of the most perspicuous and vociferous interests arguing on behalf of U.S. entry into the war, and the Morgans were also the fiscal proprietor on behalf of the Bank of England, underwriting concession for all sales of both British and French bonds in the American market. The war enabled the Morgans to turn right around and sell arms to the British and French. (It should be noted that the aforementioned pyramidal scheme of inflation amongst countries that the British sought in the 1920s finally came to a crash thanks to French resistance to sheepishly following.) World War I was a major winning moment for J.P. Morgan as they had been outmaneuvered, financially, by their rivals, caught short by the profound boom in all industrial stocks about a decade before the outbreak of the war, with Kuhn, Loeb & Co. overtaking much of their position. Kuhn, Loeb, was vehemently pro-German-Austrian, while the Morgans were practically agent provocateurs on behalf of Britain and to a significantly lesser extent France. No financial entity was so relieved to see the American entry into the war on behalf of the British and French than J.P. Morgan. Strong's great British friend Norman had deeper American ties than Strong had British ties, having worked in New York City for Brown Brothers, an extraordinarily powerful investment banking firm. Strong's efforts to help the British were not merely the work of an Anglophile; he was zealous about protecting J.P. Morgan, and with the efforts to match British inflation, Strong believed that his Federal Reserve System policies were aiding the Morgans considerably. When Strong died in 1928, the newly-anointed Federal Reserve chiefs were not so deliberate in the realm of inflation, and they were less amenable toward achieving whatever the British banking interests wanted from them, as well as the powerful Morgans. Inflationary policy was finally given a major pause, and, so, deflation followed, and with it, a depression. 

As for Bernie Sanders, you are right that he is not an efficacious revolutionary but rather much like a retread of Eduard Bernstein in Germany. Sanders's policies are primarily an addendum of sorts to Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, which was ultimately reasonably close in its application to the Italian fascism of Benito Mussolini in practice. As FDR's wife Eleanor Roosevelt giddily wrote, concerning the Italian counterpart, was much more like Benito Mussolini's Italian fascism in practice. Eleanor Roosevelt wrote that the ambassador to Italy, Breckenridge Long was almost constantly "rhapsodizing about the achievements of Mussolini's new 'corporate state,' saying that... '...Italy today is the most interesting experiment in government to come above the horizon since the formulation of the [American] Constitution 150 years ago.' [Mussolini] is one of the most remarkable persons... And they are doing a unique work in an original manner, so I am enjoying it all." 

Somewhat humorously the majority of Americans in the 1930s were quite a bit like European fascists insofar as they were bitterly opposed to both rabble-rousing communist agitators and the myriad individuals of "high finance" as intoned by several FDR speeches. 

In the fall of 1937 the State Department expressed adoration for the Italian fascist regime:



> [It] brought order out of chaos, discipline out of license, and solvency out of bankruptcy.


In the Third Reich Germany of the time, the National Socialist press was just about uniformly enthusiastic about New Deal programs emanating from Washington, D.C. The newspaper which served as effective propaganda arm of Hitler's government, the _Völkischer Beobachter_, declared that the U.S. had finally and prudently changed course from what it described as the "uninhibited frenzy of market speculation." 

These points are brought up not for the simple sake of condemnation but rather to illustrate that the dichotomy between unregulated "Ancapistan" and a Marxist classless society and fascism and a plethora of gradations between, say, the dramatically looser confederation of American states before the 1860s and the American regime-assisted and -spurred market afterward all have to be scrutinized. Compared to many others, though dealing in high finance, the defense of capitalism at all from here comes mainly from the utilitarian perspective that the good life is best buttressed by a generally free market. Furthermore, to act morally, to perform acts of goodwill, charity, casuistry, to practice "benevolence and philanthropy" as Aristotle puts it. Surveying, say, the economy of Athens where private property was an essential and nearly constant element versus the almost limitless collectivism of Sparta, Aristotle and Democritus considered the economic system of the former vastly superior to that of the latter. Which is not to suggest that the Spartans' society was hopeless or unsustainable, just that the Athenian emphasis on private property channeled most people's energies toward "toil and diligence" more as a matter of proud citizenry working in concert with one another rather than the manner in which, say, the helots of Sparta were directed. 

In any event, hope you and everyone else in this thread are well!


----------



## Rozalia

Tater said:


> Racist? Yes, but that's both parties.
> 
> Cares about illegals above all else? :lmao
> 
> No... they are also just the same as the GOP in that regard as well. They care about their donors above all else.
> 
> All the "differences" between the two parties are just window dressing. In reality, they are separate branches of the same party, which serves the interests of Big Money above all else.


Well yes, but big donors alone cannot make you win, which is what keeps the money coming in. There has already been reports in the past that big Democrat donors are shakey as they gave to who was suppose to be a sure winner in Hillary and then she lost, and lost badly. 

The Democrat policy is, like many "left" parties in the west, demographic change. In this case they believe in that whole, the country will be Latino thing so they want to make sure they have command of such people as a block. This in turn by the way is liked by the donors because cheap labour and it creates a distraction where people have to focus on the issue of all those Latinos rather than on the rich themselves.

So you're not wrong, but I ain't either. My point with the statement was in regards to voters the Democrats have already given whites the finger hence why their numbers there are in constant decline. A study out by Harvard I think it was stated that even a slight change for lefty whites of Spanish people being in the area speaking Spanish makes them anti-immigration, so as the numbers increase, so will the whites who reject it. In time this will hit Asians and Jews who are too rich and "white". Eventually even the blacks will be given the finger as the group they actually care about is in competition with them.

Though it should be noted here that Trump and his guys in the party aren't part of the gang. They have gone against immigration of cheap labour which is unthinkable for the establishment Republicans.


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> I believe in a business structure where the people who know what the fuck they're doing make the decisions rather than the people who don't have a clue about how or why those decisions are made.


What part about workers electing management who know what the fuck they're doing to make the decisions did you not understand?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> What part about workers electing management who know what the fuck they're doing to make the decisions did you not understand?


Which part of "how do the workers know how to choose the right candidate?" did you not understand? Or are you under some bizarre delusion that the factory workers have any idea who's really qualified or what qualifications would make somebody suitable for the role? You want to give people with almost no understanding of the executive branch of a company the power to define that executive branch, it's idiocy. As I said, when does the campaign happen to educate said workers? On company time? Throwing tons of money away every 6 months? Fuck that. Keep dreaming.


----------



## virus21

> SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX 5) – New details emerged Wednesday about how a mole for the government of communist China managed to stay by Senator Dianne Feinstein’s side for nearly 20 years.
> 
> It happened five years ago, but additional information is just surfacing about how the Bay Area senator’s office was infiltrated by a Chinese spy.
> 
> The Bay Area is a hotbed for Russian and Chinese espionage. Late last year, the feds shut down the Russian consulate in San Francisco.
> 
> You may remember the thick black smoke that billowing from building before Russian diplomats turned it over to authorities, presumably produced by burning documents.
> 
> Now, all eyes are on Chinese intelligence in the Bay Area after the website Politico reported last week that a staffer for Senator Feinstein turned out to be a Chinese spy who reported back to the government officials about local politics.
> 
> On Wednesday, the San Francisco Chronicle uncovered additional details in a column written by reporters Phil Matier and Andy Ross.
> 
> The column revealed that the Chinese spy was Feinstein’s driver who also served as a gofer in her Bay Area office and was a liaison to the Asian-American community.
> 
> He even attended Chinese consulate functions for the senator.
> 
> Feinstein — who was Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time — was reportedly mortified when the FBI told her she’d be infiltrated.
> 
> Investigators reportedly concluded the driver hadn’t leaked anything of substance and Feinstein forced him to retire.
> 
> Former FBI agent and KPIX 5 security analyst Jeff Harp said he was not surprised.
> 
> “Think about Diane Feinstein and what she had access to,” said Harp. “One, she had access to the Chinese community here in San Francisco; great amount of political influence. Two, correct me if I’m wrong, Dianne Feinstein still has very close ties to the intelligence committees there in Washington, D.C.”
> 
> Harp ran counter espionage for the FBI in the Bay Area. He said in addition to traditional political intel and diplomatic secrets, Bay Area spies are often focused on things like R&D, technology and trade secrets.
> 
> “They also have an interest in the economy here. How to get political influence here,” said Harp. “What’s being developed in Silicon Valley that has dual-use technology. All of that is tied to the Bay Area.”
> 
> And he says, like in many areas, when it comes to counter intelligence and espionage, the Bay Area is a trend setter.
> 
> “As the Bay Area goes, so does the nation when it comes to technology,” said Harp. “So why not when it comes to spying?”
> 
> Harp pointed out politicians with access to classified information are generally trained on what not to say and when not to say it. But he also noted when you have a driver behind the wheel day in and day out for 20 years, there are more opportunities to slip up.
> 
> Feinstein’s office would not comment on the story, saying they do not address personnel matters or investigations, but they added that none of their California offices staffers had ever had security clearance.
> 
> The FBI declined to comment on the story.


https://web.archive.org/web/20180803142735/https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/08/01/details-chinese-spy-dianne-feinstein-san-francisco/


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> Which part of "how do the workers know how to choose the right candidate?" did you not understand? Or are you under some bizarre delusion that the factory workers have any idea who's really qualified or what qualifications would make somebody suitable for the role? You want to give people with almost no understanding of the executive branch of a company the power to define that executive branch, it's idiocy. As I said, when does the campaign happen to educate said workers? On company time? Throwing tons of money away every 6 months? Fuck that. Keep dreaming.


So you believe that dumbass citizens should have the right to vote for their leaders in government but you don't believe dumbass workers should have the right to vote for their leaders in business. Yep, totally consistent logic ya got there, buddy.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> So you believe that dumbass citizens should have the right to vote for their leaders in government but you don't believe dumbass workers should have the right to vote for their leaders in business. Yep, totally consistent logic ya got there, buddy.


Nice attempt at deflection, how about addressing the point I made instead of trying to skirt around it? Or is it just that you have no answer because your ideal is massively flawed? (We all know it is.) :lol


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> Nice attempt at deflection, how about addressing the point I made instead of trying to skirt around it? Or is it just that you have no answer because your ideal is massively flawed? (We all know it is.) :lol


Pointing out the inconsistency in your logic is not a deflection. There's a whole lot of dumbass mother fuckers who you defend the right to vote on political leaders. I mean, how many in the general public have any fucking clue how politics work? But that part is okay with you. Apply that same logic to a business. You say workers shouldn't decide their leaders because they have no idea how the business works. 

Well, which is it? Should people be able to vote for their leaders or not? Why do you consider it okay for an ignorant public to vote for their political leaders but it's not okay for ignorant workers to vote for their business leaders? And how do you not see the hypocrisy of that statement?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> Pointing out the inconsistency in your logic is not a deflection. There's a whole lot of dumbass mother fuckers who you defend the right to vote on political leaders. I mean, how many in the general public have any fucking clue how politics work? But that part is okay with you. Apply that same logic to a business. You say workers shouldn't decide their leaders because they have no idea how the business works.
> 
> Well, which is it? Should people be able to vote for their leaders or not? Why do you consider it okay for an ignorant public to vote for their political leaders but it's not okay for ignorant workers to vote for their business leaders? And how do you not see the hypocrisy of that statement?


Again, how do the workers know who these people are? Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I'm assuming the largest company you've worked for is pretty tiny, right? In a company of 25,000 people do you think they all know who the executives even are? Seriously though? There's no hypocrisy, you're either just dense or deliberately ignoring the point because you can't argue against it. Most people in a company that size are lucky if they know the upper management on their site, never mind their manager's manager or 12 steps above that, the executives. In a government election there is years of campaigning and information given about the candidates. I'll repeat myself for what seems like the hundredth time because you can't read worth a shit: WHEN DO WE RUN THESE CAMPAIGNS SO THAT THE BOTTOM RUNG STAFF MEMBERS ARE EVEN AWARE WHO THE EXECUTIVES ARE? It's a colossal waste of both time AND money. All you're doing is showing how utterly ignorant you are when it comes to the business world. My god it's like talking to a child.


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> Again, how do the workers know who these people are? Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I'm assuming the largest company you've worked for is pretty tiny, right? In a company of 25,000 people do you think they all know who the executives even are? Seriously though? There's no hypocrisy, you're either just dense or deliberately ignoring the point because you can't argue against it. Most people in a company that size are lucky if they know the upper management on their site, never mind their manager's manager or 12 steps above that, the executives. In a government election there is years of campaigning and information given about the candidates. I'll repeat myself for what seems like the hundredth time because you can't read worth a shit: WHEN DO WE RUN THESE CAMPAIGNS SO THAT THE BOTTOM RUNG STAFF MEMBERS ARE EVEN AWARE WHO THE EXECUTIVES ARE? It's a colossal waste of both time AND money. All you're doing is showing how utterly ignorant you are when it comes to the business world. *My god it's like talking to a child.*


Finally, something we agree upon. :lol j/k

No, really, I'm trying to ask you a legitimate question here. Why do you believe it's okay for hundreds of millions of people to vote on government leaders but it's not okay for 25k working at a business to vote on theirs?

Let me ask a different way. You make a valid point that there is ignorance amongst the low rung workers compared to management. So why shouldn't they be educated? I understand the point you are making. Not everyone understands executive level positions and the decisions they have to make. The same logic applies to citizens voting on government leaders.

I'm not saying you have to agree with my philosophy but it shouldn't be that difficult to understand. I believe that businesses should be run like a democracy just the same as the government should be run like a democracy. Your argument that workers are ignorant of management is a valid one but that same logic applies to people voting on politicians to run our government. By being for one but not the other is a contradictory belief.

The answer is not to run a government or a business as a totalitarian structure. The answer is to educate people so they can make informed decisions on who they vote for their leaders.


----------



## DOPA

@DesolationRow






Neo-McCarthyism is alive and well.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> Finally, something we agree upon. :lol j/k
> 
> No, really, I'm trying to ask you a legitimate question here. Why do you believe it's okay for hundreds of millions of people to vote on government leaders but it's not okay for 25k working at a business to vote on theirs?
> 
> Let me ask a different way. You make a valid point that there is ignorance amongst the low rung workers compared to management. So why shouldn't they be educated? I understand the point you are making. Not everyone understands executive level positions and the decisions they have to make. The same logic applies to citizens voting on government leaders.
> 
> I'm not saying you have to agree with my philosophy but it shouldn't be that difficult to understand. I believe that businesses should be run like a democracy just the same as the government should be run like a democracy. Your argument that workers are ignorant of management is a valid one but that same logic applies to people voting on politicians to run our government. By being for one but not the other is a contradictory belief.
> 
> The answer is not to run a government or a business as a totalitarian structure. The answer is to educate people so they can make informed decisions on who they vote for their leaders.


Again, you've missed the point entirely. In a government election the people voting have at least some idea who the person is. In a large company they simply DON'T. They're not just ignorant of how management works, they couldn't pick said manager out of a line-up if their life depended on it. In a company the size of the one I work at most people wouldn't even know the most senior person at their site on sight, never mind upper management and executives. They know nothing about their skills, their beliefs, their personalities, their backgrounds, most might not even know their name. That's simply not the case in government elections. In those elections you have years of campaigning in order for the electorate to learn those very things. So how do you expect them to vote? Do we run campaigns within the business instead of you know, just doing our jobs? Are you even remotely aware of how much that would cost? It's completely and utterly unrealistic. What you're talking about may work for a small business somewhere, in large corporations you're talking a huge logistical undertaking and to even remotely give those employees a chance at knowing who they're voting for would cost the company literally thousands. It'd be a horrific and wasteful way to conduct business.


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> Again, you've missed the point entirely. In a government election the people voting have at least some idea who the person is. In a large company they simply DON'T. They're not just ignorant of how management works, they couldn't pick said manager out of a line-up if their life depended on it. In a company the size of the one I work at most people wouldn't even know the most senior person at their site on sight, never mind upper management and executives. They know nothing about their skills, their beliefs, their personalities, their backgrounds, most might not even know their name. That's simply not the case in government elections. In those elections you have years of campaigning in order for the electorate to learn those very things. So how do you expect them to vote? Do we run campaigns within the business instead of you know, just doing our jobs? Are you even remotely aware of how much that would cost? It's completely and utterly unrealistic. What you're talking about may work for a small business somewhere, in large corporations you're talking a huge logistical undertaking and to even remotely give those employees a chance at knowing who they're voting for would cost the company literally thousands. It'd be a horrific and wasteful way to conduct business.


I didn't miss the point. I understand exactly what you're saying and yes, the way many businesses are currently constructed would cause problems.

Something I would point out, however, is that the USA is unique in the whole years to run an election thing. The way I understand it, election season is much shorter in other countries. Some of my non-USA friends here could confirm that.

Maybe instead of hiding in a boardroom or office away from the workers, maybe management should be out there working with and helping the workers of a company. That's one way to get workers familiar with the people making the decisions. And even if not everyone knows management personally, they still feel the effects of the decisions being made. Also, if management knew their jobs depended on keeping the workers happy, it makes sense that they would do more to interact with the workers, so they know who management is and will have a favorable opinion of them when it comes time to vote on who stays in management and who goes.

Take my job, for example. I build the grills, wheelbarrows, tool chests, patio furniture, etc. at a Home Depot. I don't work for Home Depot, I'm an outside contractor, but I know every manager there. I know which ones are helpful and I know which ones are just going through the motions. People talk at that store. They see which managers care about their jobs and which ones don't. It's not a stretch to say that they know which managers make which decisions and how it affects them on the job. Now let me tell you about our general manager. He used to be the regional manager but he sucked so bad at his job that he had to choose between being fired and taking a demotion to a general manager at a single store. Since taking over at our store, pretty much everyone hates him. He has no clue what the fuck he is doing. We have assistant managers who are far better at their jobs than he is at his. Yet, he has that job, not because he is qualified for it, but because he has friends in high places. Does it seem reasonable to you that a complete fucking moron be able to be the boss at the store via nepotism? Or does it seem more reasonable to you to let the workers vote him out of that role and elect a more capable leader?

That's the general idea of how government and politicians work. You elect someone and if they do a good job, you reelect them. If they suck at their job, you vote them out and give someone else a chance. Why should business leaders be treated any differently?

I'll tell you one thing... if management knew their job depended on keeping their workers happy, you'd see management working a lot harder instead of loafing around.


----------



## DesolationRow

Thank you for sharing that video, @DOPA;!

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-r...-seagal-with-improving-u-s-ties-idUSKBN1KP0NP



> Russia tasks Hollywood actor Seagal with improving U.S. ties
> 
> MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia’s Foreign Ministry said on Saturday it had made U.S. actor Steven Seagal its special representative for Russian-U.S. humanitarian ties, a role it said was meant to deepen cultural, art and youth ties between the two countries.
> 
> President Vladimir Putin presented a Russian passport to U.S. actor Steven Seagal in 2016, saying he hoped it would serve as a symbol of how fractious ties between Moscow and Washington were starting to improve.
> 
> Since then, U.S.-Russia relations have only got worse however with U.S. intelligence agencies accusing Moscow of interfering in Donald Trump’s White House run, an allegation Russia denies. The two countries are also at odds over Syria and Ukraine.
> 
> The Russian Foreign Ministry likened Seagal’s new role to that of a U.N. goodwill ambassador and said that the actor, who is known for his martial arts prowess, would receive no salary.
> 
> “It’s a case of people’s diplomacy intersecting with traditional diplomacy,” the ministry said.
> 
> Seagal, who sometimes appears on Russian state TV to talk about his views and career, was cited by Kremlin-backed TV station RT as welcoming the appointment.
> 
> “I’ve always had a very strong desire to do all I can to help improve Russian-American relations,” RT cited Seagal as saying. “I have worked tirelessly in this direction for many years unofficially and I am now very grateful for the opportunity to do the same thing officially.”
> 
> For more than a decade Seagal, who according to his own website is 66, has been a regular visitor to Russia. His movies, including such titles as “Under Siege” and “Sniper: Special Ops,” are popular with Russian audiences.
> 
> President Putin is also a fan of the kind of martial arts that Seagal often practiced in his Hollywood action movies.


Chuck Norris to envoy the U.S. side when?


----------



## Rozalia

DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neo-McCarthyism is alive and well.


The parties have "switched" once again.

Old professor just castrates that guy. As he says, Russia meddling in American elections (and America meddling theirs) has always happened since over 100 years ago and is as he says, "low level" stuff.


----------



## Tater

I feel like this should be posted again, just in case anyone forgot that the Russia hacked the DNC emails story has been completely debunked.






So, unless Russia somehow managed to get an inside man at the DNC, they didn't steal those emails. It was a leak and whoever took them had inside access to the servers. Also, just in case anyone forgot, the DNC never let the FBI go over the servers. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that inspecting the servers would expose the Russiagate narrative as complete and utter bullshit.

Trump is a piece of shit president that didn't steal the election with Russian help and the DNC are liars pushing the Russiagate narrative to deflect from their own flaws. Both things are true at the same time.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> I didn't miss the point. I understand exactly what you're saying and yes, the way many businesses are currently constructed would cause problems.
> 
> Something I would point out, however, is that the USA is unique in the whole years to run an election thing. The way I understand it, election season is much shorter in other countries. Some of my non-USA friends here could confirm that.
> 
> Maybe instead of hiding in a boardroom or office away from the workers, maybe management should be out there working with and helping the workers of a company. That's one way to get workers familiar with the people making the decisions. And even if not everyone knows management personally, they still feel the effects of the decisions being made. Also, if management knew their jobs depended on keeping the workers happy, it makes sense that they would do more to interact with the workers, so they know who management is and will have a favorable opinion of them when it comes time to vote on who stays in management and who goes.
> 
> Take my job, for example. I build the grills, wheelbarrows, tool chests, patio furniture, etc. at a Home Depot. I don't work for Home Depot, I'm an outside contractor, but I know every manager there. I know which ones are helpful and I know which ones are just going through the motions. People talk at that store. They see which managers care about their jobs and which ones don't. It's not a stretch to say that they know which managers make which decisions and how it affects them on the job. Now let me tell you about our general manager. He used to be the regional manager but he sucked so bad at his job that he had to choose between being fired and taking a demotion to a general manager at a single store. Since taking over at our store, pretty much everyone hates him. He has no clue what the fuck he is doing. We have assistant managers who are far better at their jobs than he is at his. Yet, he has that job, not because he is qualified for it, but because he has friends in high places. Does it seem reasonable to you that a complete fucking moron be able to be the boss at the store via nepotism? Or does it seem more reasonable to you to let the workers vote him out of that role and elect a more capable leader?
> 
> That's the general idea of how government and politicians work. You elect someone and if they do a good job, you reelect them. If they suck at their job, you vote them out and give someone else a chance. Why should business leaders be treated any differently?
> 
> I'll tell you one thing... if management knew their job depended on keeping their workers happy, you'd see management working a lot harder instead of loafing around.


And that's why I said your idea would work best for smaller companies. How many people work on that Home Depot site? At my base site there are 1200 employees over 5 floors of offices. If the upper management were wandering round getting to know the call centre staff there'd be nobody doing the manager's jobs. They spend over 8 hours a day in conference calls and meetings and you want to pay them to walk around getting to know people? It's bad business. Considering the salaries of some of these people you'd literally be throwing thousands away daily, that's not a good way to make money. We have remote workers who work in vans visiting customers houses to install, read or repair electricity and gas meters. You want them to come spend a couple of hours a day coming into the office to even meet the upper management? Again, HUGE waste of money. Your ideal might work for smaller businesses with small sites, but in large companies it's simply unrealistic and a huge waste of money for the company. Money wasted at that scale is almost certainly going to cost people jobs.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

:lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> And that's why I said your idea would work best for smaller companies. How many people work on that Home Depot site? At my base site there are 1200 employees over 5 floors of offices. If the upper management were wandering round getting to know the call centre staff there'd be nobody doing the manager's jobs. They spend over 8 hours a day in conference calls and meetings and you want to pay them to walk around getting to know people? It's bad business. Considering the salaries of some of these people you'd literally be throwing thousands away daily, that's not a good way to make money. We have remote workers who work in vans visiting customers houses to install, read or repair electricity and gas meters. You want them to come spend a couple of hours a day coming into the office to even meet the upper management? Again, HUGE waste of money. Your ideal might work for smaller businesses with small sites, but in large companies it's simply unrealistic and a huge waste of money for the company. Money wasted at that scale is almost certainly going to cost people jobs.


Again, I understand the point you are making and I am not suggesting that high level executives take time out their busy days to go get to know Paul in accounting. You don't have to know someone on a personal level to see the results of their actions in their jobs. We don't know the politicians personally that we vote on but once they are in office, we can see the effects of their decisions. It's the same thing in a business. 

Your point about business grinding to a halt if everyone had to socialize with each other every day is a valid one. Here's a suggestion. How about quarterly performance reviews or something of the like. Have a big meeting or if that is unfeasible, send out flyers or emails or whatever to whoever works at the business, so they know what decisions have been made, whether or not those were good decisions, how those decisions played out over a longer period of time.

I'm not set one a single way to do this. It's not a one size fits all suggestion. What might work better for one company might not work out so well for another. I am open to suggestion as to implementation of such a system. But the main point still remains. Businesses should be run democratically from the bottom up instead of the top down totalitarian structure that we have now. You still need to have leaders who are experienced and know how to make the decisions that need to be made to keep the business running but you also need to have the ability to vote those leaders out of their position if all their choices fuck over the workers to benefit those at the top.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> Again, I understand the point you are making and I am not suggesting that high level executives take time out their busy days to go get to know Paul in accounting. You don't have to know someone on a personal level to see the results of their actions in their jobs. We don't know the politicians personally that we vote on but once they are in office, we can see the effects of their decisions. It's the same thing in a business.
> 
> Your point about business grinding to a halt if everyone had to socialize with each other every day is a valid one. Here's a suggestion. How about quarterly performance reviews or something of the like. Have a big meeting or if that is unfeasible, send out flyers or emails or whatever to whoever works at the business, so they know what decisions have been made, whether or not those were good decisions, how those decisions played out over a longer period of time.
> 
> I'm not set one a single way to do this. It's not a one size fits all suggestion. What might work better for one company might not work out so well for another. I am open to suggestion as to implementation of such a system. But the main point still remains. Businesses should be run democratically from the bottom up instead of the top down totalitarian structure that we have now. You still need to have leaders who are experienced and know how to make the decisions that need to be made to keep the business running but you also need to have the ability to vote those leaders out of their position if all their choices fuck over the workers to benefit those at the top.


Like I say, it's just massively unfeasible to do this with a large company. You literally don't have a clue what the upper management are responsible for, you likely don't even know what your manager's manager's manager is responsible for and he's only 3 steps up a 15 step ladder. I genuinely don't think you understand how massive companies work. There is no way at all to educate the people at the bottom even enough to understand the workings of the middle, never mind the top. You show it with your comments like "Paul from accounting," that's small business. Our accountants either work for an entirely different company or in an entirely different part of the country. Your manager might work on the other side of the country than you do, and if not his manager almost certainly does. The bottom rung employees wouldn't even know who their manager's manager is by sight, and their own manager is so close to the bottom that they wouldn't even come close to knowing which middle manager is in charge of the departments who are in charge of the departments who oversee their team. The cost of running an election that size internally would be literally astronomical. How many people being employed are you willing to sacrifice for these elections? Because they would be, in the thousands to cover that cost. That's without even educating the employees either, that's simply holding the elections and counting the votes. Like I say, it'd maybe work for small site, small businesses. When you're in the realms of 25,000 employees over numerous sites (and even more overseas) including remote workers, temporary workers (who under UK Law for example receive full employee benefits after 12 weeks - which would include voting rights) it's just a ridiculous pipe dream it really is. I'm sorry, but it just isn't remotely doable without costing so much money that those bottom rung employees would be fucked because their department's getting closed to cover the cost, causing a worse service for the customers and ultimately making the entire exercise a massive negative for the business, the employees and the customers.


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> Like I say, it's just massively unfeasible to do this with a large company. You literally don't have a clue what the upper management are responsible for, you likely don't even know what your manager's manager's manager is responsible for and he's only 3 steps up a 15 step ladder. I genuinely don't think you understand how massive companies work. There is no way at all to educate the people at the bottom even enough to understand the workings of the middle, never mind the top. You show it with your comments like "Paul from accounting," that's small business. Our accountants either work for an entirely different company or in an entirely different part of the country. Your manager might work on the other side of the country than you do, and if not his manager almost certainly does. The bottom rung employees wouldn't even know who their manager's manager is by sight, and their own manager is so close to the bottom that they wouldn't even come close to knowing which middle manager is in charge of the departments who are in charge of the departments who oversee their team. The cost of running an election that size internally would be literally astronomical. How many people being employed are you willing to sacrifice for these elections? Because they would be, in the thousands to cover that cost. That's without even educating the employees either, that's simply holding the elections and counting the votes. Like I say, it'd maybe work for small site, small businesses. When you're in the realms of 25,000 employees over numerous sites (and even more overseas) including remote workers, temporary workers (who under UK Law for example receive full employee benefits after 12 weeks - which would include voting rights) it's just a ridiculous pipe dream it really is. I'm sorry, but it just isn't remotely doable without costing so much money that those bottom rung employees would be fucked because their department's getting closed to cover the cost, causing a worse service for the customers and ultimately making the entire exercise a massive negative for the business, the employees and the customers.


Apply that logic to running a government and electing politicians. How many commoners understand all the things you're describing but you believe they should be allowed to elect government leaders? How do you justify a belief in running a government from the bottom up by letting people elect their leaders with the exact opposite approach to business where the workers have no say whatsoever in who their leaders are?

I wasn't suggesting having an election season for businesses either. The specifics on how it would be done are completely up for debate. I would also point out that there are large corporations like Mondragon who are massively successful and function as a worker cooperative. There are different methods to accomplish the goal of a democratically run business that doesn't crash the business in the process.

Here's a thought. You say it could work for smaller businesses but not for larger ones. Well, maybe the larger ones could be split up into divisions for the process. A worker from accounting wouldn't be voting on leaders in the R&D department. I don't know how well that would work either. I'm just trying to think outside of the box.

What's for absolute certain is the way we are doing things now is completely unsustainable in the long run. Those at the top keep taking more and more for themselves. We've gone above and beyond the income inequality that was happening before the collapse of the Great Depression. When the collapse happens again, and it will, I believe we should try building a different kind of economy, rather than rebuilding the one that caused the collapse in the first place, which is what we do every time an economic collapse happens.

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Rebuilding capitalism after it's next inevitable collapse would fit that definition.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> Apply that logic to running a government and electing politicians. How many commoners understand all the things you're describing but you believe they should be allowed to elect government leaders? How do you justify a belief in running a government from the bottom up by letting people elect their leaders with the exact opposite approach to business where the workers have no say whatsoever in who their leaders are?
> 
> I wasn't suggesting having an election season for businesses either. The specifics on how it would be done are completely up for debate. I would also point out that there are large corporations like Mondragon who are massively successful and function as a worker cooperative. There are different methods to accomplish the goal of a democratically run business that doesn't crash the business in the process.
> 
> Here's a thought. You say it could work for smaller businesses but not for larger ones. Well, maybe the larger ones could be split up into divisions for the process. A worker from accounting wouldn't be voting on leaders in the R&D department. I don't know how well that would work either. I'm just trying to think outside of the box.
> 
> What's for absolute certain is the way we are doing things now is completely unsustainable in the long run. Those at the top keep taking more and more for themselves. We've gone above and beyond the income inequality that was happening before the collapse of the Great Depression. When the collapse happens again, and it will, I believe we should try building a different kind of economy, rather than rebuilding the one that caused the collapse in the first place, which is what we do every time an economic collapse happens.
> 
> One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Rebuilding capitalism after it's next inevitable collapse would fit that definition.


You think it's unsustainable? Sorry but you're so dead wrong on that, we're doing fantastic business with no real threat to any of it and I'm sure many other large corporations are exactly the same. 

I'm not going over the government election thing again, I've already explained to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over the differences between the 2 situations, you just refuse to recognise them. Honestly, if I wanted to have the same conversation over and over I'd just replay video games I've already beaten. This is just boring now.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Basically middle to upper managers have meetings, primarily about what was covered in the last meeting, and then repeat.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

yeahbaby! said:


> Basically middle to upper managers have meetings, primarily about what was covered in the last meeting, and then repeat.


Depends on the industry I guess. That's not really the case when you're the #1 energy supplier in the country. We often work overtime just to be able to get everything done, and I know, I'm in a lot of those meetings.


----------



## Tater

BAM! I don't always agree on Kyle on every matter but he just gave that troglodyte a smackdown of epic proportions.



RavishingRickRules said:


> You think it's unsustainable? Sorry but you're so dead wrong on that, we're doing fantastic business with no real threat to any of it and I'm sure many other large corporations are exactly the same.


Sure, those at the very top are doing fantastic. It's the majority of everyone else who keeps getting less and less. If you believe that is sustainable, then you need to study up on economics just a bit more.

Here's a little Economics 101 lesson for you. In a consumer based economy, for it to function and grow, the consumers need expendable money to purchase products. When you funnel more and more to the top, leaving little for everyone else, that's when an economy collapses. That's just basic math, which is something you are struggling to comprehend.



RavishingRickRules said:


> I'm not going over the government election thing again, I've already explained to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over the differences between the 2 situations, you just refuse to recognise them. Honestly, if I wanted to have the same conversation over and over I'd just replay video games I've already beaten. This is just boring now.


I've fully explained a concept you either refuse to understand or are incapable of it. Calling it boring is nothing more than an admission of your failure to grasp the concept.


----------



## DesolationRow

Tater said:


> I feel like this should be posted again, just in case anyone forgot that the Russia hacked the DNC emails story has been completely debunked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, unless Russia somehow managed to get an inside man at the DNC, they didn't steal those emails. It was a leak and whoever took them had inside access to the servers. Also, just in case anyone forgot, the DNC never let the FBI go over the servers. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that inspecting the servers would expose the Russiagate narrative as complete and utter bullshit.
> 
> Trump is a piece of shit president that didn't steal the election with Russian help and the DNC are liars pushing the Russiagate narrative to deflect from their own flaws. Both things are true at the same time.


Completely fascinating video. Learned a good deal from this. Thank you for sharing, @Tater;!


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> BAM! I don't always agree on Kyle on every matter but he just gave that troglodyte a smackdown of epic proportions.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, those at the very top are doing fantastic. It's the majority of everyone else who keeps getting less and less. If you believe that is sustainable, then you need to study up on economics just a bit more.
> 
> Here's a little Economics 101 lesson for you. In a consumer based economy, for it to function and grow, the consumers need expendable money to purchase products. When you funnel more and more to the top, leaving little for everyone else, that's when an economy collapses. That's just basic math, which is something you are struggling to comprehend.
> 
> 
> 
> I've fully explained a concept you either refuse to understand or are incapable of it. Calling it boring is nothing more than an admission of your failure to grasp the concept.


No it's really not. It's simply you not admitting that to give a business leader remotely the same amount of coverage as a politician would cost literally thousands in order to get the people even remotely as familiar with said leaders as they are with politicians. Or are you going to claim that the press will start reporting on CEO's and their manifestos? You already admitted that it's not feasible to run campaigns in the same way. And yet you keep trying to make the same disproved point that it's hypocritical to support government elections and not business ones, even though time and time again I've shown you they're not remotely the same thing. Now who's being intellectually dishonest? Oh right, that's you. You might find it entertaining ignoring points and repeated disproved ones, I actually have better things to spend my time on. Get a clue already.


----------



## Draykorinee

> Socialism violates three of the Ten Commandments,” Shapiro told the crowd of mostly young activists and students. “Idolatry, because you’re not supposed to worship government, you’re supposed to worship God.”
> 
> “It violates the prescription against theft, because socialism is indeed theft even if you vote for the theft,” he said.
> 
> 
> “And it violates the prescription against jealousy -- you’re not supposed to envy your neighbor, you’re not supposed to covet your neighbor’s property,” said Shapiro. “That’s what socialism is about.”


This guy gets used in here sometimes as the right wing smart guy, always thought he's a fucking moron but this just proves it.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> This guy gets used in here sometimes as the right wrong smart guy, always thought he's a fucking moron but this just proves it.


That's actually hilarious. Socialism is bad because it disagrees with a bunch of rules written by barely educated people who believed in invisible magic overlords centuries ago... :lmao


----------



## Draykorinee

Tater said:


> BAM! I don't always agree on Kyle on every matter but he just gave that troglodyte a smackdown of epic proportions.
> 
> .


That Cori Bush interview was tragic.


----------



## DOPA

Well the approach that Shapiro took concerning Socialism in regards to the ten commandments is indeed bullshit but aside from the worshiping god part (where he's half wrong admittedly, he is right about the state) he's pretty much spot on :draper2.

It's just the bullshit religious approach to the subject I can't get behind at all.


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> You think it's unsustainable? Sorry but you're so dead wrong on that, we're doing fantastic business with no real threat to any of it and I'm sure many other large corporations are exactly the same.
> 
> I'm not going over the government election thing again, I've already explained to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over the differences between the 2 situations, you just refuse to recognise them. Honestly, if I wanted to have the same conversation over and over I'd just replay video games I've already beaten. This is just boring now.





RavishingRickRules said:


> No it's really not. It's simply you not admitting that to give a business leader remotely the same amount of coverage as a politician would cost literally thousands in order to get the people even remotely as familiar with said leaders as they are with politicians. Or are you going to claim that the press will start reporting on CEO's and their manifestos? You already admitted that it's not feasible to run campaigns in the same way. And yet you keep trying to make the same disproved point that it's hypocritical to support government elections and not business ones, even though time and time again I've shown you they're not remotely the same thing. Now who's being intellectually dishonest? Oh right, that's you. You might find it entertaining ignoring points and repeated disproved ones, I actually have better things to spend my time on. Get a clue already.


You've yet to explain why it's okay in your book to run the government democratically but it's perfectly acceptable to run a business as a totalitarian entity. Your claims of it would disrupt the function of a business is complete and utter horseshit. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Either you believe in democracy or not. The proclamation that democracy is good for one but not the other is the height of hypocrisy.


----------



## Tater

DesolationRow said:


> Completely fascinating video. Learned a good deal from this. Thank you for sharing, @Tater;!


It's explained very clearly. The transfer rate of the files is too fast to do over the internet and Binney explained in detail how they tested it. It's is an empirical fact that whoever stole those emails did it with direct access to the servers. The fact is, we still don't know who leaked those emails. It coulda been Seth Rich but we have no proof one way or the other. Yet, the MSM is using the tried and true tactic of telling a big enough lie repeatedly and it have large masses of people believing it.


----------



## DesolationRow

Tater said:


> It's explained very clearly. The transfer rate of the files is too fast to do over the internet and Binney explained in detail how they tested it. It's is an empirical fact that whoever stole those emails did it with direct access to the servers. The fact is, we still don't know who leaked those emails. It coulda been Seth Rich but we have no proof one way or the other. Yet, the MSM is using the tried and true tactic of telling a big enough lie repeatedly and it have large masses of people believing it.


Have to give them their due, perhaps. Democrats and their media collaborators such as CNN turning what should have been a painful scandal that engulfed their respective organizations into some sort of weapon against the sitting president is one of the boldest pieces of political gamesmanship one could possibly conjure. Their handling of the leaked emails was akin to the husband who becomes outraged at his wife because she was told that he is having an affair and saying she learned about it from a disreputable person with whom she should never have had any dealings, all while wishing away the point that he was having the affair.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Tater said:


> You've yet to explain why it's okay in your book to run the government democratically but it's perfectly acceptable to run a business as a totalitarian entity. Your claims of it would disrupt the function of a business is complete and utter horseshit. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Either you believe in democracy or not. The proclamation that democracy is good for one but not the other is the height of hypocrisy.


I've explained it over and over and over and over again, you just choose to ignore the explanation as many times as I've given it. Like I've already told you twice, it's just boring at that point. If you want to have a conversation with yourself without listening to the other person that's cool, just stop quoting me because it's actually just a waste of my time at this point.


----------



## Tater

DesolationRow said:


> Have to give them their due, perhaps. Democrats and their media collaborators such as CNN turning what should have been a painful scandal that engulfed their respective organizations into some sort of weapon against the sitting president is one of the boldest pieces of political gamesmanship one could possibly conjure. Their handling of the leaked emails was akin to the husband who becomes outraged at his wife because she was told that he is having an affair and saying she learned about it from a disreputable person with whom she should never have had any dealings, all while wishing away the point that he was having the affair.


Jimmy describes it as adult children of alcoholics. They get mad at the person pointing out that their parent is an alcoholic instead of being mad at or trying to get help for the alcoholic parent.



RavishingRickRules said:


> I've explained it over and over and over and over again, you just choose to ignore the explanation as many times as I've given it. Like I've already told you twice, it's just boring at that point. If you want to have a conversation with yourself without listening to the other person that's cool, just stop quoting me because it's actually just a waste of my time at this point.


I apologize if I have come across antagonistic. It's a bad habit of mine.

Look, Rick, I'm not trying to have a redundant argument with you. Every single problem you pointed out with how democracy would cause problems in a large corporation, I have acknowledged. Just because something might be difficult doesn't make it the wrong thing to do. We could have a country that is a complete dictatorship and one person makes all the decisions, so no one else would have to worry about electing their leaders. All of those decisions would be made for them. Sure, that system might suck for most people but you have to admit that it would be a simpler way of doing things.

All I'm trying to do here is to get you to think outside of the box. I have stated that I am open to suggestion as to how to implement such a democratic system in business. It's you who completely shut down the conversation by saying it's impossible and pointless to talk about.

Try this, just for the sake of conversation, if you were in charge of setting up a democratically run corporation, how would you go about doing it? Rather than saying it can't be done, try playing devil's advocate and arguing the other side. I'm very much interested in what solutions you might suggest.


----------



## Reaper

DOPA said:


> Well the approach that Shapiro took concerning Socialism in regards to the ten commandments is indeed bullshit but aside from the worshiping god part (where he's half wrong admittedly, he is right about the state) he's pretty much spot on :draper2.
> 
> It's just the bullshit religious approach to the subject I can't get behind at all.


If you have to tailor your message to include such ridiculous things just so that you can enthrall/maintain your audience, then you're an entertainer/a _performer_ and not an intellectual. Peterson also belongs in this group.

There was a reason why when I originally went down this path, I used to call it infotainment because at that point it was. Then the information dried up and it just turned into populist propaganda.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reap said:


> If you have to tailor your message to include such ridiculous things just so that you can enthrall/maintain your audience, then you're an entertainer/a _performer_ and not an intellectual. Peterson also belongs in this group.
> 
> There was a reason why when I originally went down this path, I used to call it infotainment because at that point it was. Then the information dried up and it just turned into populist propaganda.


Ehh isn't that all Political messages and Ideological justification?

Hypocrisy is the name of the game now.

Look at Sarah Jeong and her racist over the top tweets, you have people defending it saying her words aren't racist or bigoted which is insanity. We live in a society of infotainment and selective outrage and the redefinition of words when it comes to select people.

It would be more funny if it wasn't sad.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Look at *Sarah Jeong* and her racist over the top tweets, you have people defending it saying her words aren't racist or bigoted which is insanity. We live in a society of infotainment and selective outrage and the redefinition of words when it comes to select people.


For her, I'm 100% it was just attention whoring for likes. I doubt she even understands the shit she said let alone be an actual advocate for it. 

I'm definitely not defending her, because ignorance is not an excuse for racism. But again, it goes back to the same point .. Are these people fucking serious, or are they just attention whores that have found a niche outside of actual acting?

I mean, just look at this picture: 










Nothing about this screams anything but attention whore to me.


----------



## DesolationRow

Sarah Jeong probably believes what she says.

In a 2014 blog post which has been interestingly deleted sometime since then, Jeong lets it slip that even then she still believed in the wild and paranoid conspiracy theory that Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and stripper Crystal Mangum were telling the truth about the Duke lacrosse team gang-raping Mangum in 2006.

However, it could be a case of supply and demand. _Guardian_ writer Julia Carrie Wong, who is a young Asian lady, has been explaining online how spewing hatred toward whites and especially white men as she and Sarah Jeong do was critical to finding their higher callings vis-a-vis media acceptance and encouragement.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1025190202438955015

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1025192161426333698

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1025194895416283136
Apparently there is demand for this, and these ladies are happily providing the supply. :lol


----------



## Rozalia

Love your tweets attacking white people dear, want to write for us?

Anyway, people aren't really mad they need not worry. It's a work, we all know. Sarah herself is now known to actually love the white meat. What she says in the sheets is what she really thinks.


----------



## Reaper

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1025190202438955015
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1025192161426333698
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1025194895416283136
> Apparently there is demand for this, and these ladies are happily providing the supply. :lol


One of those tweets pretty much confirms my attention whore theory :hmmm

I've had a few offers through FB/Twitter as well to write about leaving Islam, but I've had to turn them down because they won't allow me to keep my ID secret. I don't want to out myself. 

But yeah, if NYT comes calling, I'll write for them for sure.


----------



## DesolationRow

:lol Well let's hope the _Times_ gets a hold of you!


----------



## Reaper

Hey .. I'm just saying there's a market out there for saying extreme things. :draper2

On another note, Alex Jones got deplatformed from iTunes, YouTube and Facebook :mj4

No big loss to humanity imo.


----------



## Draykorinee

The left are censoring Alex Jones, he's clearly getting too close to the truth.


----------



## TripleG

Again, my biggest issue with politics today is the outrage over "Who did it" rather than "What was done". 

Everyone feels they have to take a side, defend certain people when they do something wrong, and bash others super hard if they have the opposing view point. The situations with Roseanne and James Gunn are the most obvious out there right now, but it happens all the time. 

If a person on my side did something truly awful, I would want that person thrown under the bus because associating with that person makes my side look bad.


----------



## Rozalia

Indeed. As a Radical Centrist, a member of the far-centre, I'm thankfully not bound by such silly things. Be like Roz.


----------



## Tag89

Reap said:


> Hey .. I'm just saying there's a market out there for saying extreme things. :draper2
> 
> On another note,* Alex Jones got deplatformed from iTunes, YouTube and Facebook* :mj4
> 
> No big loss to humanity imo.





draykorinee said:


> *The left are censoring Alex Jones, he's clearly getting too close to the truth*.


@deepelemblues please confirm


----------



## DesolationRow

Been in Stanislaus County many times. This is an appalling act. Hope the perpetrators are found out.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018...go-back-to-your-country-in-stanislaus-county/



> Sikh Man Attacked, Told To ‘Go Back To Your Country’ In Stanislaus County
> 
> KEYES (CBS13) – A well-known member of the Stanislaus County community was brutally beaten while placing campaign signs, and police are investigating it as a hate crime.
> 
> It was Tuesday night in Keyes and 50-year-old Surjit Malhi had just placed his last sign at the corner of Foote and Keyes when he came upon two men waiting for him as returned to his truck.
> 
> “As soon as I saw them they threw sand in my eyes,” Malhi said.
> 
> And that was just the beginning of the attack. The two men proceeded to beat Malhi in the head, shoulders and neck.
> 
> “And I cleared my eyes and I saw them,” Malhi said.
> 
> Blue eyes peeking through black hoodies is what he saw. And as the beating continued his attackers shouted, “Go back to your country!”
> 
> The same message, along with hate symbols, were spray painted on his truck. Malhi, the entire time, fearing for his life.
> 
> “It’s very scary you know. They were going to shoot me,” Malhi said thought.
> 
> Ironically, Malhi says, it was his turban that softened the blows – the very symbol that may have sparked the hate.
> 
> “My turban saved me,” Malhi said.
> 
> Malhi has been active in the Turlock community for years, raising thousands for homeless and fire victims, using trucks from his trucking company to deliver supplies. He’s a strong supporter of the Republican Party. The campaign signs he placed that night were for Congressman Jeff Denham and other members of the Stanislaus County GOP.
> 
> “I’m American 100 percent, no doubt, so they say, go back to my country? This is my country,” Malhi said. “If you are a real American and you love America, you should not do that. That is not the American way.”
> 
> Malhi still has headaches and dizzy spells, but says he’s received an outpouring of support from political leaders and members of the community during his recovery.
> 
> He says he won’t let the beating get him down and he will continue to place campaign signs and support the GOP. Police are still looking for the two suspects.


----------



## DOPA

These videos on the Alex Jones situation are spot on.


----------



## yeahbaby!

RavishingRickRules said:


> Depends on the industry I guess. That's not really the case when you're the #1 energy supplier in the country. We often work overtime just to be able to get everything done, and I know, I'm in a lot of those meetings.


Jesus dude you really don't miss an opportunity do you. I think we all know you're big company guy who works very hard by now.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Again, my biggest issue with politics today is the outrage over "Who did it" rather than "What was done".
> 
> Everyone feels they have to take a side, defend certain people when they do something wrong, and bash others super hard if they have the opposing view point. The situations with Roseanne and James Gunn are the most obvious out there right now, but it happens all the time.


The biggest problem is the hypocrisy. Both sides are guilty, but more so on the left.

Sarah Jeong's situation proves just that. If she had made those Tweets about minorities or people of Jewish faith, The New York Times would've canned her already.

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

Reap said:


> For her, I'm 100% it was just attention whoring for likes. I doubt she even understands the shit she said let alone be an actual advocate for it.
> 
> I'm definitely not defending her, because ignorance is not an excuse for racism. But again, it goes back to the same point .. Are these people fucking serious, or are they just attention whores that have found a niche outside of actual acting?
> 
> I mean, just look at this picture:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing about this screams anything but attention whore to me.


Maybe, don't know her just pointing out how we supposedly live in a post racist society or racism isn't tolerated but it seems some racists and racism is. It just depends on who you are. Thus the massive hypocrisy I was mentioning. 

Maybe she's just a hipster racist, not sure!

As for Alex Jones he is crazy sure but he's no more crazy than a lot of Feminist theory or racial identitarian crap I've see on YouTube etc. Makes me wonder who's next?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://archpaper.com/2018/08/epa-asbestos-manufacturing/



> *EPA is now allowing asbestos back into manufacturing*
> 
> One of the most dangerous construction-related carcinogens is now legally allowed back into U.S. manufacturing under a new rule by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). On June 1, the EPA authorized a “SNUR” (Significant New Use Rule) which allows new products containing asbestos to be created on a case-by-case basis.
> 
> According to environmental advocates, this new rule gives chemical companies the upper hand in creating new uses for such harmful products in the United States. In May, the EPA released a report detailing its new framework for evaluating the risk of its top prioritized substances. The report states that the agency will no longer consider the effect or presence of substances in the air, ground, or water in its risk assessments.
> 
> This news comes after the EPA reviewed its first batch of 10 chemicals under the 2016 amendment to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which required the agency to continually reevaluate hundreds of potentially toxic chemicals to see whether they should face new restrictions or be removed from the market. The SNUR greenlights companies to use toxic chemicals like asbestos without thinking about how it will endanger people who are indirectly in contact with it.
> 
> Asbestos, once seen as a magical mineral, was widely used in building insulation up until it was banned in most countries in the 1970s. The U.S. is one of the only developed nations in the world that has placed significant restrictions on the substance without banning it completely. New data revealed that asbestos-related deaths now total nearly 40,000 annually, with lung cancer and mesothelioma being the most common illnesses in association with the toxin. That number could rise if new asbestos-containing products make their way into brand new buildings.
> A close-up photo of roofing with asbestos
> 
> Asbestos poses a major health risk for everyone who comes into contact with it, both directly and indirectly. (Courtesy OSHA Safety Manual)
> 
> Healthy Building Network (HBN), an environmental advocacy group, recently told Fast Company that the fibrous material poses a major health risk for everyone exposed to it, including those who mine it, those who handle it in industrial facilities, as well as people near or inside renovation and construction projects where it’s being used. HBN’s Board President Bill Walsh said that the chlor-alkali industry is the only industry in the country that still uses asbestos, reportedly importing about 480 tons of the carcinogen each year from Russia and Brazil.
> 
> Walsh also pointed out that chlorine-based plastics are commonly found in building-product materials and that “virtually all” asbestos in the U.S. is used in the industrial process to make chlorine. This includes PVC and vinyl plastics, which is largely found in the creation of pipes, tiles, flooring, adhesives, paints, and roofing products.
> 
> Though the EPA is easing its regulations against using harmful toxins like asbestos, it will largely be the responsibility of local and state governments, as well as companies and informed consumers to counter these federal moves. Walsh says it’s up to sustainable building-product manufacturers and ultimately, architects to pressure the market.
> 
> “Architects really set the pace of design, in terms of aesthetics and materials that we like,” he said. “If they start to incorporate health-based criteria into their palette, it could really have an influence on what the manufacturers produce.”














> “I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented,”
> 
> -Donald Trump, The Art of the Comeback (1997)





> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/258655569458651136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
> 
> [email protected] If we didn't remove incredibly powerful fire retardant asbestos & replace it with junk that doesn't work, the World Trade Center would never have burned down.


Oh, that's why.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

yeahbaby! said:


> Jesus dude you really don't miss an opportunity do you. I think we all know you're big company guy who works very hard by now.


Nah it was more about letting you know that not all corporations are just rich people doing nothing whilst the poor people slave away tbh. It gets tiring seeing that non-stop when it's not remotely the case. Yes, it happens a lot, but there are also incredibly hard working people working for corporations high up on the ladder :wink2:

Ah good example: My direct superior is on a pretty hefty wage. He served in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan having worked his way from Private through to Captain. I mean this guy is a bonafide war hero, FASCINATING to sit and talk to about his past and generally a really awesome guy. Recently I had to take an extended sick break from work to have shoulder surgery and rather than just hiring a temporary worker or assigning my role to another manager at my level he's been literally doing my job on top of his own job (he oversees maybe 10-15 departments including my own) and giving me weekly updates on my own department, even including the gossip in the department. :lol

I guess I'm just sick of everybody always acting like large companies are some big evil when they're not. Even the entry level positions within our company are paid well above the industry standards, we have tons of employee benefits, hell we even have concierge services on-site that all employees can use to get their day to day errands done for them whilst they're at work. It's not all exploitation of the "poor."


----------



## Draykorinee

2 Ton 21 said:


> https://archpaper.com/2018/08/epa-asbestos-manufacturing/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's why.


Basically human lives are less important than buildings to Trump.

I've seen enough patients die from Mesothelioma to know that shit should never be allowed back in to use. A horrible horrible way to die.


----------



## yeahbaby!

RavishingRickRules said:


> Nah it was more about letting you know that not all corporations are just rich people doing nothing whilst the poor people slave away tbh. It gets tiring seeing that non-stop when it's not remotely the case. Yes, it happens a lot, but there are also incredibly hard working people working for corporations high up on the ladder :wink2:
> 
> Ah good example: My direct superior is on a pretty hefty wage. He served in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan having worked his way from Private through to Captain. I mean this guy is a bonafide war hero, FASCINATING to sit and talk to about his past and generally a really awesome guy. Recently I had to take an extended sick break from work to have shoulder surgery and rather than just hiring a temporary worker or assigning my role to another manager at my level he's been literally doing my job on top of his own job (he oversees maybe 10-15 departments including my own) and giving me weekly updates on my own department, even including the gossip in the department. :lol
> 
> I guess I'm just sick of everybody always acting like large companies are some big evil when they're not. Even the entry level positions within our company are paid well above the industry standards, we have tons of employee benefits, hell we even have concierge services on-site that all employees can use to get their day to day errands done for them whilst they're at work. It's not all exploitation of the "poor."


Wasn't really saying half of that you mentioned, more so my point was an insane overuse of meetings in some corp culture that in my experience can be a complete waste of time.


----------



## Reaper

The Daily Wire has sunk so low that even one of the bigger social conservatives in America has had enough. 










This is one of the more stupid news items I've come across today:


----------



## Headliner

Reap said:


> The Daily Wire has sunk so low that even one of the bigger social conservatives in America has had enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the more stupid news items I've come across today:


It's all because he doesn't like Trump. So conservative outlets do mental gymnastics and spin narratives to criticize Lebron and help Trump attack him.

They're all puppet idiots.


----------



## Reaper

I'm starting to get really disenfranchised by the sheer amount of hit piece culture we're living in now. 

I remember growing up in the 90's knowing exactly what a "tabloid" was ... But today almost all outlets (big or small) toe the line and have huge sections dedicated purely to character assassination hit pieces that would have been dismissed as ridiculous 25 years ago. The standard of what we consider journalism has sunk extremely low.


----------



## Miss Sally

Reap said:


> I'm starting to get really disenfranchised by the sheer amount of hit piece culture we're living in now.
> 
> I remember growing up in the 90's knowing exactly what a "tabloid" was ... But today almost all outlets (big or small) toe the line and have huge sections dedicated purely to character assassination hit pieces that would have been dismissed as ridiculous 25 years ago. The standard of what we consider journalism has sunk extremely low.


Journalism is dead, like I said with Sarah Jeong, she's a journalist, now who would consider anything she could write fair and unbiased?

Journalism is all about hit pieces , feelings and preaching. It's not about facts anymore.

Also for LeBron, the guy is overrated and kind of a garbage person but building a school is a good thing. That's more than what most people do. We need more people like that.


----------



## Rozalia

What is the point here? They all do it, all the little tactics. One just has a lot more content. 

A few days ago I saw an article for example on a guy. Image had him next to Trump. No mention of Trump in the text, Trump had no relation to the story, but hey check this guy out, bad guy, look Trump is next to him so Trump bad guy.


----------



## Reaper

They all do it is no justification for it to keep happening. 

Things won't change until people stop giving them clicks. 

This is why I personally never click on articles and screenshot from other sources instead. It's actually a bit of small movement in and of itself :lol


----------



## Rozalia

??? What sources do you use?


----------



## Rozalia

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/07/politics/trump-walk-of-fame-star/index.html

We won't do such a (symbolic) vote to have pedos and such removed. Now Trump, we will him.

Virtue signalling idiots. I like the bit about in the article that notes what we've seen. That fools when they go by it go crazy and start stomping on the floor, swearing, spitting, and so on like crazy people. Trump's star literally has an area of effect that drives any lefties, or perhaps as Trump would say, low IQ people, crazy. 

What a powerful artefact. The name of Trump has such great power.


----------



## Draykorinee

This is why I used trusted news sites like the BBC.

:frankielol


----------



## samizayn

2 Ton 21 said:


> https://archpaper.com/2018/08/epa-asbestos-manufacturing/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's why.


:lol

Under this administration, the EPA name is used in jest.


----------



## Rozalia

draykorinee said:


> This is why I used trusted news sites like the BBC.
> 
> :frankielol


??? Who is this directed to and what is it's point?


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> :lol
> 
> Under this administration, the EPA name is used in jest.


"case-by-case basis" 

In other words: The politician and lobbyist who have the most to gain from this. 

If only people knew how politicians speak.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Miss Sally said:


> Also for LeBron, the guy is overrated and kind of a garbage person but building a school is a good thing. That's more than what most people do. We need more people like that.


How is he a garbage person though exactly? Lebron married his high school sweetheart, has never been involved in any scandal beyond having a TV show to announce he was leaving a team (which raised ridiculous amounts of money for charity) is a big time family man, huge philanthropist and gets criticised for almost every move he makes on the court despite being easily the best player of his entire generation. He gets the crap hacked out of him night after night and almost never responds. Been famous since he was around 16 years old and never had any of the spazzes associated with child stars. As far as I can see it Lebron's a pretty awesome person tbh.


----------



## Draykorinee

RavishingRickRules said:


> How is he a garbage person though exactly? Lebron married his high school sweetheart, has never been involved in any scandal beyond having a TV show to announce he was leaving a team (which raised ridiculous amounts of money for charity) is a big time family man, huge philanthropist and gets criticised for almost every move he makes on the court despite being easily the best player of his entire generation. He gets the crap hacked out of him night after night and almost never responds. Been famous since he was around 16 years old and never had any of the spazzes associated with child stars. As far as I can see it Lebron's a pretty awesome person tbh.


I did wonder myself but I don't class myself as a big NBA fan so I figured he'd done some shit I hadn't heard about.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

draykorinee said:


> I did wonder myself but I don't class myself as a big NBA fan shop I figured he'd done some shit I hadn't heard about.


I've been a huge NBA fan since the early 90's, and as far as I can tell he's definitely one of the good ones. Pretty much the highest paid athlete in the world if you include his endorsements and (much like David Beckham in fact) he puts a lot of it into doing real good in the world. The amount of charities he's involved with is crazy.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/08/ajit-pai-admits-fcc-lied-about-ddos-blames-it-on-obama-administration/



> *Ajit Pai admits FCC lied about “DDoS,” blames it on Obama administration*
> 
> Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai acknowledged Monday that the FCC lied about its public comment system being taken down by a DDoS attack during the net neutrality repeal proceeding.
> 
> Pai blamed the spreading of false information on employees hired by the Obama administration and said that he isn't to blame because he "inherited... a culture" from "the prior Administration" that led to the spreading of false information. Pai wrote:
> 
> I am deeply disappointed that the FCC's former Chief Information Officer [David Bray], who was hired by the prior Administration and is no longer with the Commission, provided inaccurate information about this incident to me, my office, Congress, and the American people. This is completely unacceptable. I'm also disappointed that some working under the former CIO apparently either disagreed with the information that he was presenting or had questions about it, yet didn't feel comfortable communicating their concerns to me or my office."
> 
> Pai's admission came in a statement yesterday. "It has become clear that in addition to a flawed comment system, we inherited from the prior Administration a culture in which many members of the Commission's career IT staff were hesitant to express disagreement with the Commission's former CIO in front of FCC management," he also said.
> *
> Outage affected net neutrality supporters*
> 
> Pai's FCC had been insisting for more than a year that distributed denial-of-service attacks took down the FCC comment system on May 8, 2017, just as many net neutrality supporters were trying to submit comments opposing Pai's plan to eliminate the rules.
> 
> Pai's statement yesterday came after the FCC Inspector General's office investigated the incident. Pai thanked the Inspector General's office "for the comprehensive report it has issued," but the FCC hasn't made the report available publicly. We asked Pai's office for a copy of the report yesterday and haven't received it yet. (UPDATE: The report was released Tuesday afternoon.)
> 
> "The Inspector General Report tells us what we knew all along: the FCC's claim that it was the victim of a DDoS attack during the net neutrality proceeding is bogus," said FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, the commission's only Democrat. "What happened instead is obvious—millions of Americans overwhelmed our online system because they wanted to tell us how important Internet openness is to them and how distressed they were to see the FCC roll back their rights. It's unfortunate that this agency's energy and resources needed to be spent debunking this implausible claim."
> 
> The FCC claimed it was hit by the DDoS attack just after comedian John Oliver asked his viewers to submit comments opposing Pai's net neutrality repeal.
> 
> *Pai: It wasn’t my fault*
> 
> According to Pai, the Inspector General's report "debunks the conspiracy theory" that Pai himself was to blame for the FCC spreading false information. Pai said:
> 
> I'm pleased that this report debunks the conspiracy theory that my office or I had any knowledge that the information provided by the former CIO was inaccurate and was allowing that inaccurate information to be disseminated for political purposes. Indeed, as the report documents, on the morning of May 8, it was the former CIO who informed my office that "some external folks attempted to send high traffic in an attempt to tie-up the server from responding to others, which unfortunately makes it appear unavailable to everyone attempting to get through the queue." In response, the Commission's Chief of Staff [Matthew Berry], who works in my office, asked if the then-CIO was confident that the incident wasn't caused by a number of individuals "attempting to comment at the same time... but rather some external folks deliberately trying to tie-up the server." In response to this direct inquiry, the former CIO told my office: "Yes, we're 99.9 percent confident this was external folks deliberately trying to tie-up the server to prevent others from commenting and/or create a spectacle."
> 
> Going forward, "we will make it clear that those working on information technology at the Commission are encouraged to speak up if they believe that inaccurate information is being provided to the Commission’s leadership," Pai said.
> 
> Pai also said the FCC's comment system needs to be updated and that "We're looking forward to getting that important project started."
> 
> Bray, the former CIO, left the FCC last year and is now executive director of People-Centered Internet. People-Centered Internet provided a statement on behalf of Bray yesterday, saying that he "has not been contacted by the FCC IG and has not seen their reported findings. There has not been any outreach to ask what he had seen, observed, or concluded during the events more than a year ago in May 2017."
> 
> "Swift response ensured the commenting system was up more than 99.4 percent of the time for the total commenting period," the statement also said. The comment period lasted until August 30, nearly four months after the "DDoS" incident.
> 
> Bray's version of events recently unraveled. He told reporters in 2017 that the FCC comments system was attacked both in 2014 and 2017 but that the 2014 DDoS wasn't revealed publicly at the time because "the Chairman" wanted to keep it quiet. Former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler denied this, and former FCC official Gigi Sohn called Bray's statement about the 2014 incident "flat-out false."
> 
> Pai has touted his efforts to increase "transparency" at the FCC, but his FCC was criticized by US Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) last year for refusing to provide evidence to support the claim that it was hit by DDoS attacks. Pai's office issued a statement at the time saying that it was "categorically false" to suggest that "the FCC lacks written documentation of its analysis," even as the FCC refused to make that documentation public.
> 
> The FCC ultimately received nearly 24 million comments on Pai's plan, though millions were fraudulent. The New York State Attorney General's office has been investigating the fraud and accused Pai of refusing to provide "crucial evidence" needed for the investigation.
> 
> The May 2017 incident is also being investigated by US Government Accountability Office.
> 
> *Pai dismissed pro-net neutrality comments
> *
> Pai said last year that the number of pro-net neutrality comments was "not as important as the substantive comments that are in the record," and he more recently said that net neutrality supporters are "Chicken Littles."
> 
> Pai's FCC finalized its decision in December 2017, voting to deregulate the broadband industry and eliminate net neutrality rules that prohibited Internet service providers from blocking and throttling Internet traffic. The repeal took effect in June 2018.
> 
> Pai promises that the repeal will create "better, cheaper, and faster Internet access," and he claimed that the rules harmed broadband investment. Yet ISPs told investors that the rules didn't harm their network investments.
> 
> To bolster his argument, Pai has claimed that broadband deployment projects that were started during the Obama administration were somehow caused by his net neutrality repeal.


----------



## skypod

Ajit Pai is like a villain in some cheesy B movie. Like I can't believe deluded evil stupid people like that actually exist. He just seems like a worthless piece of shit.


----------



## Miss Sally

RavishingRickRules said:


> How is he a garbage person though exactly? Lebron married his high school sweetheart, has never been involved in any scandal beyond having a TV show to announce he was leaving a team (which raised ridiculous amounts of money for charity) is a big time family man, huge philanthropist and gets criticised for almost every move he makes on the court despite being easily the best player of his entire generation. He gets the crap hacked out of him night after night and almost never responds. Been famous since he was around 16 years old and never had any of the spazzes associated with child stars. As far as I can see it Lebron's a pretty awesome person tbh.


Well I'm more or less talking about his actions as a sports persona, I should have said spoiled player or something, I don't know his politics or anything. I am pretty sure he's not keen on gay players in the locker room. I was mostly referring to his whiny prima donna actions as a player. Nobody should be looking up to him in that regard. Next time I'll be more specific :grin2:


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Miss Sally said:


> Well I'm more or less talking about his actions as a sports persona, I should have said spoiled player or something, I don't know his politics or anything. I am pretty sure he's not keen on gay players in the locker room. I was mostly referring to his whiny prima donna actions as a player. Nobody should be looking up to him in that regard. Next time I'll be more specific :grin2:


I've never heard a single thing about Lebron saying he's not fond of gay players. Got a source for that or is one of those "I heard a rumour" things that hold up to zero scrutiny?


----------



## CamillePunk

Was AFK for a few days so missed this but apparently Scott Adams got invited to the Oval Office to meet the President! :mark:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1025149648929996800
He talks about the experience here:






Skip ahead to about 6:30 to get right to it. It's a really interesting telling as he describes it as akin to being on mushrooms. :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Was AFK for a few days so missed this but apparently Scott Adams got invited to the Oval Office to meet the President! :mark:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1025149648929996800
> He talks about the experience here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skip ahead to about 6:30 to get right to it. It's a really interesting telling as he describes it as* akin to being on mushrooms.* :lol


Lol - put some druggy up against T-rump in 2020 then?


----------



## grassfinn

idk why I'm bothering posting this since I lurk this thread every now and then to cringe, but the Democrats going after the Green Party voters again is so tiresome.

I'm a registered Democrat. I didn't vote for Hillary because I can't stand the Clintons, why compromise what you believe in just to stick it to the other side


----------



## Stephen90

grassfinn said:


> idk why I'm bothering posting this since I lurk this thread every now and then to cringe, but the Democrats going after the Green Party voters again is so tiresome.
> 
> I'm a registered Democrat. I didn't vote for Hillary because I can't stand the Clintons, why compromise what you believe in just to stick it to the other side


I really don't get that either. Legitimately hilarious that they decided to blame 3 party voters again. Still not as sad when Hillary lost to the reality star host and then wrote a book that blamed everyone and everything but herself.


----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow @DOPA






Fascinating discussion between classical liberals Sargon of Akkad and Paul Joseph Watson about UKIP, the alt-right, the "culture war", and the mainstream media.  An interesting opportunity for people who only know about these guys through the lens of left-wing outlets to see what they're like when they're just sitting around at a restaurant smoking and drinking without planning out what they're going to say.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Lol, UKIP barely even exist any more. They're for all intents and purposes a dead party in UK politics in 2018.


----------



## DOPA

@CamillePunk I watched this interview a few days ago, very interesting and insightful.

UKIP have actually seen an upsurge recently both in terms of polling and in terms of membership. This is down primarily to two reasons: 1) Theresa May's awful white paper which is essentially Brexit in name only has turned those who are hardline Brexiteers away from the Tories and towards UKIP. UKIP nationally in just 1 week went up a full 5 percent from 3 to 8% in terms of overall support. The biggest losers being the Conservative Party who are now actually behind Labour in terms of national polling. Many Conservative Leavers are unhappy with how Theresa May has handled the Brexit negotiations. I'd consider myself among those people.

2) As you have seen in the video, prominent social media figures such as Count Dankula, Sargon of Akkad, Paul Joesph Watson and Milo Yiannopolous have joined the party and have caused an uptick of people following them in joining UKIP. There has been thousands of new members and applications in the last few weeks alone due to both the social media figures that have joined and due to how badly (and on purpose in my opinion) the Conservative government are messing up Brexit. The uptick in membership was so big in that short period that even mainstream media like the Guardian and the Independent (who don't at all like UKIP) had to acknowledge what has been going on.

For a long time UKIP has been seen as a 1 man party (Farage) and at most a 2 issue party and even then the issue of immigration was always linked heavily to the main issue of the party: The European Union. This is starting to change under the leadership of Gerard Batten who has championed causes such as universal free speech (away from the authoritarian and Orwellian hate speech laws, they are the only party who opposes this) and the issue of grooming gangs and Islamic extremism.

Nobody is seriously suggesting they will any time soon if not ever be able to have the same prominence of Labour or the Tories but if the Conservatives don't get their act together and fix the mess they've made with Brexit (and they won't), there is a good chance UKIP comes back right to forefront again. This really only coming about the last few months. UKIP were all but dead until Batten was elected leader earlier this year.


----------



## Draykorinee

UKIP were a one trick pony and failed to gain much traction even running on a platform that 52% of voters supported. 

Running on a platform of universal free speech is moronic because it doesn't exist but I can see the useful idiots that follow the human alien hybrid PJW would fall for that alt right gimmick. 

UKIP have never been at the forefront, never will be at the forefront, however they will go back to being a potential 4th party when Brexit fails, which suits me just fine because it only ever takes voters away from Tories.


----------



## DOPA

draykorinee said:


> I can see the useful idiots that follow the human alien hybrid *PJW would fall for that alt right gimmick. *.


He's not alt right:

* Doesn't support a white ethnostate, never has done.

* The Alt Right doesn't believe in free speech. Which makes sense because if you believe Jews for example are an inferior group then they aren't going to want those people to have the same rights as them












It's amazing how the media has thrown around the term alt right so much that it has fooled people into believing that certain individuals are associated with the movement. To the point people are arguing Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz are part of the alt right. It's incredibly comical :lol.


----------



## Draykorinee

DOPA said:


> He's not alt right:
> 
> * Doesn't support a white ethnostate, never has done.
> 
> * The Alt Right doesn't believe in free speech. Which makes sense because if you believe Jews for example are an inferior group then they aren't going to want those people to have the same rights as them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how the media has thrown around the term alt right so much that it has fooled people into believing that certain individuals are associated with the movement. To the point people are arguing Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz are part of the alt right. It's incredibly comical :lol.


You're right, I misused that term. Far right might be more appropriate or just right. My mistake.


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak

DOPA said:


> He's not alt right:
> 
> * Doesn't support a white ethnostate, never has done.
> 
> * The Alt Right doesn't believe in free speech. Which makes sense because if you believe Jews for example are an inferior group then they aren't going to want those people to have the same rights as them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It's amazing how the media has thrown around the term alt right so much that it has fooled people into believing that certain individuals are associated with the movement. To the point people are arguing Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz are part of the alt right. It's incredibly comical :lol.*


The Jordan Peterson one is funny... Specially since the Alt right actually really hates him.






The media branding anyone who's right leaning or even those who have criticisms of the left as alt right has really done them no favours imo. Hell back when I got on the Anti-sjw bandwagon in 2016 I didn't understand the term and I thought it meant alternative conservatives like libertarians or something because of how many were mislabelled so.


----------



## Reaper

grassfinn said:


> idk why I'm bothering posting this since I lurk this thread every now and then to cringe, but the Democrats going after the Green Party voters again is so tiresome.
> 
> I'm a registered Democrat. I didn't vote for Hillary because I can't stand the Clintons, *why compromise what you believe in* just to stick it to the other side


^^^ This sounds like _real _ "centrism" to me :mj

PS. Your conclusion was the same as my wife's. She decided to go Gary Johnson in the end because she's still mostly on the left, but completely disengaged from the Democrats on account of the Clintons.


----------



## Miss Sally

RavishingRickRules said:


> I've never heard a single thing about Lebron saying he's not fond of gay players. Got a source for that or is one of those "I heard a rumour" things that hold up to zero scrutiny?


Go look it up yourself, was on ESPN and if I recall he got a little flack for it. It was around the time I don't remember what his name is, came out and admitted he was gay. LeBron mentioned something about people being uncomfortable in the lockers or something. Wasn't anything that bad.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Miss Sally said:


> Go look it up yourself, was on ESPN and if I recall he got a little flack for it. It was around the time I don't remember what his name is, came out and admitted he was gay. LeBron mentioned something about people being uncomfortable in the lockers or something. Wasn't anything that bad.


I tried yesterday and could find absolutely no info about it.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

DOPA said:


> @CamillePunk I watched this interview a few days ago, very interesting and insightful.
> 
> UKIP have actually seen an upsurge recently both in terms of polling and in terms of membership. This is down primarily to two reasons: 1) Theresa May's awful white paper which is essentially Brexit in name only has turned those who are hardline Brexiteers away from the Tories and towards UKIP. UKIP nationally in just 1 week went up a full 5 percent from 3 to 8% in terms of overall support. The biggest losers being the Conservative Party who are now actually behind Labour in terms of national polling. Many Conservative Leavers are unhappy with how Theresa May has handled the Brexit negotiations. I'd consider myself among those people.
> 
> 2) As you have seen in the video, prominent social media figures such as Count Dankula, Sargon of Akkad, Paul Joesph Watson and Milo Yiannopolous have joined the party and have caused an uptick of people following them in joining UKIP. There has been thousands of new members and applications in the last few weeks alone due to both the social media figures that have joined and due to how badly (and on purpose in my opinion) the Conservative government are messing up Brexit. The uptick in membership was so big in that short period that even mainstream media like the Guardian and the Independent (who don't at all like UKIP) had to acknowledge what has been going on.
> 
> For a long time UKIP has been seen as a 1 man party (Farage) and at most a 2 issue party and even then the issue of immigration was always linked heavily to the main issue of the party: The European Union. This is starting to change under the leadership of Gerard Batten who has championed causes such as universal free speech (away from the authoritarian and Orwellian hate speech laws, they are the only party who opposes this) and the issue of grooming gangs and Islamic extremism.
> 
> Nobody is seriously suggesting they will any time soon if not ever be able to have the same prominence of Labour or the Tories but if the Conservatives don't get their act together and fix the mess they've made with Brexit (and they won't), there is a good chance UKIP comes back right to forefront again. This really only coming about the last few months. UKIP were all but dead until Batten was elected leader earlier this year.


What have you been smoking? "Back to the forefront again" when were they EVER at the forefront of anything? They've never had anything resembling a serious parliamentary presence or been considered remotely a contender for power. I actually thought you were intelligent. :lol


----------



## Reaper

That first response tho :mj4 

Seriously, what's her name? 

I guess us minorites should just stop having names because we're nothing but symbols for virtue signalling now. 

"Hi, I am brown atheist Pakistani / Persian bisexual male."


----------



## virus21

Reap said:


> That first response tho :mj4
> 
> Seriously, what's her name?
> 
> I guess us minorites should just stop having names because we're nothing but symbols for virtue signalling now.
> 
> "Hi, I am brown atheist Pakistani / Persian bisexual male."


Sadly yes. Which is why 'Identity Politics' is a crock of shit, because it takes away a person's identity and reduces them to a group or a thing.


----------



## Rozalia

Reap said:


> ^^^ This sounds like _real _ "centrism" to me :mj
> 
> PS. Your conclusion was the same as my wife's. She decided to go Gary Johnson in the end because she's still mostly on the left, but completely disengaged from the Democrats on account of the Clintons.


Radical.


----------



## Reaper

Rozalia said:


> Radical.


Not "Far"? :mj


----------



## Rozalia

Reap said:


> Not "Far"? :mj


Thanks for the promotion for my own term, very predicable. If I say I Radical first then I get two posts out of you rather than one. All very scientific and calculated you see.


----------



## Reaper

Rozalia said:


> Thanks for the promotion for my own term, very predicable. If I say I Radical first then I get two posts out of you rather than one. All very scientific and calculated you see.


That's same real far sighted thinking there.


----------



## DOPA

Stupid_Smark said:


> The Jordan Peterson one is funny... Specially since the Alt right actually really hates him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The media branding anyone who's right leaning or even those who have criticisms of the left as alt right has really done them no favours imo. Hell back when I got on the Anti-sjw bandwagon in 2016 I didn't understand the term and I thought it meant alternative conservatives like libertarians or something because of how many were mislabelled so.


Unfortunately the term Alt Right has become just another buzz word that leftists and MSM journalists have tossed round to smear any person whose views they vehemently disagree with in order to dismiss them outright without having to address any of their views.

There is no one in the public eye whose views are more antithetical to the alt right than Jordan Peterson. I'm not exaggerating either, he has spent literally over 30 years learning about, teaching and warning people about the dangers of Nazism. He takes this particular subject more seriously than most people. The problem is is that he is just as vigorous in his opposition to Marxism and the far left in general and also takes a number of political positions that the politically correct establishment does not like. Thus they see him as their enemy.

I've honestly lost count the number of people who have been linked to the alt right. Some which are wrong but I can see why they would make that mistake but there are others that are downright preposterous. When you call Bill Maher a part of the alt right then you have completely lost it :lmao.



RavishingRickRules said:


> What have you been smoking? "Back to the forefront again" when were they EVER at the forefront of anything? They've never had anything resembling a serious parliamentary presence or been considered remotely a contender for power. I actually thought you were intelligent. :lol


Considering that without UKIP we wouldn't have even had the EU referendum....which led to the biggest political decision the UK has taken and is likely to ever take in our collective lifetimes with Brexit then yes absolutely UKIP were a prominent force within British politics up until that point.

Whether we like it or not, Brexit as a political vote will leave a greater legacy than any general election or any legislation that a Tory or Labour government have passed or could ever dream of passing. It will literally determine the direction of our country for better or worse for the next several decades. This does not happen without the rise of UKIP in both prominence and popularity as the only party that was and still is 100% eurosceptic.

Yes, in terms of MP's in parliament, UKIP has always only ever been a blip on the radar. Perhaps the term forefront was ill thought out on my part as I alluded to UKIP not having political power in Westminister by stating that they were unlikely to ever have the same level of prominence of the likes of the Tories or Labour. But the fact is, Brexit as a milestone is a greater achievement for UKIP than they could ever hope to muster with more than one MP on the National scene in terms of influencing policy. It has dominated the last two years in terms of British politics and will continue to be the quintessential issue for years to come.

In any normal circumstance, you would be right. However we both know the last 2 to 3 years have been anything but normal for the UK :lol. To either downplay or to simply deny the role UKIP played in getting us to this stage would be rather silly to say the least.


----------



## CamillePunk

Any time someone refers to an individualist (such as Sargon, PJW, Molyneux, Alex Jones, etc.) as alt right I know they have no idea what they're talking about and are just lazily echoing the talking points of whatever left-wing media they consume. The alt right are right-wing collectivists. They agree with the progressive left on most of their non-racial policies, they just want it all to happen in a whites-only country. I'd prefer to live in a society that champions the individual above all and race/ethnic background is treated as nothing more than trivia.


----------



## deepelemblues

CamillePunk said:


> Any time someone refers to an individualist (such as Sargon, PJW, Molyneux, Alex Jones, etc.) as alt right I know they have no idea what they're talking about and are just lazily echoing the talking points of whatever left-wing media they consume. The alt right are right-wing collectivists. They agree with the progressive left on most of their non-racial policies, they just want it all to happen in a whites-only country. I'd prefer to live in a society that champions the individual above all and race/ethnic background is treated as nothing more than trivia.


Same thing with the original Nazis, they were race collectivists. State control of "non-Aryan" labor (aka slavery) to support a high standard of living for "Aryans." Free healthcare, free education, cheap food and consumer goods, etc., provided by the wealth created through slave labor. In the planned Nazi utopia, private property would only exist in the hands of "Aryan" owners and only as long as those owners obeyed the fuhrerprinzip and gleichshaltung. If you owned a factory and the government told you to operate your factory this way, to buy from these suppliers, to make these products, to sell them at these prices, and you didn't want to... guess who would own your factory after that? Not you. The state would, and it would be run by a Nazi commissar appointed by the state. If you were lucky they'd leave you alone after taking your factory, if not you'd have all your property confiscated and yourself sent off to Dachau or some other concentration camp.


----------



## samizayn

DOPA said:


> Unfortunately the term Alt Right has become just another buzz word that leftists and MSM journalists have tossed round to smear any person whose views they vehemently disagree with in order to dismiss them outright without having to address any of their views.


So what is the alt-right, then? Is it literally just a faddish word for neo-nazi? Neo-nazi but with hair? 

It does indeed seem that "alt-righter" is the new SJW, in terms of what you've said here. An easy, ominous catch-all. In fact seeing some of the discussions taking place here, they are ones that have already been had about folks on the right that have all been mocked with the same label but have very differing, and at times vehemently opposed views on certain issues.

I'm blind to most of these differences (vis-a-vis the right) but, as I think about it, it's not particularly a bad thing if you're in the habit of dis/agreeing on individual points, rather than vast swathes of people. Right?


----------



## deepelemblues

samizayn said:


> So what is the alt-right, then? Is it literally just a faddish word for neo-nazi? Neo-nazi but with hair?
> 
> It does indeed seem that "alt-righter" is the new SJW, in terms of what you've said here. An easy, ominous catch-all. In fact seeing some of the discussions taking place here, they are ones that have already been had about folks on the right that have all been mocked with the same label but have very differing, and at times vehemently opposed views on certain issues.
> 
> I'm blind to most of these differences (vis-a-vis the right) but, as I think about it, it's not particularly a bad thing if you're in the habit of dis/agreeing on individual points, rather than vast swathes of people. Right?


I think millenial neo-Nazi would be pretty apt... with few exceptions they're in that millenial age bracket and internet culture has had a huge influence on them

And yes the baiting via name-calling and association games has reached epic proportions here at WF as of late but these things flare up and die down again. It wasn't so long ago that the side currently throwing its weight around casting aspersions and mockery was down in the dumps feeling teh sads about how Anything was allegedly dominated by the other side

It's like the tides. Or the frequency of chemtrails and HAARP experiments :draper2


----------



## Miss Sally

RavishingRickRules said:


> I tried yesterday and could find absolutely no info about it.


Jason Collins! That's the guy! Anyways, LeBron didn't say nothing that bad. As I said I was mostly talking about him as a sports persona.



Reap said:


> That first response tho :mj4
> 
> Seriously, what's her name?
> 
> I guess us minorites should just stop having names because we're nothing but symbols for virtue signalling now.
> 
> "Hi, I am brown atheist Pakistani / Persian bisexual male."


Jewish Native American Mexican here! Pretty soon you'll have to identify what you are for it to be determined the value you of your opinion, experience and intelligence need not apply.


----------



## deepelemblues

They don't give her name in the tweet to get you to go to the story so they get credit for a click+pageview :draper2


----------



## deepelemblues

https://ricochet.com/541768/ag-jeff...fending-freedoms-summit-on-religious-liberty/

:mark:

The SPLC needs to significantly reform itself, or it will continue to lose its influence and might even end up destroying itself.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Jewish Native American Mexican here! Pretty soon you'll have to identify what you are for it to be determined the value you of your opinion, experience and intelligence need not apply.


A lot of people start off with "As a [insert identity here]" before they state their opinion. 

I had fallen into that trap myself.


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak

samizayn said:


> So what is the alt-right, then? Is it literally just a faddish word for neo-nazi? Neo-nazi but with hair?


They're essentially online only white nationalists, coined by Richard Spencer and would probably be the one to lead it. It's really a loose term for many far right groups online really. I wouldn't describe it as Neo Nazis with hair... because as a whole I don't think they're trying to bring back Nazism (Even though that element is there). Their main goal is to bring about a European only Ethnostate. Beliefs tend to be all over the place, generally non whites have ruined things specially Zionist Jews who control everything don't you know :lol Believe strongly in the white genocide conspiracy theory. Religion isn't really a big part of it, Spencer is an Atheist. A good part of them don't like Christianity because it's seen as Universal and would rather promote European Paganism.


----------



## CamillePunk

The confusion stems from the fact that a couple years ago people didn't really know the origins of the term so they self-identified as alt-right thinking it just meant conservatives who didn't align with the neocon GOP, so libertarians, classical liberals, and general Trump supporters would just say "yeah, alternative right, that sounds like me". The true alt right is just Richard Spencer and his white nationalist goons who are much smaller in numbers and far less influential than the hordes of SJWs that occupy college campuses, which I have seen and engaged with up close many times. The latter are people who do want to dismantle capitalism and do believe white people owe people of other races restitution and special privileges for the deeds of their ancestors. I know the threat, I rub elbows with it all the time and listen to their arguments. I literally have never ran into, seen, or met a white nationalist since I've been in college. I think I saw a couple skinheads at a cafe in Hollywood once like a decade ago. Nobody was looking at or talking to them.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Miss Sally said:


> Jewish Native American Mexican here! Pretty soon you'll have to identify what you are for it to be determined the value you of your opinion, experience and intelligence need not apply.


Did you have a bat mitzvah and stuff? Is there like a combo of traditions/culture practices you follow from different backgrounds? Genuinely interested.

I'm a devastatingly handsome anglo white male aged 25-40 so EVERYONE wants to know what I think. :Trump


----------



## DOPA

samizayn said:


> So what is the alt-right, then? Is it literally just a faddish word for neo-nazi? Neo-nazi but with hair?
> 
> It does indeed seem that "alt-righter" is the new SJW, in terms of what you've said here. An easy, ominous catch-all. In fact seeing some of the discussions taking place here, they are ones that have already been had about folks on the right that have all been mocked with the same label but have very differing, and at times vehemently opposed views on certain issues.
> 
> I'm blind to most of these differences (vis-a-vis the right) but, as I think about it, it's not particularly a bad thing if you're in the habit of dis/agreeing on individual points, rather than vast swathes of people. Right?



The Alt Right are essentially white nationalists who want the US to be a white ethnostate. They are racial collectivists whose policy positions are geared towards the white race. This is why for example they are for single payer healthcare but only for their race. They don't want other races having access. This goes completely against traditional US Conservative policy who are against a single payer system and do not advocate for "white only" healthcare. That's just one example.

They say they aren't supremacists but come on now, you had Richard Spencer literally stating Nazi slogans, members doing the nazi salute and he won't even condemn Hitler or the Holocaust. They at least sympathize or downright align with Neo Nazis. This is why I have absolutely no problem whatsoever people calling them that. But if we want to get specific, they are white nationalists.

I would say you are right about the comparisons to the SJW phrase as sort of a catch all dismissive term. SJW has at times been used where it does not warrant it to dismiss people's arguments. So I agree on that point.

As far as the differences for individual points: It's not a bad thing if the principles of said political movements are similar or the same. For example, the differences between Conservatives, Libertarians and Classical Liberals. There is nuance in terms of debate between these groups but they all share the same common principles: Individualism, Liberty, Free Market Economics, Property Rights etc. This is not the same as the differences between the Alt Right and the rest of the right wing: the Alt Right are collectivists, racial collectivists at that who put the white race as a group above everything else. That is completely antithetical to Conservativism, Classical Liberalism and Libertarians who want people to be treated and judged as individuals.

It is certainly antithetical to my value structure and principles.....thankfully no one on this forum has ever suggested I'm part of the alt right.


----------



## DOPA

:HA :lmao


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> Did you have a bat mitzvah and stuff? Is there like a combo of traditions/culture practices you follow from different backgrounds? Genuinely interested.
> 
> I'm a devastatingly handsome anglo white male aged 25-40 so EVERYONE wants to know what I think. :Trump


Not really, my father doesn't like Jews go figure. A lot of my heritage I had learn from my Grandparents and Cousins, the Jewish part of my family is really really lapsed Jewish so didn't really know much of my Jewish side.

Native American I did from other family but no real traditions there either. They're the Pima people, they're really relaxed and learned some moderately interesting stuff but no vision quests or peace pipes :laugh:

From my Mexican heritage they were just farmers, though.. there was some weird ass stuff I wish I didn't know about them. My Grand Father was an industrious man, he really took pride in his American Citizenship and his work. His Father was the same way, very family orientated but this did not pass on to my own father.  

As for traditions growing up my Father banned all that stuff, he felt traditions and gifts weren't for us and so only he could speak Spanish and do any traditions, his children were not good enough. I honestly didn't know much until my older cousins told me and had learned Spanish, spoken, not written and from my La Raza experiences.. which I had to unlearn to a degree. 

As for you being silly, I know you're joking but hate when people dismiss people's opinions based on gender and skin tone. Everyone has their unique experiences and have faced their own trials. Besides having an opinion or a thought isn't limited to a select few. :x


----------



## Reaper

@Tater ; : This one's for you. 










(Of course this doesn't make the russian gulags better overall, but we tend to see our own horrible legal system through rose-colored glasses).

The American penal labor system is worse than Russian Gulags at least in one metric :sodone


----------



## virus21

Holy shit!



> West Virginia's House Judiciary Committee has adopted articles of impeachment against all four justices on the state's Supreme Court of Appeals, accusing the judges of a range of crimes and throwing the court's immediate future into disarray.
> 
> Approved on Tuesday afternoon, the articles of impeachment recommend that the entire bench — Chief Justice Margaret Workman, Justice Allen Loughry, Justice Robin Davis, and Justice Elizabeth Walker – be impeached "for maladministration, corruption, incompetency, neglect of duty, and certain high crimes and misdemeanors."
> 
> By law, West Virginia has five Supreme Court justices, who are elected to 12-year terms. But the bench was reduced to four in July, when Justice Menis Ketchum resigned — abruptly announcing his retirement just as impeachment proceedings were set to begin.
> 
> Many of the articles take aim at Loughry — whom a federal grand jury indicted in June on a number of serious charges that include fraud, witness tampering and lying to federal investigators.
> 
> The investigation into Loughry centered on his use of official vehicles, the expensive renovation of his Supreme Court office — and his moving of a valuable and historic "Cass Gilbert" desk from a Capitol building to his home office.
> 
> The 14 newly adopted articles accuse all the justices of overspending to remodel their offices and of failing to properly execute their administrative duties. Except for Walker, they were also accused of paying retired senior status judges more than the law allowed.
> 
> "This is truly a sad day for West Virginia, but it is an important step forward if we are going to restore the public's confidence in the judiciary," said Judiciary Committee Chairman John Shott, a Republican.
> 
> The full House is slated to vote on the impeachment articles next Monday; if approved, they would then move to the Senate. The next step would be for the Senate to hold a trial.
> 
> As for how the bench would be filled if any justices are removed or resign, West Virginia Public Broadcasting reports that next Tuesday, Aug. 14, is the deadline for arranging a special election for November. After that, it would fall to the governor to appoint any new justices.
> 
> Because Ketchum retired well before the deadline, his seat is up for a special election this fall.
> 
> The timing of Tuesday's vote to approve the impeachment articles — after a month of hearings, and one week before the Aug. 14 deadline — was quickly criticized by Democrats.
> 
> "It's a coup," said Delegate Barbara Evans Fleischauer, a Democrat who is the judiciary committee's minority chair. She added, "They dragged this out all summer long, and suddenly they put this on the agenda."
> 
> Fleischauer told NPR that she sees the timing of the impeachment as a ploy to allow Gov. Jim Justice — a former Democrat who is now a Republican — to appoint the majority of the justices on the state's highest court. Any new justices would then serve until the next election in two years' time, she said.
> 
> Shott has denied that any political maneuvering was at work, telling the Charleston Gazette-Mail, "Especially in an election year, there's going to be people who will spin it however it creates the most advantage to them. That's just part of the process."
> 
> In 2015, West Virginia voted to make its Supreme Court elections nonpartisan. But all of the current justices have been affiliated with the two main parties, and at the start of the year, the bench's unofficial makeup was 3-2 in favor of the Democrats. Loughry won office as a Republican; Walker ran as a Republican in 2008 before being elected in a nonpartisan vote in 2016. Both Workman and Davis were elected as Democrats, as was Ketchum.
> 
> Fleischauer and Shott also differ on the nature of the charges involved. While Fleischauer said she views the charges against Loughry as serious, she thinks the charges against the other three justices are "a lot different" and don't warrant impeachment charges.
> 
> On Tuesday, Shott said that after reviewing the evidence, "it became clear that a culture of entitlement and disregard for both the law and taxpayer funds have damaged the reputation of our judicial system – and that all justices had a part in violating the public's trust."
> 
> The Supreme Court of Appeals attracted public scrutiny last year, when it was reported that the justices had spent more then $3.7 million to renovate and decorate their offices, according to WVPB.
> 
> On Monday, the House Impeachment Committee and members of the media inspected the Supreme Court's offices – and paid particular attention to Loughry's accomodations. Here's a sampling of a report from that outing, from WVPB:
> 
> "Delegates lingered around the infamous $32,000 couch, touching its suede fabric and commenting on the cost of the couch and the six pillows.
> 
> " 'It looks like a regular couch to me,' Joe Altizer, counsel for the minority party, commented.
> 
> "No one sat on it.
> 
> "They also gathered in a circle around the wooden inlaid floor that was designed just for Loughry, commenting on the beauty of the wood."
> 
> The wood inlay in the office floor, we'll note, is in the shape of West Virginia, with different shades of wood used to designate its counties.
> 
> In addition to being a judge, Loughry wrote a book about political corruption in West Virginia; it was published in 2006.


https://www.npr.org/2018/08/08/636761241/west-virginia-house-panel-votes-to-impeach-entire-supreme-court


----------



## skypod

CamillePunk said:


> The confusion stems from the fact that a couple years ago people didn't really know the origins of the term so they self-identified as alt-right thinking it just meant conservatives who didn't align with the neocon GOP, so libertarians, classical liberals, and general Trump supporters would just say "yeah, alternative right, that sounds like me". The true alt right is just Richard Spencer and his white nationalist goons who are much smaller in numbers and far less influential than the hordes of SJWs that occupy college campuses, which I have seen and engaged with up close many times. The latter are people who do want to dismantle capitalism and do believe white people owe people of other races restitution and special privileges for the deeds of their ancestors. I know the threat, I rub elbows with it all the time and listen to their arguments. I literally have never ran into, seen, or met a white nationalist since I've been in college. I think I saw a couple skinheads at a cafe in Hollywood once like a decade ago. Nobody was looking at or talking to them.








2:08 - Someone on national television saying "demographic changes", illegal or *legal*, are not want Americans want. This is about as blatant as saying "brown people are not as valuable" as you can get. People can talk about the leftist lack of education with thinking a world can exist without borders (it can't) but does anybody talk about the fact that Whites in America think America is a white country? Genuinely you will get white Americans you think of themselves as more American than Black people. It's the most bizarre delusion I've ever seen. It's fucking colonized land. 


I do think Nazi is a terrible term to use though, if only that whenever you say someone who's racist is a Nazi, someone will be like "well they have a Jewish boyfriend". Plenty of racists don't want to associate with people of darker skin but Jews are okay in their book because they're thought of as regular white people in America. So either you make the term Nazi mean "hating one or more of any race" or you stop using it all together. 


Also as far as my Jewish boyfriend example, it doesn't make sense for people to say anyway because straight men marry women, but misogyny is hardly hard to find in those relationships.


----------



## Rozalia

Reap said:


> That's same real far sighted thinking there.


That is me. I was always a top guy in class you know, was told I had a very logical brain for how I thought and put things forward. 



samizayn said:


> So what is the alt-right, then? Is it literally just a faddish word for neo-nazi? Neo-nazi but with hair?
> 
> It does indeed seem that "alt-righter" is the new SJW, in terms of what you've said here. An easy, ominous catch-all. In fact seeing some of the discussions taking place here, they are ones that have already been had about folks on the right that have all been mocked with the same label but have very differing, and at times vehemently opposed views on certain issues.
> 
> I'm blind to most of these differences (vis-a-vis the right) but, as I think about it, it's not particularly a bad thing if you're in the habit of dis/agreeing on individual points, rather than vast swathes of people. Right?


You could say there are like SJWs. SJWs are all about political correctness. Alt-Right is all about that Ethno-state. Stuff like hatred and such is not required. I've talked to many over there in my time and while you will get some who will say that even Spencer himself is ((())), others will say that there is no hatred as it is simply something natural. 

However... I think something key to remember is the collectiveness yes. Simply put the other races are a collective in how they act but whites aren't which just being individuals puts them at a disadvantage, and they want to change that. That it is all well and good for you to say you're an individual, but the other sides aren't going to respect this, they'll beat you down with their collective. The primary opponents of the progressives have been Conservatives and (real) Liberals who are individualists, and the Alt-Right cites their lack of being a collective for their failure in killing the progressives dead. 



Stupid_Smark said:


> They're essentially online only white nationalists, coined by Richard Spencer and would probably be the one to lead it. It's really a loose term for many far right groups online really. I wouldn't describe it as Neo Nazis with hair... because as a whole I don't think they're trying to bring back Nazism (Even though that element is there). Their main goal is to bring about a European only Ethnostate. Beliefs tend to be all over the place, generally non whites have ruined things specially Zionist Jews who control everything don't you know :lol Believe strongly in the white genocide conspiracy theory. Religion isn't really a big part of it, Spencer is an Atheist. A good part of them don't like Christianity because it's seen as Universal and would rather promote European Paganism.


I've found in my personal experience that the more aggressive and willing to use language obviously I'm not going to say here, the more drawn to Christianity they are. They say that they need to go back to the old Catholic ways while others say that Orthodox is good. The less aggressive ones seem to place little value in religion. 



CamillePunk said:


> The confusion stems from the fact that a couple years ago people didn't really know the origins of the term so they self-identified as alt-right thinking it just meant conservatives who didn't align with the neocon GOP, so libertarians, classical liberals, and general Trump supporters would just say "yeah, alternative right, that sounds like me". The true alt right is just Richard Spencer and his white nationalist goons who are much smaller in numbers and far less influential than the hordes of SJWs that occupy college campuses, which I have seen and engaged with up close many times. The latter are people who do want to dismantle capitalism and do believe white people owe people of other races restitution and special privileges for the deeds of their ancestors. I know the threat, I rub elbows with it all the time and listen to their arguments. I literally have never ran into, seen, or met a white nationalist since I've been in college. I think I saw a couple skinheads at a cafe in Hollywood once like a decade ago. Nobody was looking at or talking to them.


Yeah. After a while they split and Alt-Light started being used, and I certainly saw it used by notable groups but... don't think it has caught on much.


----------



## Reaper

Rozalia said:


> That is me. I was always a top guy in class you know, was told I had a very logical brain for how I thought and put things forward.


That seems a little far-fetched, but I guess that depends on the company you keep.


----------



## Rozalia

Reap said:


> That seems a little far-fetched, but I guess that depends on the company you keep.


If you engaged calmly and fairly with me on something you'll quickly pickup how rooted in logic and reason I am. You are free to challenge me on something now if you doubt this.


----------



## Reaper

Rozalia said:


> If you engaged calmly and fairly with me on something you'll quickly pickup how rooted in logic and reason I am. You are free to challenge me on something now if you doubt this.


Do you have a high IQ as well?


----------



## Rozalia

Reap said:


> Do you have a high IQ as well?


Lets not play this game please. You have no interest in engaging fairly so you are throwing out that question to then mock and such, I've seen this sort of thing many times before believe me. 

Logic does not require a great deal of intelligence, or at least that is my belief on the matter, often it is a very simple affair being A to B type things.


----------



## Green Light

How do I sign up for the motherfuckin' SPACE FORCE? :mark: :fellabot2


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

skypod said:


> 2:08 - Someone on national television saying "demographic changes", illegal or *legal*, are not want Americans want. This is about as blatant as saying "brown people are not as valuable" as you can get. People can talk about the leftist lack of education with thinking a world can exist without borders (it can't) but does anybody talk about the fact that Whites in America think America is a white country? Genuinely you will get white Americans you think of themselves as more American than Black people. It's the most bizarre delusion I've ever seen. It's fucking colonized land.


Laura Ingraham let the cat out of the bag last night,while people on both sides of aisle have legit concerns about illegal immigration that is just a smokescreen for many on the right who hate even legal immigration increasing the percentage of non whites even when they are law abiding and are a net positive on the country. It's not just the Richard Spencer's of the world,2 national figures on a show watched by millions Tucker and Ingrham often slip up like this when it's usually just dog whistles to white nationalism.


----------



## Tater

Reap said:


> @Tater ; : This one's for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Of course this doesn't make the russian gulags better overall, but we tend to see our own horrible legal system through rose-colored glasses).
> 
> The American penal labor system is worse than Russian Gulags at least in one metric :sodone


Yeah, I've known about California using inmates as slave labor to fight forest fires for quite awhile now. Cali being a "far left" state is one of the biggest myths going today.

As long as we're on the topic, Hawai'i is ALL Democrat and nearly every fucking one of them outside of Tulsi is a corporatist. Don't get me wrong, I love Tulsi, but she gave me a huge fucking letdown lately when she endorsed Hanabusa to be our new governor. This is the same Hanabusa who voted with Republicans to further deregulate Wall Street as a member of Congress. 

I might not love Ige but replacing one piece of shit with another piece of shit does nothing to clean up the pile of shit.


----------



## Sincere

Pence calls for Space Force to be established by 2020



> Vice President Pence called Thursday for America to assert its dominance in space as he made a direct appeal to the Pentagon for a sixth military branch serving this purpose -- and revealed the Trump administration wants to create the “Space Force” by 2020.
> 
> In a speech to the Defense Department, he said that countries such as Russia, China, North Korea and Iran are pursuing ways to “bring new weapons of war into space itself.”
> 
> “As their actions make clear, our adversaries have transformed space into a warfighting domain already and the United States will not shrink from this challenge,” he said. “Under President Trump’s leadership, we will meet it head on -- to defend our nation, and build a peaceful future here on Earth and in space.”
> 
> Trump said last week that he had ordered the Pentagon to begin the process of creating a Space Force as a new branch of the military.
> 
> Pence said on Thursday that it was an idea “whose time had come” and made clear that the White House wants to get on with the project as soon as possible. He hailed a new report by the Pentagon on the force as a starting point.
> 
> “President Trump and I are grateful to Secretary Mattis for this department’s diligence in preparing this report, and our administration will soon take action to implement these recommendations, with the objective of establishing the United States Department of the Space Force by 2020,” he said.
> 
> He said that a new position would be created for an assistant secretary of defense for space.
> 
> “Creating a new branch of the military is not a simple process. It will require collaboration, diligence, and above all leadership. As challenges arise and deadlines approach, there must be someone in charge who can execute, hold others accountable, and be responsible for the results,” he said.
> 
> But the move has faced some signs of skepticism from the Defense Department. In a letter to Congress last year, Secretary James Mattis said he opposed the idea of a separate force, arguing that it would “likely present a narrower and even parochial approach to space operations” and said that a “properly integrated approach is better for carrying out this mission.”
> 
> Earlier this week, Mattis signaled his support for a new Space Command to take place alongside existing commands, but demurred when asked about the creation of a separate service entirely, saying it was a matter for Congress to decide.
> 
> He did, however, say the Pentagon was in “complete agreement” with the White House.
> 
> “We are working our way through all this. We are in compete agreement, the vice president is the point man for the president on this, we are working closely, daily with his office and with supporters on Capitol Hill and the relevant committees,” he said. “So we’re working it up what that actual organization will look like.”
> 
> “It will be fit for purpose is what I can assure you, but I don’t have all the final answers yet, we’re still putting that together,” he said.












Seems like a fairly historic happening.

Imagine being one of the inaugural recruits...


----------



## yeahbaby!

Um Space Force is this real? Seems kinda ridiculous to me and I'm betting the majority of the world. What exactly will they be doing and how many billions of tax dollars will this take?

Plus, I think the wall should be started or indeed finished first as Trump was clearly given a mandate for that but not for Star Wars.


----------



## Reaper

I think the real reason for the Space Force is to fight the reptilian menace.

They just don't want to admit it because that would put their paranoia into context. 

I'm not joking.


----------



## Headliner

HandsomeRTruth said:


> Laura Ingraham let the cat out of the bag last night,while people on both sides of aisle have legit concerns about illegal immigration that is just a smokescreen for many on the right who hate even legal immigration increasing the percentage of non whites even when they are law abiding and are a net positive on the country. It's not just the Richard Spencer's of the world,2 national figures on a show watched by millions Tucker and Ingrham often slip up like this when it's usually just dog whistles to white nationalism.


In her response tonight, this bitch had the nerve to shit on David Duke and white nationalist for supporting her comments. Talking about they don't share her views and she don't support them. :mj4 

Her comment was literally the definition of a white anxiety comment which is one of the branches of "coded" racism.


----------



## Stinger Fan

HandsomeRTruth said:


> Laura Ingraham let the cat out of the bag last night,while people on both sides of aisle have legit concerns about illegal immigration that is just a smokescreen for many on the right who hate even legal immigration increasing the percentage of non whites even when they are law abiding and are a net positive on the country. It's not just the Richard Spencer's of the world,2 national figures on a show watched by millions Tucker and Ingrham often slip up like this when it's usually just dog whistles to white nationalism.


She must be an awful white nationalist then , what with her adopting 3 immigrant children, including 1 from Guatemala. And no, I'm not a fan of hers or have even watched an episode of her show.


----------



## samizayn

^That doesn't make it better, that makes it worse! Why on earth would you use your considerable platform to fuel white nationalism when your literal children are going to be among the many suffering the brunt of it?


----------



## Headliner

Literally just as bad as the "I have a black friend therefore I'm not a racist" excuse that never holds weight.


----------



## yeahbaby!

And how can Trump be racist and nationalist etc, his wife is European.


----------



## Vic Capri

Well played. :lol

- Vic


----------



## DesolationRow

The chief problem with discussing the enormous demographic transformation of the U.S. is that it is a little like talking about the process by which the barn door was allowed to be opened several weeks after the horses traveled across several massive counties away from the homestead. 

The U.S. Census bureau rightly estimates that the foreign-born population of the U.S. is set to increase over 85% by 2060. The U.S. Census bureau notes that Hispanics will as a group grow by several tens of millions, and native-born whites represent the only demographic group which is expected to decline considerably in absolute numbers as well as fertility rates (the latter already began in early 2011 with non-white births rather easily outpacing white births since). As of 2016 the U.S., though 5% of the world's entire population, boasted being, by far, the single most popular destination for the world's immigrants, attracting 21% of all of the world's immigration since 1965. One of the more pointed economic consequences of the present situation is that the majority of Central American governments are effectively kept afloat by over $12.4 billion in remittances taken out of the U.S. economy by foreign-born workers. 

All of this in the face of Senator Edward Kennedy's statement concerning the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act in an effort to counter widespread concerns over the ramifications of same:



> First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same...
> 
> Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia...
> 
> In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think... The bill not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.


Now, speaking personally, as I have said a fair number of times, I am not a nationalist. Not a civic nationalist and certainly not a white nationalist or any other form of nationalist. However, it is reasonable to argue as I have that the U.S. circa the 2010s is not a nation so much as it is a continental empire, an empire primarily built upon a cartel of banking. 

The standard, historic definition of a nation is,


> a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory


. The founding generation of the American republican government sought to ensure that immigration was deliberately predicated upon the person achieving the status of citizenship so long as they were "any alien, being a free white person..." who had been in the U.S. for two years, leaving out the vast majority of women, indentured servants and slaves, as well as just about anyone who was not white. This was actually the very first statute in the United States, known as the Naturalization Act of 1790. Those who contend that the America was from her birth a white nationalist project are not being fatuous. 

Unfortunately in the rough and tumble of electoral politics inescapable points will eventually resurface. The Republican Party, for instance, remains a national party to the extent whites remain in the majority; roughly 90% of its electoral constituency is made up of white voters. And those defending Laura Ingraham definitely have a point to the extent that they acknowledge the almost deafening triumphalism from the more left-wing political elements of the U.S. concerning the present white majority's fate as ineluctable minority voting bloc. The "browning of America" (National Public Radio had a solid study in 2016 on how the phenomenon is "upending" both major political parties) is something to be celebrated but if someone somewhere makes the fairly innocuous point that no one voted for it they are in league with the white nationalists of Charlottesville, Virginia. It's a delicate problem of an increasingly multicultural labyrinth such as the U.S. in which resentments between groups tend to exacerbate and swell the greater the contact between them. Having spent about a week in Los Angeles in late June and simply encountering a handful of racially charged incidents (none of them involved white people--obviously such incidents do involve white people quite often but these ones did not), forecasting a future of social cohesion becomes potentially quite troubling.


----------



## Rozalia

https://i.imgur.com/RtL64Jb.jpg[\img]

[QUOTE="Vic Capri, post: 75979734, member: 141108"][MEDIA=youtube]b-s20RiD3Cg[/MEDIA]

Well played. :lol

- Vic[/QUOTE]

[url]https://mashable.com/2018/08/09/trump-star-stickers-hollywood-walk-of-fame/?europe=true#B0KYKUcYf8qR[/url]

Putting stickers on the floor? Vandal

[url]https://mashable.com/2018/07/25/trump-hollywood-walk-of-fame-star-pickaxe/?europe=true#2e1P1HgPpiqy[/url]

Smashing something with a pickaxe? Hero

[QUOTE="Headliner, post: 75979322, member: 77278"]Literally just as bad as the "I have a black friend therefore I'm not a racist" excuse that never holds weight.[/QUOTE]

You guys, and and no I'm not referring to your skin, love that one don't you? Children and wives go way beyond that, and trying to play it off as not is silly. Friends vary in importance, your black friends could be guys at work you tolerate so the day passes by fine, true. #NotAll though of course. Family however is quite a different thing, you're not going to stand such children or partners if you're a supremacist. 

Though you could be talking about stuff like those progressives love to talk about, how colour blind is the new racism, white kids grow up racist even if taught to respect people of other races as they would any other and so on. If so then we're all, as a race, inherently these evil racists (you know like those far righters say Jews are inherently greedy) so can't quite win there. 

As for the woman, her view is a somewhat common one. Okay with others, but keep the country majority X, X being whatever the main ethnicity is. In one place it could be white, in another black, so on. This IS not the Alt-Right position. Their position is to remove all such people, not have some left who integrate over time and such. Now you could cry about this of course, how evil it is but... go ask a country in Africa if they'd be happy with their country stopping being majority black. Chinese if they'd like it if China became more white than East Asian. They'd all tell you the same thing. If you like it or not humanity is a tribal people and that is how things are. Ironically the only thing that can surpass this, Cultural Nationalism, is lumped in with Ethnic Nationalism and said to be Nazism. Though Progressives these days are big into segregation so shouldn't be surprised they'd try and stop things that could actually help.


----------



## Reaper

Ok... 

















Her come the mental gymnastics.


----------



## Tag89

Reap said:


> Ok...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her come the mental gymnastics.


something something world war 2, something something slovenia, something something 51st state


----------



## Reaper

Tag89 said:


> something something world war 2, something something slovenia, something something 51st state


Maybe he was really against it because he didn't want his parents in law here but probably doesn't wear the pants in the relationship to win that battle.


----------



## Headliner

Rozalia said:


> You guys, and and no I'm not referring to your skin, love that one don't you? Children and wives go way beyond that, and trying to play it off as not is silly. Friends vary in importance, your black friends could be guys at work you tolerate so the day passes by fine, true. #NotAll though of course. Family however is quite a different thing, you're not going to stand such children or partners if you're a supremacist.
> 
> Though you could be talking about stuff like those progressives love to talk about, how colour blind is the new racism, white kids grow up racist even if taught to respect people of other races as they would any other and so on. If so then we're all, as a race, inherently these evil racists (you know like those far righters say Jews are inherently greedy) so can't quite win there.
> 
> As for the woman, her view is a somewhat common one. Okay with others, but keep the country majority X, X being whatever the main ethnicity is. In one place it could be white, in another black, so on. This IS not the Alt-Right position. Their position is to remove all such people, not have some left who integrate over time and such. Now you could cry about this of course, how evil it is but... go ask a country in Africa if they'd be happy with their country stopping being majority black. Chinese if they'd like it if China became more white than East Asian. They'd all tell you the same thing. If you like it or not humanity is a tribal people and that is how things are. Ironically the only thing that can surpass this, Cultural Nationalism, is lumped in with Ethnic Nationalism and said to be Nazism. Though Progressives these days are big into segregation so shouldn't be surprised they'd try and stop things that could actually help.


Please stop this white sympathizer bullshit. Explain when a white man or woman has a biracial child, and the bi-racial child grows up dealing with a white racist mother or father. So then the excuse becomes, I'm not racist, I fucked a (black, latino, etc) person and had a bi-racial son or daughter.:mj4

Her comment was coded classic white racism based on white fear mongering, anxiety and xenophobia. It's a worry that the "white" America they know and love is shrinking as America continues to become more diverse. All this mental gymnastic fake philosophical shit doesn't have any merit.

Ya'll think the only way someone can be a racist is if someone directly calls someone a racist name. Oh wait, I forgot even when that happens some people still think that's not racist here based on the thread from last week.:mj4

She had David Duke, the former grand wizard of the KKK who preaches this type of garbage agreeing with her and people doing backflips to try to justify it. Stop.


----------



## Draykorinee

Trump said:


> CHAIN MIGRATION must end now! Some people come in, and they bring their whole family with them, who can be truly evil. NOT ACCEPTABLE!


:enzo

Is there a bigger hypocrite than Trump in the history of the presidency?


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> :enzo
> 
> Is there a bigger hypocrite than Trump in the history of the presidency?


I'm going to have to finally put my hat out there, but now it's about time I did that. 

It's now 100% obvious that he was talking about browns and mexicans, and not whites. I know that Trump supporters will not believe this (because their mental gymnastics support Trump out of a sense of loyalty and obligation to his cult now), but that is the only implication that can be drawn from this extreme display of hypocrisy. It is also obvious that he was intentionally riding the wave of white nationalism to attain power.

Right-wing Twitter is still silent about this - even individuals who were pretending to be anti-immigration overall as supposedly "single issue" voters. 

If a man cannot run his own family according to his own principles, then he has no principles.


----------



## Rozalia

Headliner said:


> Please stop this white sympathizer bullshit. Explain when a white man or woman has a biracial child, and the bi-racial child grows up dealing with a white racist mother or father. So then the excuse becomes, I'm not racist, I fucked a (black, latino, etc) person and had a bi-racial son or daughter.:mj4
> 
> Her comment was coded classic white racism based on white fear mongering, anxiety and xenophobia. It's a worry that the "white" America they know and love is shrinking as America continues to become more diverse. All this mental gymnastic fake philosophical shit doesn't have any merit.
> 
> Ya'll think the only way someone can be a racist is if someone directly calls someone a racist name. Oh wait, I forgot even when that happens some people still think that's not racist here based on the thread from last week.:mj4
> 
> She had David Duke, the former grand wizard of the KKK who preaches this type of garbage agreeing with her and people doing backflips to try to justify it. Stop.


Right, right. I'll give you something, most white parents of a biracial child don't raise the child proper yes. They forget that out there in the world there are vile race hustlers who will make their child believe that a part of them is evil. That their white father is a racist who took advantage, and their mother... well she gets it too, believe me, Hapa guys when they complain especially, the hate... quite something. I've seen cases of the white father being rich, paying the huge cost for a good school, getting them whatever they want, but they failed as a parent and this is where I agree with the progressives. White people with a biracial child has to bring their children up with knowledge about these race hustlers so their poison doesn't work.

Answer my question if you dare. You know full well what I said is the case. Go to any place whatever the race and you will be met with the same response and you know this. Say otherwise, again, if you dare. Please address what I said and no dodging with this diversity talk, I've heard that speech a million times thank you.

We have lived more and more in colour blind times, what people of the past so hoped for... but now this is racism? This is bad? That certain people treat a black man like they would a white, and don't think, "What a poor man, being born black, let me give him reparations". If you want to reverse colour blindness then keep going mate, but all you do is increase racism as the rise world wide of the far-right shows. Which... would suit you fine I guess, finally having real racism out there to wage the Jihad against. 

Oh... David Duke huh... 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/former-kkk-wizard-praised-corbyn-victory-rztzv263g
http://newmediacentral.net/jeremy-corbyn-endorsed-by-neo-nazi-website-the-daily-stormer/

Oh look, even someone as lefty and "nice" as Comrade Corbyn has been supported by David Duke and I even threw in the Daily Stormer for you. Does this mean anything? Does it mean he is a Nazi? Wants to kill all the Jews? Please answer. Ain't David Duke, an utter irrelevance of a man, so convenient for you and others who use him? Well answer that then. 



Reap said:


> I'm going to have to finally put my hat out there, but now it's about time I did that.
> 
> It's now 100% obvious that he was talking about browns and mexicans, and not whites. I know that Trump supporters will not believe this (because their mental gymnastics support Trump out of a sense of loyalty and obligation to his cult now), but that is the only implication that can be drawn from this extreme display of hypocrisy. It is also obvious that he was intentionally riding the wave of white nationalism to attain power.
> 
> Right-wing Twitter is still silent about this - even individuals who were pretending to be anti-immigration overall as supposedly "single issue" voters.
> 
> If a man cannot run his own family according to his own principles, then he has no principles.


Melania is married to a very rich man and her family will be very well taken care of. Republicans want well off immigrants, they care little if they happen to be whatever. Most of these will be white yes before you say anything. There is a reasonable and logical reason for this, or it could be a Nazi plot, your choice.


----------



## Reaper

Rozalia said:


> Melania is married to a very rich man and her family will be very well taken care of. Republicans want well off immigrants, they care little if they happen to be whatever. Most of these will be white yes before you say anything. There is a reasonable and logical reason for this, or it could be a Nazi plot, your choice.


So much to unpack in this post, but I'll just leave it hopefully for someone else.

I've done my time with regards to having long drawn out arguments with people. They're not worth it in the end. Not when faced with someone who does the kind of mental gymnastics you do.


----------



## Draykorinee

No point in arguing with some who thinks sexy females only is a good immigration policy. 

Yes I can see what was quoted...


----------



## Rozalia

Reap said:


> So much to unpack in this post, but I'll just leave it hopefully for someone else.
> 
> I've done my time with regards to having long drawn out arguments with people. They're not worth it in the end. Not when faced with someone who does the kind of mental gymnastics you do.


??? What? What rock have you been living under if this is an honest response (I doubt this but whatever). People against such high levels of immigration do not argue for 0 immigration. Not even the Far-Right no matter how extreme don't argue for that. They want "good immigrants" which amounts to well off ones (at least middle class), not poor ones. In America this would amount to a lot of white people from Europe (in say Japan it would be different), which is why certain people label it white supremacist, because the whole well off thing is a way to get mostly just white immigration while not saying it. Which is nonsense, but everyone loves a good conspiracy.

Melania is rich by virtue of her tie to her billionaire husband. Her parents will be very well taken care of. As such in the scheme of good immigrants they pass. 

There is nothing complicated or consisting of these "mental gymnastics" you bring up to try and claim I'm not following a perfectly logical line of thinking. The reality is quite simply you want to find some hole to pick at, as apparently you're obsessed with making up for your earlier statements (why do you keep over and over keep referring to yourself in the past? We heard you the first 100 times), so you try claim that this isn't in line with what Trump has said, and that is it. Chain migration you'll say? As if that is the only thing in the context of immigration for Trump. There is a vast difference between chain migration of a family that doesn't have two pennies to rub together and one tied to a Billionaire.



draykorinee said:


> No point in arguing with some who thinks sexy females only is a good immigration policy.
> 
> Yes I can see what was quoted...


We'll ignore how you could muster no counter argument to what I had said, as this is a given what with your crowd being utterly incapable to muster up any resistance via a debate with me.

Your statement there is an ironic one as it connects to this one very well.

I lead with educated women, attractiveness getting you in was so immigration wouldn't then consist overwhelmingly of white women. 

Real nice how well these two things have connected to each other. Also for those watching this on the side lines. They think immigration that would be largely white is bad. In that thread I had a thing to make sure it wouldn't be largely white. They attack me for this. What can we surmise? They are not honest people. Side note. They say I'm a Nazi, yet I want all those black women and such coming in apparently simply for my own benefit to dick. Apparently I'm a Nazi who wants to have sex with loads of non-white women. This of course does not make sense, but the dishonest rarely do.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1027717944980135940
I mean, do I really have to keep telling people at this point? The collapse is coming and it's going to be much worse than the one 10 years ago.


----------



## Reaper

Rozalia said:


> *Real nice how well these two things have connected to each other. Also for those watching this on the side lines. They think immigration that would be largely white is bad. In that thread I had a thing to make sure it wouldn't be largely white. They attack me for this. What can we surmise? They are not honest people. Side note. They say I'm a Nazi, yet I want all those black women and such coming in apparently simply for my own benefit to dick. Apparently I'm a Nazi who wants to have sex with loads of non-white women. This of course does not make sense, but the dishonest rarely do.*


Are you a parody account? Is this a gimmick? 

Or have we crossed lines into actual seriousness at this point.



Tater said:


> I mean, do I really have to keep telling people at this point? The collapse is coming and it's going to be much worse than the one 10 years ago.


I'm not as skeptical as you are. I don't think we see another mega crash for at least 50-60 years. 

However, the economy is definitely showing signs of entering a recessionary period. Trump's policies are not helping. The feds are raising rates. Inflation is up. These are key economic indicators of a potential recession. We just don't know how bad the recession is going to be and I'm not willing to commit just yet.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1027287768437641216
Ben Shapiro offers a young woman $10,000 to talk to him, she still refuses. :banderas


----------



## Reaper

DesolationRow said:


> Ben Shapiro offers a young woman $10,000 to talk to him, she still refuses. :banderas


I saw that. Her response is equally fitting, because he is literally offering a woman money to engage with him. 

:hmmm

PS: The level of discourse since 2016 has been fascinatingly entertaining, if nothing else.


----------



## CamillePunk

Ocasio-Cortez is dumb as a rock. Forget about her positions, I'd hate to have her represent any of my views. :lol


----------



## Rozalia

Reap said:


> Are you a parody account? Is this a gimmick?
> 
> Or have we crossed lines into actual seriousness at this point.


You need to hit ignore before you're fully part of the club, you've hit all the other points. 

You have addressed nothing that was said. You try to run away from it via mocking and attempts to discredit by making such statements. All very easy to see.

If I am so foolish then you'd not waste time with such efforts to not address what was said, you'd address it and tear it down. It is as simple as that. Simply logical. Oh and such tactics by the way are ones I call dishonest, something I do have disdain for yes. Have whatever view you want, I'll respect your holding of it, but when this running away happens and these tricks to achieve that come out, just doesn't rate well with me.



Reap said:


> I saw that. Her response is equally fitting, because he is literally offering a woman money to engage with him.
> 
> :hmmm
> 
> PS: The level of discourse since 2016 has been fascinatingly entertaining, if nothing else.












:hmmm Indeed.


----------



## Reaper

CamillePunk said:


> Ocasio-Cortez is dumb as a rock. Forget about her positions, I'd hate to have her represent any of my views. :lol


She's at least anti-war. Or probably not. :draper2 

Just not from the perspective of no war at all, but rather "if we have money for war we have money for other things." ... Childish position to have, but at least it's an anti-war democrat, right?


----------



## DesolationRow

:lol @Reap;



CamillePunk said:


> Ocasio-Cortez is dumb as a rock. Forget about her positions, I'd hate to have her represent any of my views. :lol


A few minutes of her speaking off of the cuff makes one believe they are listening to a Saturday Night Live skit skewering the "valley girl" archetype. 

Have not watched a segment of Laura Ingraham in about a year but the controversy over her verbal editorial compelled me to watch the eleven-minute segment. The funniest part is Alexandria Oscasio-Cortez speaking. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

Reap said:


> She's at least anti-war. Or probably not. :draper2


She's certainly not anti-culture war though. :mj

Anyway, like I said, forget about her positions. I don't want my views advocated in the public square by morons. Only hurts the cause.


----------



## skypod

Although I do think she'll get eaten alive eventually, it's kinda hilarious how much mud slinging there is in America towards people who want healthcare for all. You could run on bringing back slavery and get less abuse. People won't admit it but they like seeing people fail, people being poor and being hard done by because it makes them think they've worked hard to get a better life for themselves. We need that comparison to make ourselves feel good when looking at dirty commoners. This has been true since the first class system was invented. The hard truth is that nobody is born equal and you could have a completely different life based on the social class you're born into. 

Honestly, no matter if it's 30% or 50%, the US needs to split into people who want a more European based system and people who want full Libertarian ism. There's absolutely no way you can make both happy.


----------



## Reaper

I won't move towards wanting a socialized healthcare system without first destroying the system that makes healthcare unaffordable because putting the entire wealth of the country at stake for single-payer in this current market at current cost levels will bankrupt more than half the businesses here. You need to destroy and rewamp the ENTIRE industry as a whole including patents, protectionism, drug costs, doctor salaries .. you destroy the entire insurance industry, the healthcare privatized bureaucracy, the pharmaceutical industry .. Then you have to think about all the related industries that feed into the healthcare system. And there is just not enough resources in the entire country to take that kind of an immediate hit without completely collapsing. You cannot nationalize this at current price levels. 

It boils down to a matter of _who _pays and how much damage it's going to do to the current economic system which is already only barely putting money in the majority of the population's pockets.


----------



## CamillePunk

Candace Owens definitely falls into the category of people I agree with but don't want representing my political positions. Her "debate" style is atrocious.


----------



## Stephen90

This pretty much describes Ben Shapiro right here.


----------



## CamillePunk

Ben Shapiro could've responded with "I guess Ocasio-Cortez chooses not to associate with Jews" and it would've been every bit as legitimate as her response to him. :lol Yes, even though she's a Bernie sidekick.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Ben Shapiro could've responded with "I guess Ocasio-Cortez chooses not to associate with Jews" and it would've been every bit as legitimate as her response to him. :lol Yes, even though she's a Bernie sidekick.


It's the door opened by Identity Politics so may as well use it shame or shut people down. Having any sort of intellectual discourse is a no-no and not accepted. After all having to debate means having to debate your ideas... and if your ideas are atrocious, racist and plain disgusting, how will one defend it without shutting down the questioners?


@skypod We have slavery here, it's called illegal labor and prison labor. When illegals decided to strike a few years ago several American companies had to shut down for the day. As for prison labor they're paid nearly nothing to do jobs.Both methods are used to keep down costs and because no benefits are needed to be offered to the workers in the least. 

As for Healthcare we have a system in place now and it doesn't work but if we just simply went for "free" universal healthcare many states would go broke over night. Even California decided against it when they realized the cost.

I work in healthcare and there isn't enough doctors, nurses and people in the medical field to cover the sheer amount of people that would flood it. The US isn't some small European country, people need to stop acting like one size fits all when it comes to doing things. 

Besides how much more taxes will people have to pay? The more money you make the more is taken. I work with people who almost have half their checks taken after Federal/State taxes. Besides if the US is willing to use prison and illegal labor to save a buck, how great of healthcare are you going to get from this "free" (Nothing is free, people need to stop saying this) system?


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

A year ago she was a bartender,while Ben is a lawyer and experienced debater. If I was her manager I would very much tell her not have a debate with him (though I would encourage her to do some interviews outside the liberal bubble).That said her catcalling comment was rude,dumb and belittles the actual women who have been catcalled or sexually harassed.


----------



## Reaper

HandsomeRTruth said:


> A year ago she was a bartender,while Ben is a lawyer and experienced debater. If I was her manager I would very much tell her not have a debate with him (though I would encourage her to do some interviews outside the liberal bubble).That said her catcalling comment was rude,dumb and belittles the actual women who have been catcalled or sexually harassed.


She's very much representative of what politicians on the left will be like and will be getting voted in on a regular basis from now on however. 

Give it another 2 election cycles and 90% of the democrat incumbents will be spouting this bullshit. Also, let's not forget that Republicans are now openly running on the "white race is doomed" counter-rhetoric as well. It's also only going to get worse. 

This is why America needs to destroy the two-party monopoly somehow. It's no longer feasible to continue supporting _either _of these two parties.


----------



## Sincere

State-sponsored political persecution is now a documented characteristic of the Obama administration.

Tea party groups get revenge against IRS as judge approves $3.5 million payout



> A judge late Wednesday signed off on the settlement between the IRS and hundreds of tea party groups, closing out the last major legal battle over what all sides now agree was unwarranted and illegal targeting for political purposes.
> 
> The IRS agreed to pay $3.5 million to groups that were wronged by the intrusive inspections, and insists it’s made changes so that political targeting can’t occur in the future.
> 
> A few issues are still being fought over in the courts — including whether former IRS senior executive Lois G. Lerner will be allowed to forever shield her deposition explaining her behavior from public view, and whether the IRS should pay attorney fees — but this week’s decision closes out five years of litigation over the targeting itself.
> 
> “It shows that when a government agency desires to target citizens based on their viewpoints, a price will be paid,” said Edward Greim, the lawyer who led the class action case in federal court in Cincinnati.
> 
> The $3.5 million closely approximates the fines the IRS would have had to pay in damages for each intrusive scrutiny of tea party groups, had the agency been found in violation of the law. The money will be split with half going to the lawyers who argued the case and the other half to more than 100 tea party groups, which will get a cut of about $17,000 each.


The deposition needs to be unsealed.


----------



## Draykorinee

HandsomeRTruth said:


> A year ago she was a bartender,while Ben is a lawyer and experienced debater. If I was her manager I would very much tell her not have a debate with him (though I would encourage her to do some interviews outside the liberal bubble).That said her catcalling comment was rude,dumb and belittles the actual women who have been catcalled or sexually harassed.


Yeah, I call Shapiro a moron at times, particularly when he used the bible to attack policies. But I'd never get in a debate with the guy, debates in person are an entirely different kettle of fish to defending my position on the internet. I'd rather see Kyle and Ben go at it.

Naked with oil.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1028028892320284672
:lol God damn it Ted, stop being likable.


----------



## Tater

I'm not defending Cortez in any way but Shapiro is a jackass who doesn't deserve the time of day anyways.



Reap said:


> I'm not as skeptical as you are. I don't think we see another mega crash for at least 50-60 years.
> 
> However, the economy is definitely showing signs of entering a recessionary period. Trump's policies are not helping. The feds are raising rates. Inflation is up. These are key economic indicators of a potential recession. We just don't know how bad the recession is going to be and I'm not willing to commit just yet.


You've come a long way, my friend, but you've still got a ways to go. Skepticism has nothing to do with it. It's based on an understanding of economics. All the signs are there. All the things that caused the other mega crashes are currently happening and there are massive bubbles everywhere. It's not a question of if, only when.

As for 50-60 years from now... most forms of human labor will be obsolete. The robot revolution is already happening and massive industries being completely automated is a lot closer than most realize. Even if the economy was built on a strong foundation right now and wasn't a house of cards, that alone would eventually cause a collapse. Think of how many millions of jobs will be lost when the trucking and fast food industries go fully automated. Not everyone is smart enough to write code. A majority of the country is already living paycheck to paycheck. When the downward spiral begins, it's going to go down fast.

Here's some viewing material for you.








Reap said:


> I won't move towards wanting a socialized healthcare system without first destroying the system that makes healthcare unaffordable because putting the entire wealth of the country at stake for single-payer in this current market at current cost levels will bankrupt more than half the businesses here. You need to destroy and rewamp the ENTIRE industry as a whole including patents, protectionism, drug costs, doctor salaries .. you destroy the entire insurance industry, the healthcare privatized bureaucracy, the pharmaceutical industry .. Then you have to think about all the related industries that feed into the healthcare system. And there is just not enough resources in the entire country to take that kind of an immediate hit without completely collapsing. You cannot nationalize this at current price levels.
> 
> It boils down to a matter of _who _pays and how much damage it's going to do to the current economic system which is already only barely putting money in the majority of the population's pockets.





Miss Sally said:


> As for Healthcare we have a system in place now and it doesn't work but if we just simply went for "free" universal healthcare many states would go broke over night. Even California decided against it when they realized the cost.
> 
> I work in healthcare and there isn't enough doctors, nurses and people in the medical field to cover the sheer amount of people that would flood it. The US isn't some small European country, people need to stop acting like one size fits all when it comes to doing things.
> 
> Besides how much more taxes will people have to pay? The more money you make the more is taken. I work with people who almost have half their checks taken after Federal/State taxes. Besides if the US is willing to use prison and illegal labor to save a buck, how great of healthcare are you going to get from this "free" (Nothing is free, people need to stop saying this) system?


Did you hear about the recent Kock Bros funded study on universal healthcare? They did it to try to scare people away by putting a huge price tag on it. The right wing headlines would only say how much it would cost, because they know a lot of people only read headlines.

Funny thing though... once you get to the bottom, even the biased libertarian funded study admitted it would save 2 trillion over a ten year period. 








Stephen90 said:


> This pretty much describes Ben Shapiro right here.


Carlin truly was a man before his time. Take any political issue today and you can find a clip of Carlin talking about it 20 or 30 years ago.


----------



## CamillePunk

Writing code actually isn't that hard. Currently most people in tech are probably overqualified for the jobs they're doing. I know a ton of people personally who basically do nothing all day but occasionally fix a small handful of ridiculously simple issues that arise with the systems they're paid 80-90k+ to maintain. :lol I could've done their job 10 years ago, before I even went to college. There's a ton of room for expansion in the tech industry and plenty of jobs that could be filled by basically anyone who took a few weeks/months to learn some basic coding skills. The dirty secret in tech is that most people don't actually do anything all day at work the vast majority of the time. :lol

I'm really not as worried about automation as most people seem to be. Yeah, a lot of people are gonna have to get familiar with some intermediate computer skills. That's hardly a big ask to live in the kind of society we could have once all these remedial task jobs are completely automated.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1028123094857261057
those dang jews and their hypnotizing ways. good to see Ocasio-Cortez, the new face of the progressive movement in the US, elevate such a needed hero in these dark times

:heston


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1028123094857261057
> those dang jews and their hypnotizing ways. good to see Ocasio-Cortez, the new face of the progressive movement in the US, elevate such a needed hero in these dark times
> 
> :heston


This can't be real, the only people that hate Jews and spread Jewish conspiracy theories are Nazis... :hmmm


----------



## samizayn

Let's not conflate antisemitism with anti zionism.


----------



## Stinger Fan

samizayn said:


> Let's not conflate antisemitism with anti zionism.


Let's not try to make excuses for people trying to hide their anti-semitism under the guise of wanting giving a shit about "Palestine". These are teh same people who don't say shit about the 15 Muslim majority countries who have bans on Jews and kill every religious minority without a care in the world. Or the fact that Muslim countries who bomb them, kill the very people they are "supporting" and want to "protect"

Yah, they're "only" against the idea of a Jewish state alright



samizayn said:


> ^That doesn't make it better, that makes it worse! Why on earth would you use your considerable platform to fuel white nationalism when your literal children are going to be among the many suffering the brunt of it?


Couldn't quote me? Because maybe she isn't you know....fueling white nationalism? I'm not a fan of hers and I don't know what she was trying to say there or if she was reading a teleprompter but I think people are trying to link anything to white nationalism . 



Headliner said:


> Literally just as bad as the "I have a black friend therefore I'm not a racist" excuse that never holds weight.


Yah, these horrible racist whites who marry minorities and or have minority children are just super terrible . I met people like you, accuse people of being racist only for them to find out that they're married to someone who is supposedly hateful of that ethnic minority(one of my teachers to be exact). But apparently, you can still be racist and hate blacks or whatever minority you pledge your life towards. Horrible racist people they are


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Writing code actually isn't that hard. Currently most people in tech are probably overqualified for the jobs they're doing. I know a ton of people personally who basically do nothing all day but occasionally fix a small handful of ridiculously simple issues that arise with the systems they're paid 80-90k+ to maintain. :lol I could've done their job 10 years ago, before I even went to college. There's a ton of room for expansion in the tech industry and plenty of jobs that could be filled by basically anyone who took a few weeks/months to learn some basic coding skills. The dirty secret in tech is that most people don't actually do anything all day at work the vast majority of the time. :lol
> 
> I'm really not as worried about automation as most people seem to be. Yeah, a lot of people are gonna have to get familiar with some intermediate computer skills. That's hardly a big ask to live in the kind of society we could have once all these remedial task jobs are completely automated.


Methinks you overestimate the intelligence of the average citizen.

Or as Carlin said... think of how stupid the average person is, then realize the other half are even stupider than that.

Let me ask you a real question though. Why should people work just for the sake of working? Work used to be done because it needed to be done. We grew crops because we needed food. We paved roads because we needed something to drive on. We built houses because we needed homes to live in. When we reach the point that all of this work can be done by robots/AI/automation, why should people work simply for the sake of working? 

Why should we _*not*_ use advanced technology to create a society that benefits all instead of the small handful of people who own the patents on the robots?

I've tried explaining to you what FDR should have done differently and how we should transition into a future economy but we're eventually going to get to a point where human labor is simply not needed anymore. How does that fit into your anarcho-capitalist ideology? For capitalism to function, people have to make money to buy shit. Ancaps like yourself have no answer to a future where people aren't needed to work anymore. Stop and think about it for a moment. If people need to work to earn money to buy the shit that capitalists produce, what happens when there aren't jobs anymore? You'll have a society capable of producing everything everyone needs but no one will have any money to buy it.

And before you say "new technology will create new jobs", just for the sake of argument, lets say you are wrong about that and most all of the work will be done by robots. What is your suggestion as to how we function as a society at that point? Because if we stick with your ancap bullshit, there'll be about 90% of the population unemployed while the rich have robots giving them everything they need while everyone else lives in the streets.


----------



## Headliner

Stinger Fan said:


> Yah, these horrible racist whites who marry minorities and or have minority children are just super terrible . I met people like you, accuse people of being racist only for them to find out that they're married to someone who is supposedly hateful of that ethnic minority(one of my teachers to be exact). But apparently, you can still be racist and hate blacks or whatever minority you pledge your life towards. Horrible racist people they are


:mj4 a racist white person will absolutely engage in a romatic relationship with a black person. Then the dumb black person gets their wake up call when the shoe drops. And the poor bi-racial child suffers when the white parent demonstrates racism toward them.

This isn't common. This isn't rare. It's just something that happens. So your post is pointless. I'm not even sure why you responded.


----------



## CamillePunk

samizayn said:


> Let's not conflate antisemitism with anti zionism.


She literally said they're HYPNOTIZING the world :lmao 



Tater said:


> Methinks you overestimate the intelligence of the average citizen.


I think you overestimate the difficulty of these tech jobs, and how much people are capable of when they're driven by need. I'm not worried at all. People left the fields to take on more complex tasks. They'll do it again. 



> Let me ask you a real question though. Why should people work just for the sake of working? Work used to be done because it needed to be done. We grew crops because we needed food. We paved roads because we needed something to drive on. We built houses because we needed homes to live in. When we reach the point that all of this work can be done by robots/AI/automation, why should people work simply for the sake of working?


There will always be work to be done to advance the species as we technologically evolve. There will always be stuff to be built and people who need to build it.


----------



## Tater

Headliner said:


> :mj4 a racist white person will absolutely engage in a romatic relationship with a black person. Then the dumb black person gets their wake up call when the shoe drops. And the poor bi-racial child suffers when the white parent demonstrates racism toward them.
> 
> This isn't common. This isn't rare. It's just something that happens. So your post is pointless. I'm not even sure why you responded.


Dear Headliner,

I say this in the most respectful way possible but you yourself should look in the mirror because you are one of the worst racists on this site. You seem to forget that we are all one human race and scientifically speaking, race does not exist. It is an ancient form of tribalism that humanity has not evolved past yet.

I also understand that there is a shit ton of racism that still exists in the USA against non-whites. However, the way you attack this only enhances the racism between people who happen to have different colors of skin pigmentation. You ain't black and I ain't white. We're both human beings of the same species.

Humans are humans, regardless of skin color. You'd be better off if you understood that simple fact.

Sincerely,
Tate


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> She literally said they're HYPNOTIZING the world :lmao
> 
> I think you overestimate the difficulty of these tech jobs, and how much people are capable of when they're driven by need. I'm not worried at all. People left the fields to take on more complex tasks. They'll do it again.
> 
> There will always be work to be done to advance the species as we technologically evolve. There will always be stuff to be built and people who need to build it.


Again, for the sake of argument, respond to the question being asked of you. Pretend for a moment that AI/robotics/automation can do 90% of the work that is needed to be done for a functioning society. If that is the case, what is your suggestion as to how we function in that society? Do we use the advanced tech to create a society that gives everyone a good life? Or do we let the rich hoard the wealth because they own all the robots?

I've argued with you enough to know that you are an ideologue but not a moron. Answer the question that I am asking.


----------



## CamillePunk

I'm not gonna assume that the premise of your question is true when I don't believe it ever would be. You're basically asking me to pretend that you're right and then prove you wrong. What? :lol 

My answer to how we should function in any situation is that we should conduct ourselves morally, i.e not initiate force against anyone and respect private property rights. That will never change regardless of who owns what.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> I'm not gonna assume that the premise of your question is true when I don't believe it ever would be. You're basically asking me to pretend that you're right and then prove you wrong. What? :lol
> 
> My answer to how we should function in any situation is that we should conduct ourselves morally, i.e not initiate force against anyone and respect private property rights. That will never change regardless of who owns what.


So what you're saying is, you are completely incapable of having a hypothetical conversation. 

And you wonder why I give you so much shit. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> So what you're saying is, you are completely incapable of having a hypothetical conversation.
> 
> And you wonder why I give you so much shit. :lol


Except I did answer your question. I just didn't go down the rabbit hole with you.


----------



## Headliner

Tater said:


> Dear Headliner,
> 
> I say this in the most respectful way possible but you yourself should look in the mirror because you are one of the worst racists on this site. You seem to forget that we are all one human race and scientifically speaking, race does not exist. It is an ancient form of tribalism that humanity has not evolved past yet.
> 
> I also understand that there is a shit ton of racism that still exists in the USA against non-whites. However, the way you attack this only enhances the racism between people who happen to have different colors of skin pigmentation. You ain't black and I ain't white. We're both human beings of the same species.
> 
> Humans are humans, regardless of skin color. You'd be better off if you understood that simple fact.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Tate


:mj4 :mj4 :mj4 :mj4 :mj4


----------



## virus21




----------



## samizayn

Stinger Fan said:


> Let's not try to make excuses for people trying to hide their anti-semitism under the guise of wanting giving a shit about "Palestine". *These are the same people* who don't say shit about the 15 Muslim majority countries who have bans on Jews and kill every religious minority without a care in the world. Or the fact that Muslim countries who bomb them, kill the very people they are "supporting" and want to "protect"
> 
> Yah, they're "only" against the idea of a Jewish state alright
> 
> 
> Couldn't quote me? Because maybe she isn't you know....fueling white nationalism? I'm not a fan of hers and I don't know what she was trying to say there or if she was reading a teleprompter but I think people are trying to link anything to white nationalism .
> 
> 
> Yah, these horrible racist whites who marry minorities and or have minority children are just super terrible . I met people like you, accuse people of being racist only for them to find out that they're married to someone who is supposedly hateful of that ethnic minority(one of my teachers to be exact). But apparently, you can still be racist and hate blacks or whatever minority you pledge your life towards. Horrible racist people they are


Regarding the candidate, we can stop at the bolded, as she is not "these people" but an individual who deserves to be judged by what she personally has said. It's important to keep the two separate as we need to hold regimes accountable regardless of who or what they happen to be. It would be like never being able to criticise Saudi Arabia without being called islamophobic. 

Regarding the 'demographic changes' video, I don't see the point in quoting posts that are directly previous. What you're describing here doesn't negate the fact that Laura Ingram was stoking white nationalist sentiment. I don't really know how to make that any more explicit.




CamillePunk said:


> She literally said they're HYPNOTIZING the world :lmao


Yes, I forget the nature of modern antisemitism. It's dogwhistling.


----------



## virus21




----------



## CamillePunk

samizayn said:


> Yes, I forget the nature of modern antisemitism. It's dogwhistling.


It's not even as subtle as that. The notion of Jews hypnotizing is a pretty common historical stereotype/slur. Which is hilariously hypocritical and projection on the part of Muslims since deceiving people to further the spread of Islam is *literally* an aspect of jihad, endorsed by Allah Himself in the Quran. But sure, Jews are the ones we shouldn't trust. Not the people who worship a God who literally calls Himself the best deceiver in their holy text.

I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and judge everyone as individuals but trying to portray any group of people as dishonest is not a game that Muslims should be playing, lest anyone be even remotely familiar with the Quran. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1028271447632957441
Aaand people on the left are upset that he didn't specifically call out the racists _they_ don't like. :lol These are not serious people.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Except I did answer your question. I just didn't go down the rabbit hole with you.


A: You didn't answer my question.
B: Are you completely incapable of having a hypothetical conversation?

I perfectly well understand that your ideology dictates that there should be a permanent underclass that lives in poverty and serves the rich. I get that part.

All I am asking of you, which I don't think is too much of an ask, is to ask your opinion of what we should do if you happen to be wrong and the vast majority of work that needs to be done is done by AI/robotics/automation?

Here's a better question. Is your reason for refusing to answer the question because you know I'm right and an admittance of that would invalidate your entire ideology or is it because your brain simply cannot handle the debate question being asked of you?



Headliner said:


> :mj4 :mj4 :mj4 :mj4 :mj4


Yup, that was about the intelligence level I was expecting from your response.

You make issues about race when they are not about race and you do not seek genuine equality. It's not like I'm the first person on this forum to call out your racism. Consider this a reminder and forgive me for repeating myself. I ain't white and you ain't black. We are all one human species. 

Until you figure that out for yourself and start viewing every human being as one race, regardless of skin pigmentation, you will continue being a part of the problem.


----------



## Headliner

Tater said:


> *Yup, that was about the intelligence level I was expecting from your response.
> *
> You make issues about race when they are not about race and you do not seek genuine equality. It's not like I'm the first person on this forum to call out your racism. Consider this a reminder and forgive me for repeating myself. I ain't white and you ain't black. We are all one human species.
> 
> Until you figure that out for yourself and start viewing every human being as one race, regardless of skin pigmentation, you will continue being a part of the problem.


Be very careful. That's all I will say.

As for the rest of your statement, you think I give a fuck about what anyone here thinks of me? There's people on staff that don't like me. I don't care. I stopped caring years ago.

I'm sorry that calling out noticeable patterns of racism and not letting bullshit around here fly is too much for you too handle. If you have a problem, don't respond to me anymore. Ignore my posts.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> A: You didn't answer my question.
> B: Are you completely incapable of having a hypothetical conversation?


I did answer it. 



Tater said:


> Again, for the sake of argument, respond to the question being asked of you. Pretend for a moment that AI/robotics/automation can do 90% of the work that is needed to be done for a functioning society. If that is the case, what is your suggestion as to how we function in that society?





Me said:


> My answer to how we should function in any situation is that we should conduct ourselves morally, i.e not initiate force against anyone and respect private property rights. That will never change regardless of who owns what.


As for hypothetical conversations, it's not a matter of being capable so much as being interested. 



> I perfectly well understand that your ideology dictates that there should be a permanent underclass that lives in poverty and serves the rich.


I disagree. 



> All I am asking of you, which I don't think is too much of an ask, is to ask your opinion of what we should do if you happen to be wrong and the vast majority of work that needs to be done is done by AI/robotics/automation?


In such a situation, I'd do whatever makes me happy, so long as it doesn't involve using force against anyone else. I'd want everyone else to do the same. I know you want me to say we should take stuff from people who have "too much" by force and try and redistribute everything or whatever, but I'm not going to say that because I don't believe that to be justifiable. We're at an impasse here. Get your final condescending remarks in that will grant you the satisfaction you crave from feeling like you are superior in some way and then let's be done with the topic.


----------



## Tater

Headliner said:


> Be very careful. That's all I will say.
> 
> As for the rest of your statement, you think I give a fuck about what anyone here thinks of me? There's people on staff that don't like me. I don't care. I stopped caring years ago.
> 
> I'm sorry that calling out noticeable patterns of racism and not letting bullshit around here fly is too much for you too handle. If you have a problem, don't respond to me anymore. Ignore my posts.


I rest my case.



CamillePunk said:


> I did answer it.
> 
> 
> As for hypothetical conversations, it's not a matter of being capable so much as being interested.
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> In such a situation, I'd do whatever makes me happy, so long as it doesn't involve using force against anyone else. I'd want everyone else to do the same. I know you want me to say we should take stuff from people who have "too much" by force and try and redistribute everything or whatever, but I'm not going to say that because I don't believe that to be justifiable. We're at an impasse here. Get your final condescending remarks in that will grant you the satisfaction you crave from feeling like you are superior in some way and then let's be done with the topic.





> I perfectly well understand that your ideology dictates that there should be a permanent underclass that lives in poverty and serves the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
Click to expand...

Then you have no basic understanding of what your ideology would lead to in a future where most forms of human labor are obsolete. You say you don't believe in using force, yet contradict yourself with an ideology that forces the majority of people to live in poverty while a small handful of people at the top own and control all the world's resources. You're perfectly fine with the rich using the force of their wealth to control society but you call a democratically run society "using force". The fact that you do not understand that nor are willing to admit that letting people die starving in the streets is okay with you because billionaires need a 4th yacht is actually somewhat funny. I don't know if you're lying to yourself or if you truly don't understand what would happen if your ideology was ever implemented but it's interesting to see you try to justify your claimed beliefs.

Rather than asking you to have a conversation about a future where human labor is mostly obsolete, I'm just going to tell you how it's going to play out. The economy is going to collapse. The owners of society will refuse to change the system that led to the collapse. They will try over and over again to build it back up but they will fail because there simply won't be enough jobs to go around anymore. As the jobs disappear and unemployment skyrockets, there will eventually be a violent revolution.

Maybe it's just me but if you truly believed in not using force, you wouldn't support a system that will lead to mass poverty and violence. Here's the concept that you truly do not seem to grasp. Force will always be used in some fashion. I prefer to peacefully use the force of democracy to allow the citizens of a country decide their own fate. You prefer to let the rich use the force of their wealth to control society. The truth is, there will never be a society where some kind of force isn't used. The only choice we have is whether or not that force is used to help the many or help the few.

Capitalism cannot exist without human labor working to make money to buy things. It's collapse is inevitable and the people who own the world now are not going to give up their power willingly. If you knew your history, you'd know that every single time in the history of human civilization that this amount of wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of so few people, that system collapses and oftentimes violently. You are so stubborn in your beliefs that you would rather support a system that will lead to violence than support a system that peacefully transitions us into a future, post-capitalist society. You put a large enough amount of people in a desperate situation with nothing to lose, bad shit happens. Violence happens. _Force_, happens.

I hope one day you will open your eyes to the reality of the situation we're in. They aren't high hopes, but hope nonetheless. I've never thought you are a bad person and I still don't. There's just a lot of things about humanity that you really don't understand.


----------



## CamillePunk

Could be. Guess we'll find out.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1028271447632957441
> Aaand people on the left are upset that he didn't specifically call out the racists _they_ don't like. :lol These are not serious people.


You don't still take Trump seriously do you?

He is so far off the deep end, not sure how anyone can defend him anymore. Even people in this thread.

Please tell me you don't still think Trump is intelligent and stable.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> Could be. Guess we'll find out.


When you're right, you're right.

ositivity


----------



## Vic Capri

It's great. As for others:










- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

samizayn said:


> Let's not conflate antisemitism with anti zionism.


Well you see the problem is that it's hard because so many of the people talking about Palestine keep saying anti-semitic stuff. 

It seems like if someone is leaning a certain way Politically or coming from a certain religion bashes Israel or Jews in general it's accepted, anyone else does it, well they hate the Jews.

Maybe these people wouldn't get looked at as racists if they weren't blaming everything on a certain group of people as if this were 1930's Germany.

Criticize Israel all you want, just stop pretending bigots aren't being bigots. :shrug


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> You don't still take Trump seriously do you?
> 
> He is so far off the deep end, not sure how anyone can defend him anymore. Even people in this thread.
> 
> Please tell me you don't still think Trump is intelligent and stable.


Attacking someone who is condemning all forms of racism. :no:


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> Let's not conflate antisemitism with anti zionism.


Let's not be completely naive either. :draper2


----------



## CamillePunk

Reap said:


> Let's not be completely naive either. :draper2


The modus operandi of well-meaning liberals toward the doctrine of deception and domination. :draper2


----------



## Reaper

CamillePunk said:


> The modus operandi of well-meaning liberals toward the doctrine of deception and domination. :draper2


Even anti-zionism essentially has its roots in anti-Jew conspiracy theories because it basically admits without admitting that Jews have no right to demand a separate state/nation for themselves - even though every other group in the world (especially Muslims) have consistently carved borders for their continued benefit as ethnic groups.

Given how many people still constantly spout jew world domination theories, I'm not surprised that they've gone to such lengths to fortify themselves.


----------



## skypod

The anti-Israel stuff feels much more like the desire to see people of a darker skin colour/Muslims in surrounding countries as the underdogs (which considering the latter - the number of Muslims in the world - is hilarious). People will always cheer for the little man against the big powerful state. 

I'm somewhat thankful there's places like Tel Aviv that can exist in that part of the world with a mix of cultures. Literally can have gay pride parades that march past mosques and churches, and people can wear what they want to the beach. I don't agree with how Israel goes about its defense but it'd be a shame of see the one place where cultures and people can mix be gone from that land.


----------



## Reaper

Arab Muslim states are the richest in the world.
They're also the underdog somehow
Israel should stop expanding but Muslim states should never give back the territories they conquered
Other Muslim states have no responsibility for the Palestinians
We're not anti-Jew, we just think that Israel is a terrorist state
All other territories carved out by the Brits for all other nations can exist except Israel.

The hyper focus on Israel is actually a consequence of several strains of propaganda and yes some of it comes straight out of Jew haters.

It's scary how that unites many elements of the left and the right.


----------



## Draykorinee

What a ridiculously flawed concept, being against religious states be it zionism, caliphate or whatever does not mean you hate that religious people.

This is the kind of nonsense I'd expect from the liberals whenever you're critical of Islam and they just label you islamaphobes.


----------



## Reaper

draykorinee said:


> What a ridiculously flawed concept, being against religious states be it zionism, caliphate or whatever does not mean you hate that religious people.
> 
> This is the kind of nonsense I'd expect from the liberals whenever you're critical of Islam and they just label you islamaphobes.


That's not what I said tho. I said that anti Israeli sentiment _draws_ from anti Jew propaganda. You can be anti Israeli but anti Jew sentiment creates intellectually sounding arguments at times that can be inserted into the dialogue and is frequently done so.

If someone says they're anti Israeli but secretly hate Jews will they or won't they seek support from those who are at least close to your world view by opposing their state?


----------



## CamillePunk

http://alphanewsmn.com/developing-keith-ellison-accused-of-domestic-violence/

Justice Democrats fan favorite and Antifa-endorser Keith Ellison has been accused of domestic violence, with supposed video and text message evidence to back it up. Multiple incidents are alleged to have occurred.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Attacking someone who is condemning all forms of racism. :no:


You did not answer the question. You don't still take seriously, do you?
A simple yes or no will suffice.

You claimed people on the left are not serious people..... 

You can't take Trump seriously anymore can you?


----------



## Miss Sally

Reap said:


> Arab Muslim states are the richest in the world.
> They're also the underdog somehow
> Israel should stop expanding but Muslim states should never give back the territories they conquered
> Other Muslim states have no responsibility for the Palestinians
> We're not anti-Jew, we just think that Israel is a terrorist state
> All other territories carved out by the Brits for all other nations can exist except Israel.
> 
> The hyper focus on Israel is actually a consequence of several strains of propaganda and yes some of it comes straight out of Jew haters.
> 
> It's scary how that unites many elements of the left and the right.


Reaper I got a riddle for you... What group loves complaining about being victimized, hates Jews and loves socialism? :wink2:

You're right on that. When it comes to raging at Israel and Jewish conspiracies it seems to unite many groups in the US. It's like they take turns blaming the Jooooos but call each other racist when they both do it. 

If only Israel could learn from it's open minded and progressive neighbors.. The mid east would have some peace if it wasn't for those pesky Jews!


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Reaper I got a riddle for you... What group loves complaining about being victimized, hates Jews and loves socialism? :wink2:
> 
> You're right on that. When it comes to raging at Israel and Jewish conspiracies it seems to unite many groups in the US. It's like they take turns blaming the Jooooos but call each other racist when they both do it.
> 
> If only Israel could learn from it's open minded and progressive neighbors.. The mid east would have some peace if it wasn't for those pesky Jews!


I would say that the middle eastern propaganda against Israel is one of the primary driving forces behind the growing anti-Israeli sentiment, but many in the west hate Israel and Jews of their own accord. They don't even need that propaganda. 

But one does wonder why so many fake tears are shed for "Palestinians" when none are shed for dozens of other cultures. Where are the tears for Kashmiris? Where are the tears for the thousands of Jews, Parsis, Christians, Hindus that have been driven away from Pakistan? Where are tears for the Tibetians? Where were the tears for the Nepalis when India blockaded relief efforts? The Rohingya and the Buddhists of Myanmar? Where are the tears for the muslim minorities that are regularly beaten and lynched in India. 

THAT is one of the things that I can trace back to anti-Israeli _and _anti-Jew propaganda. Most people that are anti-Israeli know only about that one conflict ... The same group has no clue that many of their shielded minority groups are in conflict with some other group where they are the majority and killing someone else off. 

Once a group acquires protected minority status in the West, it doesn't matter if they're a genocidal majority somewhere else ... That's just my observation.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> You did not answer the question. You don't still take seriously, do you?
> A simple yes or no will suffice.
> 
> You claimed people on the left are not serious people.....
> 
> You can't take Trump seriously anymore can you?


Of course he is to be taken seriously. He's the president and commands the most powerful military force in the history of the world.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Of course he is to be taken seriously. He's the president and commands the most powerful military force in the history of the world.


The rest of the world thinks he is a joke as do most Americans.

Just look at his crazy tweets. He is mentally unstable and not very smart.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> The rest of the world thinks he is a joke as do most Americans.


Well, he's funny like a joke.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Well, he's funny like a joke.


Oh so you finally agree Trump is a joke. Thank god.


----------



## CamillePunk

You were missed, BM. Welcome home.


----------



## Reaper

Well, that Rozalia guy is out ... Was not expecting him to last long hence didn't see any point engaging him. 

He tried so hard, and got so faaar ... But in the end it doesn't even matter.

Glad to see you back in this thread too, Dave :woo

---


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1028713821119102976
Someone brought up an old story involving Ellison .. another one involving physical and emotional abuse.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Ha Ha just taking a peak in here to see what is going on ha.





CamillePunk said:


> http://alphanewsmn.com/developing-keith-ellison-accused-of-domestic-violence/
> 
> Justice Democrats fan favorite and Antifa-endorser Keith Ellison has been accused of domestic violence, with supposed video and text message evidence to back it up. Multiple incidents are alleged to have occurred.


If there is video evidence of domestic abuse, then he needs to step down.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> If there is video evidence of domestic abuse, then he needs to step down.


So video evidence is the standard now? :mj Feel like you had a different standard when it came to Trump's accusers.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> So video evidence is the standard now? :mj Feel like you had a different standard when it came to Trump's accusers.


Trump admitted to just grabbing women by the pussy without asking on video.

Thus he admitted to sexually assaulting women. That was the evidence. If there was a video of Ellison saying the same thing, that would be more than enough evidence to believe he sexually assaulted women without a video of him actually doing it.

Someone said they have a video of Ellison committing the act thus why I said to show the video.

Not sure how this is any different than how I dealt with Trump.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> You were missed, BM. Welcome home.


I generally don't miss a bm but I do sometimes admire the big ones.

Try not to hurt yourself having too much fun. :lol


----------



## Reaper

Aww. We're such a close knit group. 

You know. We should all start our own party.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Of course he is to be taken seriously. He's the president and commands the most powerful military force in the history of the world.


I totally agree and trust him, just as a safeguard policy now though I give his comments at least a 3 day buffer in case he misspoke, and then he needs to come back and clarify that he mentioned to say the exact opposite.

Just a simple mistake that any of us could make at any time.


----------



## CamillePunk

I think giving everyone the benefit of the doubt enough to grant them a clarification window after statements they make is a good idea. (Y)


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> I think giving everyone the benefit of the doubt enough to grant them a clarification window after statements they make is a good idea. (Y)


Absolutely. I've always said that's the hallmark of a top world class deal maker and negotiator, never take what they say completely at face value - give them a little time if they mean the opposite.

My real primary concern is possibly issues with commands to the most powerful military in the world.

'I don't see any reason why we wouldn't bomb Israel - fire!'


----------



## CamillePunk

yeahbaby! said:


> Absolutely. I've always said that's the hallmark of a top world class deal maker and negotiator, never take what they say completely at face value


Well that should be obvious.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> I think giving everyone the benefit of the doubt enough to grant them a clarification window after statements they make is a good idea. (Y)


You can't be serious. The WH is always having to so-called clarify what Trump meant, that is not normal. This sometimes happens a number of times a week when it comes to Trump. 

How many times does Trump and the WH have to contradict each other before you think its a problem?

Just listen to Trump or better yet read his statements in a written form, 90% of the time, he is just incoherently rambling on. 

You really want to defend that?


----------



## Goku

Reap said:


> Aww. We're such a close knit group.
> 
> You know. We should all start our own party.


I'm in. How about a party that does nothing?

I mean we'll campaign and shit but if we get elected, we'll do nothing. The solution to every public problem is 'meh'.


----------



## Reaper

Goku said:


> I'm in. How about a party that does nothing?
> 
> I mean we'll campaign and shit but if we get elected, we'll do nothing. The solution to every public problem is 'meh'.


[emoji38] 

I'm actually seriously considering getting involved in local politics here. Gonna see if I can attend a few Town Hall type things at least to begin with.


----------



## DOPA

Miss Sally said:


> Reaper I got a riddle for you... What group loves complaining about being victimized, hates Jews and loves socialism? :wink2:


I thought you were talking about the British Labour Party! :HA

@Captain Utero


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak

Miss Sally said:


> Reaper I got a riddle for you... What group loves complaining about being victimized, hates Jews and loves socialism? :wink2:
> !


Race nationalists? Both black and white :lol


Hell Nazi's and Black Nationalists have historically gotten on before :lol

https://nationalpost.com/news/the-weird-time-nazis-made-common-cause-with-black-nationalists


:lol


----------



## virus21

> A former girlfriend of U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison has accused him of domestic violence, which Ellison — a DFL candidate for Minnesota attorney general — denied on Sunday.
> 
> The alleged incident between Ellison and Karen Monahan came to light Saturday night after her son posted about it on Facebook. She then confirmed it on Twitter. Ellison responded Sunday in a statement released by his campaign: “Karen and I were in a relationship which ended in 2016, and I still care deeply for her well-being.”
> 
> He also denied dragging her off a bed, and said a video allegedly showing that does not exist because it never happened.
> 
> The allegation roils the race for attorney general, where Ellison has been viewed as the front-runner in Tuesday’s DFL primary.
> 
> A fellow DFL candidate called for a criminal investigation and a national women’s group said Ellison should withdraw and resign from Congress.
> 
> Two Ellison supporters questioned the timing of the allegations days before the primary.
> 
> A Star Tribune reporter went to Monahan’s apartment on Sunday and spoke through a call-box to a woman who said she was Karen Monahan. She said she was not ready to talk and was focused on her children and family. “This is a really difficult time,” she said.
> 
> Monahan’s son, Austin Aslim Monahan, posted that he watched a video on his mother’s computer in which Ellison could be seen dragging Monahan off a bed as he screamed profanities at her.
> 
> “This video does not exist because I never behaved in this way, and any characterization otherwise is false,” Ellison’s statement read.
> 
> On her Twitter account Saturday night, Karen Monahan defended her son’s post: “That was my son who posted it and its true. He wouldn’t lie about his own mom.”
> 
> She reiterated that statement Sunday afternoon, tweeting: “Every statement he made was true. @keithellison, you know you did that to me. I have given every opportunity to get help and heal. Even now, u r willing to say my son is lying and have me continue to leak more text and info just so others will believe him.”
> 
> Austin Monahan said in an interview Saturday night that he did not have the video that he said he saw in 2017. He stood by the veracity of his Facebook post.
> 
> “I only know what I saw and I know what’s true,” he said. “It was my job to stand up for my mother.”
> 
> Of Ellison, he said: “I have no reason to tear down this man.”
> 
> A search of court records found no reports of any incidents between Monahan and Ellison. Monahan, who is an organizer for the Sierra Club, has made numerous Twitter posts in recent weeks about being in an abusive relationship, and more broadly about the MeToo movement; but before Saturday, she never identified Ellison in those posts.
> 
> In one tweet, she said: “I was physically abused, emotional and psychological and sexually manipulated by this man. I am not the first woman he has done this to and I wasn’t the last.”
> 
> Minnesota Public Radio News reported it reviewed more than 100 texts and Twitter messages between Ellison and Monahan that she provided to the station. None included any evidence of the alleged abuse, according to the report, characterizing some as friendly and others as more combative.
> 
> Monahan on Sunday tweeted some texts between her and Ellison, one of which indicated that she did not go public when Ellison’s son was running for office. Jeremiah Ellison was elected to the Minneapolis City Council in November.
> 
> In an e-mail later, Monahan described a relationship where she said she dealt with “narcissist abuse,” including manipulation, lying and victim shaming. In the incident her son was referring to, Monahan said Ellison “tried to drag me off the bed by my legs and feet” while screaming at her the day after they had a fight.
> 
> When she told him she wanted to write about her experience in the relationship, she said Ellison tried to threaten and intimidate her.
> 
> She said she offered him restorative justice and wanted him to seek some sort of help, but he would not take her up on it. “I told him not only he deserved it, but his family and constituents deserve it as well,” she wrote.
> 
> Ellison’s ex-wife, Kim Ellison, defended him on Sunday.
> 
> “I want members of our community to know that the behavior described does not match the character of the Keith I know,” her statement said.
> 
> Ellison is one of five candidates for attorney general. The others are attorney Matt Pelikan, state Rep. Debra Hilstrom, former Ramsey County Attorney Tom Foley and former state Commerce Commissioner Mike Rothman.
> 
> “Domestic Violence is never ok,” Hilstrom wrote on Twitter. “The incidents described are troubling.”
> 
> Foley said the allegations describe criminal behavior, and law enforcement authorities should begin an immediate criminal investigation.
> 
> Ultraviolet, a women’s group, said it stands behind Monahan. “A domestic abuser does not belong in any position of power but particularly not as the top prosecutor in the State,” it said.
> 
> Leni Moore, a supporter of Ellison’s who donated to his campaign, said the allegation does not shake her backing for him and her belief that he would be a good attorney general.
> 
> “I think this is completely unfair for this to be brought up now,” said Moore.
> 
> DFL donor Vance Opperman, who supports Ellison and Rothman, said he generally discounts allegations that pop up shortly before an election, referring to them as an “August surprise.”
> 
> Ellison, an attorney first elected to Congress in 2006, has risen to national prominence in recent years as a leading spokesman for progressive causes. He unsuccessfully ran for chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 2017, subsequently accepting an appointment as the party’s deputy national chairman, which he still holds.
> 
> 
> 
> Staff writer Jeremy Olson contributed to this report.


http://www.startribune.com/u-s-rep-keith-ellison-denies-domestic-violence-allegation/490674981/


----------



## CamillePunk

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...3fff17f0689_story.html?utm_term=.4fcbe75786f1

Peter Strzok fired.  Far too late for the sake of justice but that's how things go with government.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/08/iran-khamenei-war-negotiations-trump-180813135405516.html

Following new sanctions the Supreme Leader of Iran has said there will be no war and no negotiations with the US, and then laid out a bunch of reasons why Iran will not negotiate with the US.

In other words, we're in the midst of a negotiation with Iran. :mj


----------



## Vic Capri

Omarosa's lucky. The US government used to execute people for spying.

- Vic


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Vic Capri said:


> Omarosa's lucky. The US government used to execute people for spying.
> 
> - Vic


Get your head out of Trump's ass man. Sorry I have to say that. Question if Trump could snap his fingers what would you want this country to look like. 

You come off at times as someone who as issues with everyone who is not a Trump supporter.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1027989937470066688

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1028724076859334656
Once again Fake News has been caught out giving a ton of coverage to what is nothing more than political fiction. There are STILL people who believe the lies told in Fire and Fury, and repeated by the media. I imagine it'll be the same way with this book.


----------



## Stephen90

Omarosa spend year's kissing Trump's ass. She's just as scummy as Trump.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1027989937470066688
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1028724076859334656
> Once again Fake News has been caught out giving a ton of coverage to what is nothing more than political fiction. There are STILL people who believe the lies told in Fire and Fury, and repeated by the media. I imagine it'll be the same way with this book.



No one does more fake news than Trump and the WH. Over 70% of the things Trump says are not true.

So if you want to talk about fake news, talk about Trump.


In 558 days, President Trump has made 4,229 false or misleading claims

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?utm_term=.2912f78c2d47


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> No one does more fake news than Trump and the WH. Over 70% of the things Trump says are not true.
> 
> So if you want to talk about fake news, talk about Trump.
> 
> 
> In 558 days, President Trump has made 4,229 false or misleading claims
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?utm_term=.2912f78c2d47


I'm not going to do your job for you, BM.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> I'm not going to do your job for you, BM.


I know because you ignore how Trump is lying the majority of the time.


----------



## yeahbaby!

birthday_massacre said:


> No one does more fake news than Trump and the WH. Over 70% of the things Trump says are not true.
> 
> So if you want to talk about fake news, talk about Trump.
> 
> 
> In 558 days, President Trump has made 4,229 false or misleading claims
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?utm_term=.2912f78c2d47


That's not fair dude, you're mistaken. They were all occasions where Trump misspoke. Could happen to anyone 

Everyone knows all the top business deal makers say things but mean the opposite all the time - we're imperfect animals us human beings.


----------



## Reaper

:done


----------



## yeahbaby!

Ludicrous Administration! GO!


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reap said:


> :done




Sad thing is Flint still does not have clean water and Trump is wasting money with Space Farce.


----------



## DesolationRow

The Afghan War Is Not Going Well, Part VXXXII: http://www.voanews.com/a/taliban-offensive-exposes-fragile-us-hopes-for-afghan-peace-/4526669.html



> Taliban Offensive Exposes Fragile US Hopes for Afghan Peace
> 
> WASHINGTON —
> 
> A year after the Trump administration introduced its strategy for Afghanistan, the Taliban are asserting themselves on the battlefield even as U.S. officials talk up hopes for peace. That's raising questions about the viability of the American game plan for ending a war that began when some of the current U.S. troops were in diapers.
> 
> A Taliban assault on Ghazni, a key city linking areas of Taliban influence barely 75 miles from Kabul, has killed about 100 Afghan security forces and 20 civilians since Friday, the Afghan Defense Ministry said. That has demonstrated the militants' ability to attack, if not hold, a strategic center on the nation's main highway, and highlighted the vulnerability of Afghan security forces.
> 
> Against that turbulent backdrop, some wonder whether President Donald Trump can resist pulling the plug on a war in which the U.S. is still spending $4 billion-plus a year just to keep Afghan forces afloat. He said when he introduced his strategy on Aug. 21, 2017, that his instinct was to withdraw entirely.
> 
> Fighting across the country has intensified in recent weeks despite a fleeting outbreak of peace earlier in the summer. Taliban and the Afghan government called separate, briefly overlapping, national cease fires in June, and the administration has made its own contact with the Taliban in hopes of nudging them into talks with Kabul.
> 
> The strategy revisits an approach that was tried, and failed, under President Barack Obama: increasing military pressure to push the Taliban into peace negotiations with the Afghan government. Signs point to Trump pressing ahead; he is about to send a new Army general, Scott Miller, to take charge of the U.S.-led coalition in Kabul.
> 
> David Sedney, who has worked on Afghan issues as a civilian, including multiple years in Kabul and at the Pentagon, since the war began in October 2001, said he believes the chances for peace are the best they’ve been.
> 
> “That doesn’t mean they’re great,” he said in an interview. “It just means they’re better.”
> 
> Among the meaningful factors at play, Sedney says, is Trump’s announcement a year ago that the U.S. would no longer set time limits on its military support for Afghanistan. This introduced an element of uncertainty for the Taliban, he said. On the other hand, the current U.S. push to draw Taliban leaders into peace negotiations with Kabul must succeed soon, he said, or risk following the failed path of previous efforts.
> 
> Trump also gave the U.S. military more leeway to attack the Taliban, and a few thousand additional U.S. troops were sent to Afghanistan this year as part of an effort to improve the effectiveness of training and advising Afghan ground forces, while also developing a small Afghan air force. The battlefield results have been mixed, however, as the Taliban have managed to preserve their influence in numerous districts.
> 
> Early in 2018 the U.S. military declared Afghanistan to be its top combat priority, supplanting the fight against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria. Key U.S. warplanes, including A-10 ground attack aircraft, were switched to Afghanistan, and the Pentagon introduced a newly formed outfit called a Security Force Assistance Brigade of U.S. soldiers assigned to help Afghan forces closer to the battlefield.
> 
> With Ghazni under threat, the U.S. has dispatched military advisers to assist the Afghan forces in retaking the besieged city, and has launched airstrikes.
> 
> Seth Jones, a longtime watcher of Afghanistan and director of the Transnational Threats Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said it was unlikely the Taliban will be able to hold populated areas of Ghazni for long. The militants have lacked sufficient popular support and military power to hold population centers.
> 
> But the Taliban’s ability to mass forces in multiple areas of Afghanistan at virtually the same time —including in Ghazni, Faryab, Baghlan, and Kunduz provinces — should worry Afghan and U.S. officials. Tribal leaders and local officials had been repeatedly warning Afghan policymakers in Kabul that the Taliban was preparing for a broad offensive in Ghazni, Jones said.
> 
> He remains skeptical the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan will work as he sees no sign that Trump is willing to take what could be a game-changing move: to target the top Taliban leaders in their Pakistan sanctuaries.
> 
> “Much like Bush and Obama, the Trump administration has other areas of the world that it would rather focus on, whether it’s the Korean Peninsula or Iran or China more broadly, and to move on, if possible, from Afghanistan,” Jones said. “If a settlement is the way to do that, then they are willing to give that a shot. The challenge, though, is that it is still not clear to me that the Taliban is seriously interested in peace negotiations” in terms that would be acceptable to the U.S. and the Afghan governments, including making a formal, public break with al-Qaida.
> 
> “The Taliban is willing to talk a little bit about talks, but not to sit down and formally negotiate,” he added. “I think they view time as in their favor and that the longer the war continues, the better their negotiating position.”
> 
> The group has growing regional clout. The Taliban assault on Ghazni began as the head of its political office was wrapping up a rare diplomatic foray in neighboring Uzbekistan.
> 
> Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who helped persuade Trump last summer not to quit Afghanistan, says it’s too early to render judgment on whether peace talks will emerge anytime soon.
> 
> “No doubt the strategy has confronted the Taliban with a reason to go to cease fires ... and to go into discussions” about potential negotiations, he said Aug. 7. “But it is still early in that reconciliation process.”


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> I know because you ignore how Trump is lying the majority of the time.


It's not really relevant to anything I consider important. 



Reap said:


> :done


Except SPACEBALLS is exactly what I would want. :mark: 



birthday_massacre said:


> Sad thing is Flint still does not have clean water and Trump is wasting money with Space Farce.


Elon Musk is on it. 



DesolationRow said:


> The Afghan War Is Not Going Well, Part VXXXII: http://www.voanews.com/a/taliban-offensive-exposes-fragile-us-hopes-for-afghan-peace-/4526669.html


The fact is there can be no victory in Afghanistan and there's no reason for the Taliban to open peace talks. They don't want peace with the US, they want the US to destroy itself by staying in an endless, expensive war indefinitely. That's their whole objective, and Pakistan is backing them all the way. I don't know how more obvious it needs to be. Osama Bin Laden was LIVING THERE and they definitely knew about it. We're not going to war with nuclear Pakistan so it's time to just give up and go home. The fact we're still there is nonsense, and Mad Dog Mattis was wrong to persuade Trump from doing the sensible thing and pulling out. Trump's military fetish worked against him there, unfortunately.


----------



## DesolationRow

CamillePunk said:


> The fact is there can be no victory in Afghanistan and there's no reason for the Taliban to open peace talks. They don't want peace with the US, they want the US to destroy itself by staying in an endless, expensive war indefinitely. That's their whole objective, and Pakistan is backing them all the way. I don't know how more obvious it needs to be. Osama Bin Laden was LIVING THERE and they definitely knew about it. We're not going to war with nuclear Pakistan so it's time to just give up and go home. The fact we're still there is nonsense, and Mad Dog Mattis was wrong to persuade Trump from doing the sensible thing and pulling out. Trump's military fetish worked against him there, unfortunately.


Mad Dog Mattis with the wrong strategy. :no:

You are of course correct. Negotiating usually hinges upon some sort of leverage and the U.S.'s leverage with the Taliban is nonexistent. The Taliban is, though repelled back in fits and starts, largely winning the war. It is literally a sad state of affairs but after spending so much blood and treasure one wonders how much longer and how many more resources are supposed to be dedicated to this, the longest war in the U.S.'s history.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1027989937470066688
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1028724076859334656
> Once again Fake News has been caught out giving a ton of coverage to what is nothing more than political fiction. There are STILL people who believe the lies told in Fire and Fury, and repeated by the media. I imagine it'll be the same way with this book.


There are still people who believe Russia hacked the DNC and stole the emails, costing Hillary the election. People are fucking _dumb_.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Credit to Camille Punk - slippery as ever!


----------



## DesolationRow

Nationalist Sweden Democrats mimicking :trump with campaign statement via a mad series of tweets, "...[W]e will make Sweden safe again." :banderas :lol

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...burned-by-youths-in-southern-sweden-overnight



> More Than 80 Cars Burned by Youths in Southern Sweden Overnight
> 
> By Niklas Magnusson and Rafaela Lindeberg
> 
> August 14, 2018, 12:28 AM PDT
> 
> More than 80 cars were set ablaze in cities across southwestern Sweden overnight as groups of masked youths threw stones and started fires in what may have been a coordinated action.
> 
> In the Frolunda neighborhood of Gothenburg, Sweden’s second-largest city, 31 cars burned and 35 were damaged as a group of 6-8 masked youths threw stones and started fires, according to the police’s website. A further 15 cars were burned by in the northeastern parts of Gothenburg while car fires were also reported in Trollhattan and Helsingborg.
> 
> "As a majority of the fires started within a short time period, it can’t be ruled out that there is a connection," the police said. It’s now interviewing witnesses and looking at surveillance tapes.
> 
> In an interview with Swedish Radio, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven turned directly to the youths who set the cars ablaze.
> 
> “I get angry, for real.,” he said. “Honestly. What are you doing? You are destroying for yourselves, for your parents, for the entire residential area. Society must respond harshly to this."
> 
> Sweden is holding a general election on Sept. 9, with crime and law enforcement being one of the key topics.
> 
> The nationalist Sweden Democrats, which some polls show could emerge as the biggest party in the election, pounced on the overnight chaos.
> 
> “On Sept. 9 we will make Sweden safe again,” the party said in a series of tweets.


Some outlets are insisting that up to 100 cars were set ablaze.


----------



## Reaper

It's the fear of Russia launching another attack on Afghanistan is what's keeping America involved imo. 

TBH, I think that Afghanis might actually be better off under Russian overlords than be allowed to self-govern at this point. What's the worst Russia can do to that country that hasn't already been done to it by everyone else? 

Yes ... I went there.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> There are still people who believe Russia hacked the DNC and stole the emails, costing Hillary the election. People are fucking _dumb_.


Trump is the biggest scapegoat and money maker right now. Wolfe was right, they bitch about Trump and all this stuff but milk his name for millions. 

I could write a book with no facts, nothing but conspiracy nonsense and probably make bank!


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> There are still people who believe Russia hacked the DNC and stole the emails, costing Hillary the election. People are fucking _dumb_.


Do you think Russia TRIED to hack the election?







Miss Sally said:


> Trump is the biggest scapegoat and money maker right now. Wolfe was right, they bitch about Trump and all this stuff but milk his name for millions.
> 
> I could write a book with no facts, nothing but conspiracy nonsense and probably make bank!


LOL at calling Trump a scapegoat, pretty much everything he is being accused of he did.

Trump is one of the most corrupt and incompetent presidents we have seen in the modern era.

How is he a scapegoat?


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is one of the most corrupt and incompetent presidents we have seen in the modern era.


Trump is Obama is Dubya is Clinton is HW is Reagan... maybe if you weren't such a blind partisan hack, you'd be able to see the reality of the situation.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> Trump is Obama is Dubya is Clinton is HW is Reagan... maybe if you weren't such a blind partisan hack, you'd be able to see the reality of the situation.


LOL Love the projection here on your part. You can keep ignoring all the evidence against Trump, but it just shows you can't be honest nor taken seriously.

Also, love how you keep ignoring direct questions.

Did the Russias TRY to hack the election?


EDIT

You keep saying people are dumb for thinking Russia hacked the DNC emails yet here is the timeline of those emails which could show Russia hacked them. But sure they are dumb LOL


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...and-clintons-campaign/?utm_term=.1b5267c4e318

rking with the group travel to the U.S.

2015. Russian-linked hackers allegedly access and steal documents from individuals associated with the Republican Party.

June 16, 2015. Donald Trump announces his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination. Among other things, the announcement is the culmination of years of advocacy on the part of Trump’s longtime friend and adviser, Roger Stone. Stone never takes a position with the campaign.

Feb. 1, 2016. Republican primary voting begins in Iowa.

March 6, 2016. George Papadopoulos is named a foreign-policy adviser by the campaign.

March 15, 2016. The Russian hackers allegedly begin trying to identify vulnerabilities in the network of the Democratic National Committee.

March 19, 2016. Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and others are sent “spear-phishing” emails meant to steal the login credentials for their email accounts.

March 21, 2016. Hackers allegedly gain access to Podesta’s account and steal over 50,000 emails.

March 25-28, 2016. Hackers allegedly target a number of additional campaign staffers with spear-phishing emails. That effort apparently included researching staff on social media.

March 28, 2016. Paul Manafort is hired by the Trump campaign to focus on delegates at the Republican convention. His background includes work for a Russian oligarch close to Putin named Oleg Deripaska.

April 6, 2016. Hackers allegedly sent a purported link to an Excel document named “hillary-clinton-favorable-rating.xlsx” from an email account meant to look like a member of the Clinton campaign team. Clicking the link took staffers to a GRU-controlled website.

The same day, a DCCC employee clicks on a link in a spear-phishing email and provides her credentials to hackers.

April 7, 2016. Hackers allegedly begin trying to identify vulnerabilities in the DCCC network.

April 11, 2016. Manafort emails longtime aide Konstantin Kilimnik (who himself may have ties to Russian intelligence) to ensure the oligarch Deripaska’s “operation” has seen his media coverage, presumably about the Trump campaign. “How do we use to get whole?” he asks.

April 12, 2016. Hackers allegedly gain access to the DCCC network.

April 18, 2016. Hackers allegedly gain access to the DNC network using credentials stolen from a DCCC employee. By June, they’ve allegedly compromised 33 computers, using the same relay system as for the DCCC

April 19, 2016. Hackers register DCLeaks.com after unsuccessfully trying to register ElectionLeaks. The registration is paid with bitcoin, mined by the hackers themselves, in order to mask the hackers’ identity. The domain is registered to “Carrie Feehan” in New York.

April 22, 2016. Hackers allegedly compress and steal several gigabytes of opposition research material.

April 26, 2016. Papadopoulos is told by a Russian-linked professor named Joseph Mifsud that the Russians have “dirt” on Clinton. “They have thousands of emails,” he is told.

April 27, 2016. Papadopoulos emails senior campaign adviser Stephen Miller to say he had “some interesting messages coming in from Moscow about a trip when the time is right.”

Spring 2016. From April through June, hackers allegedly install malware on DCCC computers that allows them to steal information and maintain access to the network. Information from this breach, including screenshots and keystroke information is sent to a server in Arizona via an overseas connection. Files were compressed and then transferred allegedly to a server based in Illinois. Hackers allegedly went back and deleted log file of their activity.

Computers were searched for information based on keywords like “trump.” Folders about the Benghazi investigation and including opposition research are allegedly stolen.

May 2016. Both the DCCC and DNC become aware that their networks have been compromised.

May 25 – June 1, 2016. Hackers allegedly access the DNC’s Microsoft Exchange server and steal thousands of emails.

June 2016. The Russian hackers begin researching information about state boards of election and political parties.

June 3, 2016. Donald Trump Jr. receives an email from a publicist working for a Russian pop star named Emin Agalarov offering to set up a meeting to “provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level,” the email reads, “and sensitive information but is part of Russia and it’s government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

Trump Jr. and Agalarov allegedly talk by phone about the possible meeting; the date is finalized on June 7.

June 8, 2016. DCLeaks launches. The site will eventually publish material allegedly stolen by the hackers including emails, DNC files and information stolen from Republicans in 2015. The same day, the hackers allegedly also create Twitter and Facebook pages for DCLeaks. The computer used to operate the Twitter account was also used to operate Twitter accounts associated with the Russian effort to influence the campaign over social media.

June 9, 2016. Trump Jr., Manafort and Jared Kushner meet at Trump Tower with a Kremlin-linked attorney.

June 12, 2016. In an interview with ITV, WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange says the organization has more emails from Hillary Clinton.

June 14, 2016. With the public revelation that the DNC network had been hacked, the Russians allegedly created the “Guccifer 2.0” persona, mimicking a prominent Romanian hacker from several years prior.

At some point in March or April, hackers allegedly use bitcoin to buy server space and a virtual private network account in Malaysia. The server is used to host DCLeaks.com; the VPN is used in July to update the Guccifer 2.0 Twitter account.

After setting up the domain ActBlues.com, meant to mimic the popular fundraising site ActBlue, hackers allegedly update the DCCC website to point to the new domain.


Code from the DCCC website captured in June 2016 showing a link to the 
“ActBlues” domain. ( Internet Archive )
This same day, The Post reports that Russians accessed the DNC network.

June 15, 2016. In Moscow, Russians use a computer to search for certain expressions like “Illuminati” or “think twice about.” Those phrases and words later appear in Guccifer blog posts.


Gawker publishes an opposition research file on Trump obtained from Guccifer 2.0.

June 22, 2016. An unnamed organization, later indirectly identified in the indictment as WikiLeaks, reaches out to Guccifer 2.0 (apparently over Twitter) to request he/they “end any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing.”

WikiLeaks subsequently requests any information about Clinton over the short term because the Democratic convention was approaching, after which Clinton “will solidify bernie supporters behind her.” WikiLeaks notes that they think “trump has only a 25% chance of winning” so “conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting.”

June 27, 2016. Hackers allegedly contact a reporter offering access to emails stolen from a DNC staffer.

July 2016. Hackers allegedly access the website of a state board of elections and steal detailed information on 500,000 voters. It’s later reported that systems in Illinois and Arizona were compromised with vast amounts of information stolen. (No election results are alleged to have been affected by the hacks.)

Attempts to compromise boards of election continued through the campaign.

July 7, 2016. Manafort contacts Kilimnik again to invite Deripaska to get a private briefing on the campaign.

July 14, 2016. The hackers allegedly send a file to WikiLeaks with instructions on downloading the full archive of DNC documents.

July 18, 2016. WikiLeaks allegedly confirms to Guccifer 2.0 that it has accessed the one-gigabyte file and would publish the documents “this week.”

July 22, 2016. WikiLeaks releases emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee. The Democratic convention begins on the 25th.

July 27, 2016. At a news conference, Trump dismisses the idea that Russia is behind the hacking — and makes a request.

“If it is Russia — which it’s probably not, nobody knows who it is — but if it is Russia, it’s really bad for a different reason, because it shows how little respect they have for our country, when they would hack into a major party and get everything,” he said. “But it would be interesting to see — I will tell you this — Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing [from Clinton’s private server]. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens. That’ll be next.”

Trump’s press conference began in the morning in Florida, late afternoon in Russia. The same day, the GRU hackers allegedly try to access Clinton’s personal email server in addition to targeting 76 more email addresses within the campaign. The indictment doesn’t mention any other attempt to access the server.

1:14
Then-candidate Trump urges Russia to hack Clinton’s emails

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump said he hoped Russia can find Hillary Clinton's emails on July 27, 2016. (Reuters)
July 31, 2016. The FBI begins investigating possible links between the Russian government and Trump’s campaign. The investigation is triggered when Australian authorities contact the agency to say that Papadopoulos had mentioned stolen material in a May conversation with one of their diplomats.

August 2016. Hackers allegedly access information for a software vendor that is used to verify voter registration information. This is likely Florida-based VR Systems, which later sends out an alert about people impersonating the company.

When the FBI sent out an alert about the hacking, some of those involved in the hacking effort allegedly began trying to cover their tracks.

Aug. 5, 2016. Roger Stone writes an essay for Breitbart blaming the DNC hacks solely on Guccifer 2.0 — and not on Russian actors.

Aug. 8, 2016. Stone tells a Republican group that he has been in contact with Julian Assange and that the next documents to be released were related to the Clinton Foundation.

Aug. 9, 2016. WikiLeaks obliquely denies in a tweet having had contact with Stone.

In private messages obtained by the Intercept, the group refers to Stone as a “bulls——” who is “trying to imply that he knows anything.”

Aug. 12, 2016. Guccifer 2.0 releases more information purportedly stolen from the DCCC. The hacker thanks Stone on Twitter for his defense.

Aug. 14, 2016. Stone and Guccifer 2.0 begin having a conversation over Twitter direct messages.

Aug. 15, 2016. The hackers allegedly receive a request from a candidate for Congress through the Guccifer 2.0 identity. They provide information about the candidate’s opponent that was stolen from the DNC. Information stolen from the DCCC about races in Florida and Pennsylvania are released over the next several days.

Aug. 19, 2016. Manafort is fired from the campaign after questions arise about his work in Ukraine.

Aug. 21, 2016. Stone tweets, “Trust me, it will soon [be] Podesta’s time in the barrel.” (Stone’s Twitter account is later suspended.)

Aug. 22, 2016. The hackers allegedly transfer 2.5 gigabytes of data to a lobbyist and blogger in Florida. Aaron Nevins later admits having accepted the data, which included a get-out-the-vote strategy for the Democrats in the state.

Posing as Guccifer 2.0, the hackers on the same day allegedly offer a reporter stolen documents about Black Lives Matter. Those documents are eventually published on DCLeaks.

On Aug. 31, the Washington Examiner publishes a story about how the DNC wanted candidates to approach the subject, citing Guccifer 2.0.

September 2016. Hackers allegedly gain access to virtual DNC computers hosted by a third-party and duplicate their contents.

Sept. 9, 2016. Guccifer 2.0 asks Stone his opinion on a Democratic Party document over Twitter direct message; he offers a curt reply.

Sept. 20, 2016. WikiLeaks messages Trump Jr. privately over Twitter, pointing to a new site linking Putin to Trump. The next day, Trump Jr. responds to say he’ll “ask around” about it. Trump Jr. then emailed senior campaign staff about the message. “Do you know the people mentioned,” he wrote, apparently referring to those behind the Putin-Trump site, “and what the conspiracy they are looking for could be?”

October 2016. The last malware tool allegedly implanted by the Russians is removed from the DNC network.

Oct. 2, 2016. Stone tweets, “[email protected] is done. #WikiLeaks.”

Oct. 3, 2016. Stone tweets, “I have total confidence that @wikileaks and my hero Julian Assange will educate the American people soon. #LockHerUp”

Oct. 5, 2016. Stone tweets, “Libs thinking Assange will stand down are wishful thinking. Payload coming #Lockthemup”

Oct. 6, 2016. With Wednesday having come and gone, Stone again tweets about WikiLeaks: “Julian Assange will deliver a devastating expose on Hillary at a time of his choosing. I stand by my prediction.”

Oct. 7, 2016. WikiLeaks begins releasing documents stolen from Podesta.

Oct. 11, 2016. Podesta tells reporters that he thinks Trump’s campaign was warned about the release of his emails, pointing the finger at Stone.

Oct. 12, 2016. WikiLeaks again contacts Trump Jr. to share a link to file archives. Shortly afterward, the candidate tweets about the leaks.

Oct. 13, 2016. WikiLeaks releases another statement denying contact with Stone. He subsequently contacts the organization over Twitter direct message in an exchange reported by the Atlantic.

Oct. 19, 2016. During the final presidential debate, Trump says Putin has no respect for his opponent, Hillary Clinton. She responds,

“That’s because he’d rather have a puppet as president of the United States.”

“No puppet,” Trump replies. ““You’re the puppet.”

Trump then argues that Clinton doesn’t know who’s behind the hacking, if it’s “Russia, China, or anybody else.”

Nov. 8, 2016. Trump wins the presidency.

January 12, 2017. The Guccifer 2.0 website is updated to deny any connection to the Russian government.

March 1, 2017. The DCLeaks website is shut down.

This article was corrected to fix dates surrounding the launch of the DCLeaks website.


----------



## Stephen90

Ben should just come out and say that he wants more kids so we can have more wars.


----------



## Draykorinee

I know people who didn't have kids who adopted orphans. Ben Shapiro thinks a person's value to society is his or her kids, without them, what have you contributed?. What a fucking moron.

This is controversial with the left... No Ben it's stupid on all levels.


----------



## DOPA

The establishment Democrats have fucking lost it :HA :lmao.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Trump is the biggest scapegoat and money maker right now. Wolfe was right, they bitch about Trump and all this stuff but milk his name for millions.
> 
> I could write a book with no facts, nothing but conspiracy nonsense and probably make bank!


Millions of Democrats still believe Donald Trump was recorded saying the N word while getting peed on by Russian hookers in an elevator!

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> Millions of Democrats still believe Donald Trump was recorded saying the N word while getting peed on by Russian hookers in an elevator!
> 
> - Vic



Because Trump is a racist and it's easy to believe he would be caught on tape using the N word

Not to mention Trump owns tweet, shows that he is worried about there being a tape with him using the N word.

Why else would Trump tweet out that Mark B, assured him that there were no tapes from the Apprentice with him (Trump) saying the N-word

If Trump never uses that word, why would he need Mark B to assure him there was no tape LOL Trump would know if he never uses that word.

There is no common sense when it comes to Trump defenders. The more Trump tweets and rants about something he claims he didn't do, the bigger chance that its true.

Only guilty people act the way, Trump does


----------



## Tag89

Vic Capri said:


> Millions of Democrats still believe Donald Trump was recorded saying the N word while getting peed on by Russian hookers in an elevator!
> 
> - Vic


you sound envious of trump in this scenario


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

birthday_massacre said:


> *Because Trump is a racist* and it's easy to believe he would be caught on tape using the N word
> 
> Not to mention Trump owns tweet, shows that he is worried about there being a tape with him using the N word.
> 
> Why else would Trump tweet out that Mark B, assured him that there were no tapes from the Apprentice with him (Trump) saying the N-word
> 
> If Trump never uses that word, why would he need Mark B to assure him there was no tape LOL Trump would know if he never uses that word.
> 
> There is no common sense when it comes to Trump defenders. The more Trump tweets and rants about something he claims he didn't do, the bigger chance that its true.
> 
> Only guilty people act the way, Trump does












As long as he's doing a capable job as the president (which he has been for the most part), I honestly don't care if he is or isn't racist. Especially since that word has been spammed so much that it's very hard to take it seriously.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> As long as he's doing a capable job as the president (which he has been for the most part), I honestly don't care if he is or isn't racist. Especially since that word has been spammed so much that it's very hard to take it seriously.


I have given you citations begore on Trump being a racist. If you don't think he is a racist it makes me wonder about you.

And Trump is not doing a capable job as the president again if you think he is, It makes me wonder about you.

Trump has been a total disaster as presdent. 

As for the word racist being spammed, yeah because of Trump all the racist in the country are openly racist again. They don't even dog whistle anymore about their racism.

I do see nothing has really changed in this thread when it comes to defending Trump. Just ignore all the facts and evidence, its what you guys do best.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

birthday_massacre said:


> I have given you citations begore on Trump being a racist. If you don't think he is a racist it makes me wonder about you.
> 
> And Trump is not doing a capable job as the president again if you think he is, It makes me wonder about you.
> 
> Trump has been a total disaster as presdent.
> 
> As for the word racist being spammed, yeah because of Trump all the racist in the country are openly racist again. They don't even dog whistle anymore about their racism.
> 
> I do see nothing has really changed in this thread when it comes to defending Trump. Just ignore all the facts and evidence, its what you guys do best.


You gave us him saying hilariously brash / outlandish shit on Twitter. Unless he says or does something that actually constitutes as racism, your buzzword spam means nothing of significance. And again, who cares if he may be racist? He's not actively attempting to initiate any racist policies despite being the leader of the free world.

Considering the economy has picked up at a reasonable pace and he is an integral part to the Korean War being on the cusp of ending, I'd say he's done pretty damn well as president. Honestly, the only things off the top of my head that I'd like to see from him in the immediate future is to cut government spending alongside his tax cut; sack Jeff Sessions and finally end the war on drugs; and get to work on a viable end to our occupation in Afghanistan.

But if you have a viable alternative to Teflon Don, by all means propose them. :trump3


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> As long as he's doing a capable job as the president (which he has been for the most part), I honestly don't care if he is or isn't racist. Especially since that word has been spammed so much that it's very hard to take it seriously.


Google the Central Park Five


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

The Hardcore Show said:


> Google the Central Park Five


Google the Armstrong Report.

When you factor that in, it's not surprising at all that Trump has remained steadfast to his opinion on the CP5. And again, just because he's harsh on them does not mean he's racist because they just so happen to be racial minorities.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> You gave us him saying hilariously brash / outlandish shit on Twitter. Unless he says or does something that actually constitutes as racism, your buzzword spam means nothing of significance. And again, who cares if he may be racist? He's not actively attempting to initiate any racist policies despite being the leader of the free world.
> 
> Considering the economy has picked up at a reasonable pace and he is an integral part to the Korean War being on the cusp of ending, I'd say he's done pretty damn well as presiden*t. Honestly, the only things off the top of my head that I'd like to see from him in the immediate future is to cut government spending alongside his tax cut; sack Jeff Sessions and finally end the war on drugs; and get to work on a viable end to our occupation in Afghanistan.
> *
> But if you have a viable alternative to Teflon Don, by all means propose them. :trump3


Don't you want the wall built and ObamaCare destroyed? You know, 2 of the biggest platforms he ran on?

When will he be draining the swamp? Of course he's drained plenty of his own administration haha...


----------



## Stinger Fan

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Google the Armstrong Report.
> 
> When you factor that in, it's not surprising at all that Trump has remained steadfast to his opinion on the CP5. And again, just because he's harsh on them does not mean he's racist because they just so happen to be racial minorities.


Regardless of which case it is, people usually will be divided when there's a confession involved. I believe 4 of the 5 made confessions too


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

yeahbaby! said:


> Don't you want the wall built and ObamaCare destroyed? You know, 2 of the biggest platforms he ran on?
> 
> When will he be draining the swamp? Of course he's drained plenty of his own administration haha...


Of course. But again, I was talking about things in the *immediate future*. Better luck next time. :trump3

I want Sessions torpedoed ASAP, same goes for Pompeo and Bolton. However, I'm confident that the latter two will be shafted once they've served their purpose as Trump's attack dogs in regard to ensuring that the Korean War finally comes to a close.



Stinger Fan said:


> Regardless of which case it is, people usually will be divided when there's a confession involved. I believe 4 of the 5 made confessions too


What struck me as interesting was that the self-professed perpetrator was made as the general end-all be-all in regard to closing the case, yet his confession wasn't necessarily foolproof because *surprise* he's a serial rapist and murderer.

Couple that with the CP5's respective descriptions of the incident actually having consistency among each other per the Armstrong Report and I'm not beyond the notion that they were, at the very bare minimum, actually there to see the attack unfold.


----------



## Stephen90

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Google the Armstrong Report.
> 
> When you factor that in, it's not surprising at all that Trump has remained steadfast to his opinion on the CP5. And again, just because he's harsh on them does not mean he's racist because they just so happen to be racial minorities.


Yet he also refused to lease out his apartment to black families
www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/02/trump-fbi-files-discrimination-case-235067

FBI releases files on Trump apartments' race discrimination probe in '70s
By JOSH GERSTEIN 02/15/2017 05:47 PM EST
The FBI has released nearly 400 pages of records on an investigation the bureau conducted in the 1970s into alleged racial discrimination in the rental of apartments from President Donald Trump's real estate company.

The files detail dozens of interviews the bureau conducted with Trump building tenants, management and employees, seeking indications that minority tenants were steered away from housing complexes.

Most of those interviewed said they were not aware of any discrimination. However, some of the records recount the stories of black rental applicants who said they were told no apartments were available, while whites sent to check on the same apartments were offered leases.

The records, posted on the FBI's Freedom of Information Act website, include a 1974 interview with a former doorman at a Trump building in Brooklyn.

A supervisor "told me that if a black person came to 2650 Ocean Parkway and inquired about an apartment for rent, and he, that is [redacted] was not there at the time, that I should tell him that the rent was twice as much as it really was, in order that he could not afford the apartment," the ex-doorman said.
Many of the accounts of discrimination appear to have originated with the National Urban League, which relayed the information to the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Some of those complaints are barely legible, and many of the records are heavily redacted.

In October 1973, the Civil Rights Division filed a lawsuit against Trump Management Company, Donald Trump and his father Fred Trump, alleging that African-Americans and Puerto Ricans were systematically excluded from apartments. The Trumps responded with a $100 million countersuit accusing the government of defamation.

Donald Trump denied any racial discrimination, but said his managers tried to weed out certain kinds of tenants. “What we didn’t do was rent to welfare cases, white or black," Trump wrote in a 1987 book.

The Trumps and their company entered into a consent decree settling the litigation in 1975. The agreement contained no admission of wrongdoing, but required the Trump firm to institute a series of safeguards to make sure apartments were rented without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin


----------



## yeahbaby!

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Of course. But again, I was talking about things in the *immediate future*. Better luck next time. :trump3


Cool, can't fault you there, thanks for clarifying in a way that wasn't a complete Trump-esque 180 - no problem with that :trump3

What do you think is a reasonable timeframe for the wall and O-Care megadestruction?


----------



## Tater

draykorinee said:


> I know people who didn't have kids who adopted orphans. Ben Shapiro thinks a person's value to society is his or her kids, without them, what have you contributed?. What a fucking moron.
> 
> This is controversial with the left... No Ben it's stupid on all levels.


I was adopted at 4 months old. Sadly, my dad Joe Tate, who I got my name Tate from, died when I was barely a month past 4 years old. He was on his way to work in the morning and a drunk driving home swerved over and hit him head on. But I digress...

Just this last week, a good friend of mine who lives in North Carolina, who I have never met in person but have been friends with both him and his wife for over ten years who I met on an online forum, just adopted a 14 year old daughter. He texted me a picture of them driving her home for the first time. It warmed my heart beyond words.

Fuck Ben Shapiro. I'm getting a little old myself. My 39th birthday is this Saturday, August the 18th. I was born in '79. If I ever find myself a wife, I would also consider adoption. Some of the best people I know have been or have adopted.

We live in a fucked up world and there are a lot of kids out there that need good parents. Adopting a parentless child is one of the most honorable things you can do.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Tater said:


> I was adopted at 4 months old. Sadly, my dad Joe Tate, who I got my name Tate from, died when I was barely a month past 4 years old. He was on his way to work in the morning and a drunk driving home swerved over and hit him head on. But I digress...
> 
> Just this last week, a good friend of mine who lives in North Carolina, who I have never met in person but have been friends with both him and his wife for over ten years who I met on an online forum, just adopted a 14 year old daughter. He texted me a picture of them driving her home for the first time. It warmed my heart beyond words.
> 
> Fuck Ben Shapiro. I'm getting a little old myself. My 39th birthday is this Saturday, August the 18th. I was born in '79. If I ever find myself a wife, I would also consider adoption. Some of the best people I know have been or have adopted.
> 
> We live in a fucked up world and there are a lot of kids out there that need good parents. Adopting a parentless child is one of the most honorable things you can do.


Well, Ben Shapiro has always been in favor of adoption, especially as a means to avoid abortion. I'm pretty sure he's praised people in the past who do adopt children, I can't remember if it was from an email or a speech he gave. The idea of not having kids on purpose because a couple wants "freedom" or to keep more money to themselves or what have you, is inherently selfish.... its actually the definition of being selfish. However, not everything that is selfish is actually bad or deserves criticism. This is where I disagree with him and the idea that you you don't contribute to society without having kids. Maybe he means something else, and got caught up in wanting to criticize the left I don't know but I do know he's always been in favor of adoption


----------



## Tater

Stinger Fan said:


> Well, Ben Shapiro has always been in favor of adoption, especially as a means to avoid abortion. I'm pretty sure he's praised people in the past who do adopt children, I can't remember if it was from an email or a speech he gave. The idea of not having kids on purpose because a couple wants "freedom" or to keep more money to themselves or what have you, is inherently selfish.... its actually the definition of being selfish. However, not everything that is selfish is actually bad or deserves criticism. This is where I disagree with him and the idea that you you don't contribute to society without having kids. Maybe he means something else, and got caught up in wanting to criticize the left I don't know but I do know he's always been in favor of adoption


Ben Shitpiro has been in favor of every war mongering tactic that the USA has ever used.

As George Carlin pointed out, people like Ben Shapiro want live babies so they can grow up to be dead soldiers. Fuck Ben Shapiro.


----------



## CamillePunk

I don't think Ben was criticizing people who adopt kids...


----------



## deepelemblues

John Brennan's security clearance has been revoked :dance

He and his boss the Jug Eared Fool should both be in jail for shredding the constitution so the NSA and CIA could spy on basically every American citizen. Then Brennan perjured himself before Congress regarding it. But this will do I guess :draper2


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> I don't think Ben was criticizing people who adopt kids...


Ya don't really get to have it both ways. You can't claim to be pro-life and be pro-war at the same time. Ben Shapiro is a fucking hypocrite.


----------



## Headliner

deepelemblues said:


> John Brennan's security clearance has been revoked <img src="http://i.imgur.com/08SsI8o.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Dance" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> He and his boss the Jug Eared Fool should both be in jail for shredding the constitution so the NSA and CIA could spy on basically every American citizen. Then Brennan perjured himself before Congress regarding it. But this will do I guess <img src="http://i.imgur.com/7KU7Fqx.png" border="0" alt="" title="Draper" class="inlineimg" />


:mj4 Stop.

Ex-intelligence officials maintain security clearances just in case of a national security emergency. That way all of the nation's top experts can come together for the best solutions. Current intelligence chiefs will occasionally reach out to their predecessor to discuss sensitive information and to get their input. The same way Presidents reached out to their predecessor.

What Trump did was very authoritarian. He revoked someone's clearance simply because he criticized him. That's dangerous. 

But, I don't expect anyone in here to get it.


----------



## CamillePunk

Tater said:


> Ya don't really get to have it both ways. You can't claim to be pro-life and be pro-war at the same time. Ben Shapiro is a fucking hypocrite.


I agree, doesn't mean he thinks people who adopt are selfish though.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

Headliner said:


> :mj4 Stop.
> 
> Ex-intelligence officials maintain security clearances just in case of a national security emergency. That way all of the nation's top experts can come together for the best solutions. Current intelligence chiefs will occasionally reach out to their predecessor to discuss sensitive information and to get their input. The same way Presidents reached out to their predecessor.
> 
> What Trump did was very authoritarian. He revoked someone's clearance simply because he criticized him. That's dangerous.
> 
> But, I don't expect anyone in here to get it.


They won't they want him to burn the country to the ground because they think it cannot work anymore. Some also Headliner really feel that if you don't support him or people who think like him you are some kind of enemy.


----------



## deepelemblues

Headliner said:


> :mj4 Stop.
> 
> Ex-intelligence officials maintain security clearances just in case of a national security emergency. That way all of the nation's top experts can come together for the best solutions. Current intelligence chiefs will occasionally reach out to their predecessor to discuss sensitive information and to get their input. The same way Presidents reached out to their predecessor.
> 
> What Trump did was very authoritarian. He revoked someone's clearance simply because he criticized him. That's dangerous.
> 
> But, I don't expect anyone in here to get it.


No. 

What :trump did was entirely appropriate and your opposition to it only further confirms that his action was correct. Brennan violated the constitution to spy on millions of Americans, and then he perjured himself in testimony to congress said spying. He should be behind bars. 

But, I don't expect you to get it. 

Defending John Brennan :heston 



The Hardcore Show said:


> They won't they want him to burn the country to the ground because they think it cannot work anymore. Some also Headliner really feel that if you don't support him or people who think like him you are some kind of enemy.


You really should seek some kind of help, you have delusions of strangers looking at you as an "enemy" and wanting to get you in some way and it is not good for you.


----------



## Tater

Headliner said:


> But, I don't expect anyone in here to get it.


I don't expect you would. Maybe if you spent more time in this thread, you'd understand it a little better.



CamillePunk said:


> I agree, doesn't mean he thinks people who adopt are selfish though.


Fair point. Doesn't mean he's not a hypocritical jackass. :lol


----------



## Headliner

deepelemblues said:


> No.
> 
> What :trump did was entirely appropriate and your opposition to it only further confirms that his action was correct. Brennan violated the constitution to spy on millions of Americans, and then he perjured himself in testimony to congress said spying. He should be behind bars.
> 
> But, I don't expect you to get it.
> 
> Defending John Brennan :heston
> 
> 
> 
> You really should seek some kind of help, you have delusions of strangers looking at you as an "enemy" and wanting to get you in some way and it is not good for you.


You're so far gone. You're 100% fine with Trump using his power to attack his political enemies because you can make up shit to justify Trump's actions.

Let's talk about perjury. Don Jr and Roger Stone most likely committed perjury. Should they be in jail?


----------



## Tater

@Headliner

In the glorious words of En Vogue...

_Free your mind and the rest will follow. Be color blind, don't be so shallow._


----------



## deepelemblues

Headliner said:


> You're so far gone. You're 100% fine with Trump using his power to attack his political enemies because you can make up shit to justify Trump's actions.
> 
> Let's talk about perjury. Don Jr and Roger Stone most likely committed perjury. Should they be in jail?


Don Jr hasn't testified in court or before congress to my knowledge. Has Roger Stone?

If they have and if they committed perjury, then yes, they should be punished including jail time. Perjury is a serious offense.

Make up shit?

John Brennan 100% undeniably lied to the United States Senate about his participation in and oversight of unconstitutional CIA spying, and lied in his testimony about CIA use of torture.

That's perjury. It alone is sufficient justification to revoke his security clearance, if you have an interest in integrity at least.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...uld-fire-john-brennan/?utm_term=.fed6684f11ac
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-director-john-brennan-lied-senate

James Clapper also perjured himself before congress regarding CIA spying on Americans and should also have his security clearance revoked and charges brought against him.

Defending CIA scum John Brennan by exposing your own ignorance of his iniquities and resorting to whataboutism :bryanlol

His actions regarding the fake Steele dossier were also extremely unethical and were integral to the deliberate attempts to use the powers of the CIA and FBI to manufacture charges against a candidate for the presidency of the United States, attempts which, based on false premises, to this day are still ongoing, with the goal of undoing the results of a legitimate election, because CIA scum Brennan and his buddies can't stand that a man they hate is president. 

It's hilarious the way you speak while you're just fine with the CIA and FBI attempting to influence an election through manufactured information, and then when that failed, to undo the results that election, based on political and personal differences with the candidate and then the Executive.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> @Headliner
> 
> In the glorious words of En Vogue...
> 
> _Free your mind and the rest will follow. Be color blind, don't be so shallow._


It pretty sad how you have turned into a troll just like deepelemblues. SMH

Since you cant defend Trump anymore and his corruption so instead of trying to refute things now you just make trolling comments.

You should be proud of yourself.


----------



## CamillePunk

lol Tater that rabid Trump Supporter :no: You tell him, BM.


----------



## deepelemblues

Oh yeah Brennan also lied to congress in 2017 when he denied that the CIA knew who had commissioned the Steele dossier, and that the CIA had not once used on the Steele dossier's contents to formulate intelligence assessments or for any other action. Mike Rogers and James Clapper both contradicted Brennan's claims on those two points. 

He also lied to congress in 2011 about civilian deaths resulting from drone strikes.

He lied when Senator Dianne Feinstein asked him about the CIA illegally accessing Senate staffers' computers when the Senate was investigating CIA torture.

The man is a serial perjurer, he has lied to congress at least a half dozen times in the last decade, he's CIA scum and it's :booklel that anyone would defend him.


----------



## Headliner

deepelemblues said:


> Don Jr hasn't testified in court or before congress to my knowledge. Has Roger Stone?
> 
> If they have and if they committed perjury, then yes, they should be punished including jail time. Perjury is a serious offense.
> 
> Make up shit?
> 
> John Brennan 100% undeniably lied to the United States Senate about his participation in and oversight of unconstitutional CIA spying, and lied in his testimony about CIA use of torture.
> 
> That's perjury. It alone is sufficient justification to revoke his security clearance, if you have an interest in integrity at least.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...uld-fire-john-brennan/?utm_term=.fed6684f11ac
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-director-john-brennan-lied-senate
> 
> James Clapper also perjured himself before congress regarding CIA spying on Americans and should also have his security clearance revoked and charges brought against him.
> 
> Defending CIA scum John Brennan by exposing your own ignorance of his iniquities and resorting to whataboutism :bryanlol
> 
> His actions regarding the fake Steele dossier were also extremely unethical and were integral to the deliberate attempts to use the powers of the CIA and FBI to manufacture charges against a candidate for the presidency of the United States, attempts which, based on false premises, to this day are still ongoing, with the goal of undoing the results of a legitimate election, because CIA scum Brennan and his buddies can't stand that a man they hate is president.
> 
> It's hilarious the way you speak while you're just fine with the CIA and FBI attempting to influence an election through manufactured information, and then when that failed, to undo the results that election, based on political and personal differences with the candidate and then the Executive.


Yes they have both testified. Roger Stone in the House. Don Jr in the Senate. 

Yes, make up shit. I read the official statement from Trump. Trump didn't know shit about any of these dudes until he became President and they started criticizing him for his behavior. The truth is he wanted to get rid of his clearance because he criticized him but to make it look more legit, he asked people to find stuff to make his decision seem more legitimate. But people who aren't drinking the kool aid know Trump's true intentions.

If Trump really knew in advance, which he didn't, and cared, which he doesn't, he would have removed it on day 1.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Stephen90 said:


> Yet he also refused to lease out his apartment to black families
> www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/02/trump-fbi-files-discrimination-case-235067
> 
> FBI releases files on Trump apartments' race discrimination probe in '70s
> By JOSH GERSTEIN 02/15/2017 05:47 PM EST
> The FBI has released nearly 400 pages of records on an investigation the bureau conducted in the 1970s into alleged racial discrimination in the rental of apartments from President Donald Trump's real estate company.
> 
> The files detail dozens of interviews the bureau conducted with Trump building tenants, management and employees, seeking indications that minority tenants were steered away from housing complexes.
> 
> *Most of those interviewed said they were not aware of any discrimination.* However, some of the records recount the stories of black rental applicants who said they were told no apartments were available, while whites sent to check on the same apartments were offered leases.
> 
> The records, posted on the FBI's Freedom of Information Act website, include a 1974 interview with a former doorman at a Trump building in Brooklyn.
> 
> A supervisor "told me that if a black person came to 2650 Ocean Parkway and inquired about an apartment for rent, and he, that is [redacted] was not there at the time, that I should tell him that the rent was twice as much as it really was, in order that he could not afford the apartment," the ex-doorman said.
> Many of the accounts of discrimination appear to have originated with the National Urban League, which relayed the information to the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Some of those complaints are barely legible, and many of the records are heavily redacted.
> 
> In October 1973, the Civil Rights Division filed a lawsuit against Trump Management Company, Donald Trump and his father Fred Trump, alleging that African-Americans and Puerto Ricans were systematically excluded from apartments. The Trumps responded with a $100 million countersuit accusing the government of defamation.
> 
> Donald Trump denied any racial discrimination, but said his managers tried to weed out certain kinds of tenants. “What we didn’t do was rent to welfare cases, white or black," Trump wrote in a 1987 book.
> 
> The Trumps and their company entered into a consent decree settling the litigation in 1975. The agreement contained no admission of wrongdoing, but required the Trump firm to institute a series of safeguards to make sure apartments were rented without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin


The bolded part sticks out to me in particular because if Trump was truly an irredeemably virulent racist, then why did the majority of racial minorities who sought to become tenants didn't feel as though they were discriminated against?

I'm not opposed to the notion that the ones who brought their case may have encountered discrimination of some sort. Conversely, however, I wouldn't be surprised at all that they were denied leases because they may have very well had been shifty to some degree. And no, being on welfare doesn't automatically mean you're shifty, although there are a *lot* of shifty people on welfare.

Ultimately, Trump stuck to his guns in the '75 case, but nevertheless followed the order to institute safeguards to ensure no type of bias whatsoever fell through the cracks. If he was indeed Cheeto Hitler, he would've dug his heels and not given them an inch.



yeahbaby! said:


> Cool, can't fault you there, thanks for clarifying in a way that wasn't a complete Trump-esque 180 - no problem with that :trump3
> 
> What do you think is a reasonable timeframe for the wall and O-Care megadestruction?


No worries, brah. :trump

I expect that the wall's ball will finally get rolling past the prototype phase once the Dems' top brass realize that they're losing more and more relevance as time marches on and finally cave to Trump's demand in order to save some degree of face under the guise of bipartisanship.

Wouldn't be surprised at all if Obamacare isn't totally dismantled by the end of a potential second Trump term. Ultimately, that failure falls on Congress' lap more than any other because of the incessant partisan hackery on both sides ("We have to pass it to actually see what's in it" from the Dems and toothless, pussy-ass threats at dismantling it from the Repubs).


----------



## yeahbaby!

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> No worries, brah. :trump
> 
> I expect that the wall's ball will finally get rolling past the prototype phase once the Dems' top brass realize that they're losing more and more relevance as time marches on and finally cave to Trump's demand in order to save some degree of face under the guise of bipartisanship.


Scuse my ignorance what do the dems have to do to get the wall happening? Do they need to approve it in the senate or something? I thought Trump already had all that approved in that sense.

Is Mexico still paying?


----------



## Vic Capri

Just another day in the President Trump thread.






- Vic


----------



## Goku

I must say, you guys play this game really well.

Not looking forward to when it burns itself out and everyone's out of ideas.


----------



## Art Vandaley

yeahbaby! said:


> Scuse my ignorance what do the dems have to do to get the wall happening? Do they need to approve it in the senate or something? I thought Trump already had all that approved in that sense.
> 
> Is Mexico still paying?


Of course, but they're also going to be getting an entirely unrelated economic aid package for about the cost of the wall with some spare change for being such good neighbors and paying for the wall.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

Brennan's honesty or lack thereof are not the story here, it doesn't matter if he's a patriot or a lying scumbag. The really important thing to take away from this is the continuing deterioration of the relationship between Mr. Trump and his intelligence agencies.

You can love him or you can hate him, but I assume we can all agree that it is imperative for a President to have a good working relationship with his own agencies? 

He is in a dangerous place. And I don't mean just politically, I mean that in a literal physical sense. He is viewed as a Russian puppet, an accusation which is dangerous in itself, even without taking into account the truth of it. And now he is alienating those within the government who have the power to personally harm him.

Consider what the CIA does, and then consider what they might do to a President perceived as a traitor, who punishes their own members for speaking out against him?


----------



## Headliner

ForYourOwnGood said:


> Brennan's honesty or lack thereof are not the story here, it doesn't matter if he's a patriot or a lying scumbag. The really important thing to take away from this is the continuing deterioration of the relationship between Mr. Trump and his intelligence agencies.
> 
> You can love him or you can hate him, but I assume we can all agree that it is imperative for a President to have a good working relationship with his own agencies?
> 
> He is in a dangerous place. And I don't mean just politically, I mean that in a literal physical sense. He is viewed as a Russian puppet, an accusation which is dangerous in itself, even without taking into account the truth of it. And now he is alienating those within the government who have the power to personally harm him.
> 
> Consider what the CIA does, and then consider what they might do to a President perceived as a traitor, who punishes their own members for speaking out against him?


Did you read what Trump said to the Wall Street journal last night about why he removed the clearance? He said and I quote "I think that whole - I call it the rigged witch hunt - is a sham. And these people led it. So I think it's something that had to be done."

Dangerous and self-serving. He's desperate.


----------



## Dr. Ian Malcolm




----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> lol Tater that rabid Trump Supporter :no: You tell him, BM.


Some days, I find it really difficult to disagree with you. (Y)



ForYourOwnGood said:


> Brennan's honesty or lack thereof are not the story here, it doesn't matter if he's a patriot or a lying scumbag. The really important thing to take away from this is the continuing deterioration of the relationship between Mr. Trump and his intelligence agencies.
> 
> You can love him or you can hate him, but I assume we can all agree that it is imperative for a President to have a good working relationship with his own agencies?
> 
> He is in a dangerous place. And I don't mean just politically, I mean that in a literal physical sense. He is viewed as a Russian puppet, an accusation which is dangerous in itself, even without taking into account the truth of it. And now he is alienating those within the government who have the power to personally harm him.
> 
> *Consider what the CIA does*, and then consider what they might do to a President perceived as a traitor, who punishes their own members for speaking out against him?


Jimmy Dore had John Kiriakao on recently and if there is anyone who can speak to what goes on in the CIA, it's him.


----------



## Miss Sally

So known CIA liars are supposed to be our trustworthy source of information?

The CIA that manipulates elections around the world, spies on it's own people and commits terrible acts?

It's crazy how the FBI/CIA are pretty much exposing themselves for what they are and only a few find this troubling.

I thought Politicians were corrupt but these guys are just awful. This whole situation is a shit show.

Makes me wonder why Trump legalized the illegal spying that went on during the Obama Administration.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> So known CIA liars are supposed to be our trustworthy source of information?
> 
> The CIA that manipulates elections around the world, spies on it's own people and commits terrible acts?
> 
> It's crazy how the FBI/CIA are pretty much exposing themselves for what they are and only a few find this troubling.
> 
> I thought Politicians were corrupt but these guys are just awful. This whole situation is a shit show.
> 
> Makes me wonder why Trump legalized the illegal spying that went on during the Obama Administration.


No one is a bigger liar than Trump.

Also, no one exposes themselves and corruption more than Trump.

Do you still trust Trump?


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> No one is a bigger liar than Trump.
> 
> Also, no one exposes themselves and corruption more than Trump.
> 
> Do you still trust Trump?


I hate to break it to ya but the lying shitshow in DC has existed a lot longer than Trump. He's just the shitshow that is shining a light on all the rest of the shitshows taking place there.

Here's what you need to learn: Opposing Trump is not enough. You've got liberal fucking garbage now rehabilitating neocons like Dubya and Bill Kristol solely because they don't like Trump. News'fucking'flash, the whole goddamned reason they don't like Trump is because Trump is such a fucking jackass, he is turning the American public against the Establishment. The one thing they want above all else is to reestablish the status quo. They want us all to remain slaves to the system that gave us Trump in the first place.

If you're too blind to see that, it sounds like a personal problem. Here's a suggestion: don't be a fucking partisan hack. Have some goddamned principles and stick by them. 

You can thank me later.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> I hate to break it to ya but the lying shitshow in DC has existed a lot longer than Trump. He's just the shitshow that is shining a light on all the rest of the shitshows taking place there.
> 
> Here's what you need to learn: Opposing Trump is not enough. You've got liberal fucking garbage now rehabilitating neocons like Dubya and Bill Kristol solely because they don't like Trump. News'fucking'flash, the whole goddamned reason they don't like Trump is because Trump is such a fucking jackass, he is turning the American public against the Establishment. The one thing they want above all else is to reestablish the status quo. They want us all to remain slaves to the system that gave us Trump in the first place.
> 
> If you're too blind to see that, it sounds like a personal problem. Here's a suggestion: don't be a fucking partisan hack. Have some goddamned principles and stick by them.
> 
> You can thank me later.


Nice deflection there.

Something you don't get, Trump IS THE ESTABLISHMENT, he just turns against other establishment people that don't kiss his ass and agree with everything he says and does. 

Are you going to really claim Trump isn't the establishment, isn't the swamp?

Also true liberals and progressives don't want things to return to status quo, so nice strawman argument there.


----------



## Tater

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump IS THE ESTABLISHMENT


No fucking shit, Sherlock. Figure that all on your own? If you had any reading comprehension skills, you'd have known that was exactly what I was saying. Trump is waking people up to how fucked up the Establishment is, which is why they hate him so much. They don't like their bullshit being exposed to the public. All Trump is doing is putting an ugly face on all the same shit they have been doing for decades.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

yeahbaby! said:


> Scuse my ignorance *what do the dems have to do to get the wall happening?* Do they need to approve it in the senate or something? I thought Trump already had all that approved in that sense.
> 
> Is Mexico still paying?


Simply give the OK for it like the House did:

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/3...ending-bill-with-funds-for-trumps-border-wall

If they don't want to, that's fine. They'll come off as utter hypocrites when it comes to obstruction of any kind and thus further make their blue wave an even bigger joke than it already is.

Mexico literally paying for it is essentially a meme, but them metaphorically paying for it is very plausible once their free ride is over in the event of the wall being constructed.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Simply give the OK for it like the House did:
> 
> http://thehill.com/homenews/house/3...ending-bill-with-funds-for-trumps-border-wall
> 
> If they don't want to, that's fine. They'll come off as utter hypocrites when it comes to obstruction of any kind and thus further make their blue wave an even bigger joke than it already is.
> 
> Mexico literally paying for it is essentially a meme, but them metaphorically paying for it is very plausible once their free ride is over in the event of the wall being constructed.


Ah I see the Dems have to approve at the next stage so to speak and chances are they may pop the balloon.


Mexico literally paying for it is not essentially a meme. It came out of Trump's own mouth and here's the proof:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...for-border-wall-and-enjoy-it-says-trump-video

Now it's the opposite - from your own article:



> Trump pledged that Mexico would pay for the wall, but all of the funds in the bill approved Thursday would be paid for by American taxpayers. The Mexican government has repeatedly said it will not pay for any border wall.


So wouldn't you agree Trump can't keep his promises in this case? I'm not saying it's easy to get them to pay hence the turnaround, so why bleat it out in the first place?

I mean, let's just be honest about this, that's all I'm asking.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Fantastic video by Secular Talk





*


----------



## Reaper

Kinda feel like this is America's two parties in action.


----------



## deepelemblues

Jury asks judge to "redefine reasonable doubt" for them in Manafort trial.

:heston

Most likely looking at a split verdict with an increasing chance at full acquittal.

But remember, the walls are closing in on Drumpf, surely Drumpf is done! The never-ending refrain of the desperately deluded. 

Some people still trying to defend CIA scum John Brennan :heston purely because he hates :trump :heston they blithely ignore his proud involvement in torture, proud disregard of civilian casualties, defiant lies about both, and proudly defiant serial perjury to congress on those and other topics. He's a card-carrying member of the _ancien regime_ to whom the laws and rules the rest of us must live by or face serious consequences do not apply.

Except :trump took his card away. Now he squalls like the branded calf.


----------



## yeahbaby!

You mean enhanced interrogation.


----------



## DesolationRow

http://pilotonline.com/business/consumer/article_599976db-fea0-540a-a95b-6e3e924fc1a0.html



> Trump administration nearing deal with Mexico on revised NAFTA — but issues with Canada remain
> By Don Lee
> Los Angeles Times
> Aug 16, 2018 Updated 3 hrs ago
> 
> WASHINGTON
> 
> The Trump administration is close to striking a deal with Mexico on a revamped North American Free Trade Agreement, analysts said, but thorny issues are yet to be resolved with Canada, the third party in the trilateral pact.
> 
> Reaching an agreement with Mexico would mark a breakthrough for the administration after a year of roller-coaster talks and tension with its longtime North American trading partners. President Trump has frequently threatened to withdraw from NAFTA, linked the renegotiations to his call for a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border and slapped tariffs on Mexican and Canadian steel to apply pressure to make concessions.
> 
> But both Mexico and the U.S. have strong incentives to push through a deal quickly. Mexico wants to lock in an agreement before its new leftist president takes office, and the White House is keen on achieving a win on trade ahead of the midterm elections.
> 
> Canada, meanwhile, has shown less urgency to complete a revision of the 24-year-old pact, but is expected to return to the bargaining table once the U.S. and Mexico settle their differences.
> 
> And then the question will be “whether Canada is finally willing to reengage in the process, sign off on what has been agreed and quickly resolve any key outstanding issues of concern to Canada,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch.
> 
> Trump’s trade negotiators this week have been meeting with senior Mexican officials in Washington, and sources familiar with the discussions say the two sides have largely agreed to new rules on auto trade — a top priority for the White House — that could boost investment in the U.S. and curb a flight of domestic production and jobs to Mexico.
> 
> In exchange, the United States trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, appears to be showing flexibility on an earlier demand for an automatic five-year termination of NAFTA and a proposal to make it easier for the U.S. to press anti-dumping claims against seasonal produce like tomatoes from Mexico.
> 
> Multilateral trade negotiations typically include bilateral talks between nations, but the administration’s strategy to close a deal first with Mexico — without parallel discussions with Canadian officials — is unusual and could backfire.
> 
> “I think the Trump administration is playing a risky game if you have a final deal with Mexico and you present it (to Canada) as a fait accompli,” said Daniel Ujczo, an international trade lawyer who specializes in Canada-U.S. affairs at the law firm Dickinson Wright.
> 
> It’s all the more risky because of the short time frame in which Mexico and the U.S. are looking to seal a trilateral agreement.
> 
> U.S. congressional rules on trade require that there be a 90-day period between the administration’s notification of a deal and the actual signing of an agreement. Mexico’s new president, Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador, was elected in July and takes the oath of office Dec. 1. That means a NAFTA agreement would need to be announced by the end of August to allow for the 90 days to pass and for the current Mexican president, Enrique Peña Nieto, to sign the pact before Lopez Obrador takes office.
> 
> But that leaves only about two weeks for Lighthizer and his team to reach an accord with their Canadian counterparts. And by most accounts, that will be tough to do.
> 
> Even if Canada signs on by month’s end and there’s a three-way preliminary agreement, in the U.S., that would only begin a lengthy process that includes a period of public review and economic assessment by the U.S. International Trade Commission. A revised NAFTA wouldn’t be voted on by lawmakers until next year at the earliest, when a new Congress is seated.
> 
> Canada isn’t likely to have a major issue on the new auto rules, but is expected to go to the mat on at least two U.S. demands. Trump administration officials want to pry open Canada’s restricted dairy market and do away with an existing NAFTA provision that allows Canada to challenge U.S. anti-dumping claims through an independent panel.
> 
> U.S.-Canada negotiations will have to overcome the recent deterioration in bilateral relations following Trump’s refusal to give Canada an exemption from steel and aluminum tariffs, and harsh criticisms directed at Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by Trump and his trade advisor, Peter Navarro.
> 
> Trudeau faces considerable domestic political pressure to stand up to Trump — unpopular in Canada — and his strong-arm tactics to extract trade concessions. At the same time, Lighthizer and his negotiating team have shown they are not going to take a deal that maintains the status quo, said Stephen Orava, a trade lawyer at King & Spalding in Washington.
> 
> Regardless of whether one agrees with Trump’s negotiating tactics, Orava said, if the administration can land a good agreement on a new NAFTA, “it will validate their approach to U.S. trade policy is effective and generating results and worthwhile.”
> 
> Analysts who have been closely monitoring the talks say that U.S. and Mexican trade officials are working out details and that a deal still could unravel. No issue has occupied as much time as NAFTA’s auto rules. Cars account for the biggest trade among the three countries, and Trump and other critics blame NAFTA for the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and the loss of domestic manufacturing jobs.
> 
> NAFTA’s current rules specify that at least 62.5 percent of the content of cars come from North America to qualify for zero tariffs; anything lower than that threshold subjects a vehicle to a 2.5 percent duty for cars and 25 percent for trucks and sport utility vehicles.
> 
> The understanding with Mexico would raise the regional-content level to 70 percent or higher and set a similar rule of origin for steel and aluminum in vehicles. The new rules also would include language aimed at having more cars and parts produced by workers who make wages well above the average low rates in Mexico. The hope is that more jobs would stay in the U.S. and that European and Japanese automakers would source more parts in the U.S. to avoid the tariffs.
> 
> Lawyer Ujczo said those changes and a broader deal on NAFTA will play very well to Trump’s base. “It would be political gold going into the midterms,” he said.


The Art of the Trilateral Deal.


----------



## Vic Capri

President Donald Trump said:


> I want to begin today by expressing my condolences to the family of a person I knew well. She worked for me on numerous occasions. She was terrific. She's brought joy to millions of lives and her extraordinary legacy will thrive and inspire many generations to come. She was given a great gift from God — her voice, and she used to well. People loved Aretha. She was a special woman. So just want to pass on my warmest best wishes and sympathies to her family.


- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee

Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


You've got some real weird stalker type shit going on where you post a fucking tweet from Trump about a dead celebrity in a political thread.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Tater

virus21 said:


>


This is precisely why no one should be celebrating Alex Jones being deplatformed, regardless of your personal feelings towards him. Censorship will never stop with the people you hate.


----------



## virus21




----------



## birthday_massacre

Tater said:


> This is precisely why no one should be celebrating Alex Jones being deplatformed, regardless of your personal feelings towards him. Censorship will never stop with the people you hate.


Glad to know you are ok with Alex Jones slandering and harassing families of the Sandy Hook massacre.

Again something you keep ignoring, things like those don't fall under freedom of speech. But keep defending Alex Jones doing things like that and crying that his freedom of speech is being violated when is not


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> You've got some real weird stalker type shit going on where you post a fucking tweet from Trump about a dead celebrity in a political thread.


that's not how stalking works and this is literally the Trump thread :heston everything Trump-related is on-topic


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> that's not how stalking works and this is literally the Trump thread :heston everything Trump-related is on-topic


That's not how this thread world and you know it.


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


My favorite is that was he obviously reading from a piece of paper that was prepared for him. Pretty sure Trump can't name one of her songs.


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> That's not how this thread world and you know it.


it is though


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> it is though


It's not though. Don't quote me unless it's worth it. I'm not interested in arguing over whether trumps obituary over a dead musician is relevant to this thread because it's not. Don't fucking bother.


----------



## Arya Dark

*The left :maisie2 


"Stand with John Brennan" :trash*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1030573945819418624


----------



## virus21

AryaDark said:


> *The left :maisie2 "Stand with John Brennan" :trash*
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1030573945819418624


What? You think these people have integrity?


----------



## virus21




----------



## Arya Dark

virus21 said:


> What? You think these people have integrity?


*Being a part of the Left their lack of integrity bothers me :lol*


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

yeahbaby! said:


> Ah I see the Dems have to approve at the next stage so to speak and chances are they may pop the balloon.
> 
> 
> Mexico literally paying for it is not essentially a meme. It came out of Trump's own mouth and here's the proof:
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...for-border-wall-and-enjoy-it-says-trump-video
> 
> Now it's the opposite - from your own article:
> 
> 
> 
> So wouldn't you agree Trump can't keep his promises in this case? I'm not saying it's easy to get them to pay hence the turnaround, so why bleat it out in the first place?
> 
> I mean, let's just be honest about this, that's all I'm asking.


The Dems can pop, lock and drop for all I care. Even if they stop being pussies and pass the damned bill, the damage to their credibility is indisputably in effect when you see Walk Away being a thing and that socialist Cortez chick actually unseating a long-standing Dem for a congressional seat.

In my honest opinion, I don't expect him to keep every single promise because despite being as financially and politically powerful as he is, he's merely a man-living meme hybrid, not a god / god emperor (8*D). Aside from metaphorically speaking via the end of their free ride, Mexico could also literally pay for their fuckery via his recent hard-on for tariffs.

However, if Canada continues to devolve into a limp-wristed shithole, there's the possibility that he'll tell Trudeau to get fucked and renegotiate NAFTA to be beneficial to the U.S. and Mexico only:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...n-hold-even-as-he-hails-mexican-nafta-efforts


----------



## Tater

draykorinee said:


> It's not though. Don't quote me unless it's worth it. I'm not interested in arguing over whether trumps obituary over a dead musician is relevant to this thread because it's not. Don't fucking bother.


This thread has always been a bit of a catch all for other political topics and some non-political. Not everything has to be specifically Trump related and that's a good thing.



virus21 said:


> What? You think these people have integrity?





AryaDark said:


> *Being a part of the Left their lack of integrity bothers me :lol*


They get called the left here in the USA but these people aren't leftists. Actual leftists like myself despise the fuck out of these people and get annoyed as all hell that they are what get's described as the left in mainstream American lingo. Most of them wouldn't know a political compass if it jumped up and bit them in the ass.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> This is precisely why no one should be celebrating Alex Jones being deplatformed, regardless of your personal feelings towards him. Censorship will never stop with the people you hate.


Never does, now they can ban Left groups and people who won't follow the establishment rules. 

Another tidbit is my friend was doing some research and found a lot of these places that banned Jones had some commonality like working for the same companies or being on the board of a company years ago and that old company now deciding to ban Jones. 

So you'll see collusion between these monoliths that can pretty much silence you on the net. Think it's about time Face Book, Twitter, Google etc were treated as public forums since they're so large.



AryaDark said:


> *Being a part of the Left their lack of integrity bothers me :lol*


They'd stand with Hitler if he had information they wanted.:laugh: These people are not Left, they're just Left in name only.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1030591186145136640
@CamillePunk I thought this might be of interest to you; someone of your political persuasion ripping Trump's economy and saying many of the same things I've been saying about the upcoming crash.


----------



## dele

birthday_massacre said:


> Nice deflection there.
> 
> Something you don't get, Trump IS THE ESTABLISHMENT, he just turns against other establishment people that don't kiss his ass and agree with everything he says and does.
> 
> Are you going to really claim Trump isn't the establishment, isn't the swamp?
> 
> *Also true liberals and progressives don't want things to return to status quo, so nice strawman argument there*.


Fuck no we don't. We want to obliterate a lot of stuff (i.e. rampant military spending, tax incentives for the rich, for-profit health insurance). Trump is a piece of shit, but at least he makes everyone look like a piece of shit.

Winter is coming for the DNC.



virus21 said:


>


I'm very glad I deleted my facebook app 6 months ago.


----------



## CamillePunk

@Tater I listen to Peter Schiff all the time. I listen to Kyle a lot too. Quite confident Peter would thrash him in a debate having anything to do with economics. :lol


draykorinee said:


> It's not though. Don't quote me unless it's worth it. I'm not interested in arguing over whether trumps obituary over a dead musician is relevant to this thread because it's not. Don't fucking bother.


I'm quoting you again

It's the Trump thread. It's a Trump tweet. It's on-topic. Sorry you don't like it but you don't get to decide what Trump things are on-topic in the Trump thread.


----------



## Draykorinee

CamillePunk said:


> @Tater I listen to Peter Schiff all the time. I listen to Kyle a lot too. Quite confident Peter would thrash him in a debate having anything to do with economics. :lol I'm quoting you again
> 
> It's the Trump thread. It's a Trump tweet. It's on-topic. Sorry you don't like it but you don't get to decide what Trump things are on-topic in the Trump thread.


I didn't decide anything, I'm not a mod, I gave my opinion on his inane post. Stop talking shit, Vic does this all the time, posts with no discourse or views of his own just to suck off the Donald. It's an irrelevant post to the topic, but at no point have I said it's off topic.


----------



## deepelemblues

Trade talks with Mexico and china seem to have made progress this week. Time will tell though

Encouraging more domestic wealth creation is of course a long term sensible approach to the public and private debt that will inevitably kill us all if not handled. Long term, non drastic policies are approaching the end of being feasible though. Nobody being interested in calling in everybody else's debt because credit is still too cheap (because it has been cheap for so long, recent rate hikes not enough) won't last forever

Although, if recent conclusions that the private savings rate has been grossly miscalculated are true, that will help stave off the evil day somewhat in the US at least

Money in general is still too cheap and diffused and that needs to change. Spending it when you don't really have it is too attractive in the largest economies, both publicly and privately. Lending money and jiggering with it constantly via central banks the world over and the fed, buying old debt to create balance sheets that in theory justify the buyer going into debt himself in private finance, Japan and europe and china love operating on the same principle with US treasuries except they're buying new debt... 

Piling debt on debt and shifting it here and there and jiggering with money and balance sheets everywhere is a disease that heavy central planning can't resist or survive, and freer markets can only overcome after much difficulties when the affliction strikes them too heavily. And no matter where it happens which is everywhere, it is because of self destructive behavior. No agent external to human beings causes it. No bacteria or virus or chemical substance. It seems almost genetic

No economic system has ever been abruptly replaced successfully, significant elements of the new system orginated and developed in the old one. The major changes took generations

(Even today most of the aspects of western liberal economies can be traced directly back to the high middle ages or even farther.)

The new system was better at creating much more wealth than debt for a time, then a lust for debt or a forced dependence on it (through war, disease, famine, whatever) mucked things up and changes developed that switched it back

It will happen again, as it always has. The trend has been economically freer individuals in increasing numbers using that freedom to create greater amounts of wealth than before, and that will not change. It has never been different for 8000 years

The timetable is generations or centuries though and that means that there will, to the perception of a human lifespan, be times of great difficulties 

The alternative is greater central planning and control which has always failed and always will

I hope this hasn't been too irrelevant to space force commander :trump :trolldog


----------



## Tater

dele said:


> I'm very glad I deleted my facebook app 6 months ago.


I'm very glad I never got into FB in the first place.



CamillePunk said:


> @Tater I listen to Peter Schiff all the time. I listen to Kyle a lot too. Quite confident Peter would thrash him in a debate having anything to do with economics. :lol


I'm certain you're correct. It was funny when Kyle did the video on how bad Trump's tariffs were working out and seeing him try to explain how he was in favor of protectionism, just not the way Trump was doing it. It was clear he doesn't have a strong grasp of economics. As with many, it's more about ideology and less about what actually works. Kyle is wrong that an FDR Big Government New Deal style economy would work now like it worked back then. You and I don't exactly agree on economics either but I'm fairly certain we agree going back to the economy of the 50s is not the answer to our problems of now and in the future.


----------



## Draykorinee

Kyle's video on Monsanto was a great case of lazy journalism. He's certainly not faultless.


----------

